Pa ge 1 Pa ge 74 American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation (AJMRI) Preferred Style of Teaching and Learning by College Students in the New Normal Jhan Michael S. Languita1, Jahzeel B. Ligtas1, Danica C. Baron1, Tomas Jr A. Diquito1* Volume 2 Issue 1, Year 2023 ISSN: 2158-8155 (Online), 2832-4854 (Print) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v2i1.1209 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Article Information ABSTRACT Received: January 15, 2023 Accepted: January 27, 2023 Published: February 02, 2023 Styles of teaching and learning are one of the factors that contribute to student learning performance. This study aimed to determine the students’ preferred teaching and learning styles in the new normal education implemented during the pandemic. Moreover, a quantitative-descriptive design was used to attain the research objectives. A total of thirty- item questionnaires were categorized using the three learning theories: Constructivist Learning Theory, Self-Actualization Theory, and Transformative Learning Theory. A total of three-hundred forty-four (344) college students from the University of Mindanao-Digos participated in the study. Results showed that students have a high level of preference for Constructivist Learning Theory, Self-Actualization Theory, and Transformative Learning Theory in teaching and learning style in the new normal. When analyzed by department, Self- Actualization Theory and Transformative Learning Theory showed significant differences, while Constructivist Learning Theory showed no significant difference. In terms of year level, Constructivist Learning Theory and Transformative Learning Theory showed no significant difference while Self-Actualization theory showed significant difference. Thus, it is recommended that professors should utilize a constructivist, self-actualization, and transformative teaching and learning approach to college learners and implement a learning style suited to the year level and department of students Keywords Learning Theories, New Normal Education, Constructivist Learning Theory, Self-Actualization Theory, Transformative Learning Theory INTRODUCTION In this pandemic era, the academic world recognizes the significance of understanding students’ diverse learning and teaching preferences for achieving academic success. The effect of teaching and learning styles in the classroom is essential for students’ growth. However, the ongoing COVID-19 spread has influenced students all over the world. The traditional contact teaching method resulted in an e-learning approach for significant student participation. Moreover, the 4th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) developed by the United Nations aims for inclusive and equitable quality education to become timely in response to the current needs of education during the new normal setup (Crawford & Cifuentes-Faura, 2022). The ability of both processes to be linked to a particular style for both students and teachers is one of the essential components of learning and teaching (Munna & Kalam, 2021). The new normal setup brings mixed experiences among learners, these include both positive and negative experienced that could affect their learning (Diez et al., 2021). Thus, the urgency of re-examining and assessing the current classroom situation in the virtual context is greatly needed to conclude which learning theories in education are more efficient as students’ teaching and learning styles in the new normal setup. Being aware of and utilizing both teaching and learning pedagogies is essential. As the two key participants in this process, students and teachers should fully collaborate, especially considering learners’ needs. At Al- Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud University in Saudi Arabia, Alnujaidi (2018) looked into the differences between the chosen learning methods of 130 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students and the preferred teaching styles of 102 EFL teachers. Results showed that sensory, visual, active, and EFL students chose sequential learning modes. Timisina, Tschewang, Tshering, Rinchen, Sherab, Dawa, Dorji, and Tashi (2021) also modified the VARK (visual, aural, read or write, and kinesthetic) model survey questionnaire to be used in the descriptive analysis of correlation, frequency, and percentage to 215 middle and higher secondary students in Nangkor High School, Bhutan. According to a study, kids prefer kinesthetic (K) and aural (A) learning modes, with a slight preference for visual learning (V). The same concept was applied by Berková, Borůvková, and Frendlovská in 2020 among university students at the Polytechnic Jihlava and the College of International and Public Relations Prague in the Czech Republic. The deep problem-based learning style was selected by 43.9% of respondents from both schools, while the surface method was favored by 37.1%. The visual style received 9.8% of responses, and the aural style received 9.1%. Besides, the global COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted nearly every aspect of life, including education, and the Philippines is no exception. Factors associated with attitudes in online-blended learning include adaptability, technology acceptance, convenience, interaction, control, satisfaction, self-regulation, and engagement (Acuña et al., 2021). In addition, Hospitality Management students of Pangasinan State University, Philippines, prefer visual learning, auditory learning, and kinesthetic learning, according to the study conducted by Mejia, Queroda, and Mangrobang (2018). Additionally, Carbonel (2013), as cited by Ramasamy, Apadore, Mohamad, & Letchumanan 1 Department of Teacher Education, University of Mindanao, Digos, Philippines * Corresponding author’s e-mail: tomasdiquito@umindanao.edu.ph https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v2i1.1209 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 75 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 (2018), found that 46% of college students at Kalinga- Apayao State College have desirable learning through the visual style of learning, while 36% of auditory learning and 18% more likely prefer the tactile style of learning. Sison, Galves, and Coronel (2017) pointed out that social learners are more likely to choose an activity requiring social interaction, communication, and collaboration among a group of people. They find ways to connect with other people regularly, whether they play team sports, talk on the phone more than most, or enjoy social gatherings. Sison et al. (2017) suggest activities such as role-playing, panel discussion, mind maps, system diagrams, or group projects to promote interactive classroom settings. One of the primary objectives of educators is to help students realize their fullest potential and develop into effective and productive individuals. Constructivist learning aims to provide opportunities for students to shape their learning through rich and interactive teaching strategies/materials that make knowledge meaningful and applicable. Arik and Yilmaz (2020) examined the effects of constructivist and active learning on environmental education. The findings indicated that constructivist and active learning could be used in environmental education. When designing a learning course, activities and exercises provide learners with opportunities to achieve their objectives and meet their growth requirements. Additionally, D’Souza, Adams, and Fuss (2015) outline the creation of a self-actualization activity inventory at Devry College of New York to determine whether self-actualizing values are translated into self-actualized actions. Results revealed that an individual might claim to have self-actualizing beliefs and feelings. During the pandemic, online learning has become more prevalent and is now recognized for its capacity to connect students in higher education and professional training and development. Aboytes & Barth (2020) investigated how Transformative learning has been conceptualized and operationalized in education for sustainability learning (ESD) and gathered evidence to facilitate transformative learning in formal and non-formal settings. This study indicates that, if thoroughly investigated, it can aid in designing and implementing educational interventions and learning more sustainable assessments. This study seeks to determine the students’ preference for teaching and learning styles in the new normal. The output of this study could greatly help the administrator and department heads evaluate their educational policies and incorporate students’ perceptions of educational needs into the planning and evaluation of educational programs. This will also help teachers and professors to design the appropriate teaching strategies and methodologies based on the education learning theories presented in this paper. Research Objectives This study generally aimed to determine the students’ preference for learning and teaching style in the new normal: Specifically, this study sought: 1. To describe the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of; 1.1. department; 1.2. year level. 2. To describe the level of students’ preference in teaching and learning style in the new normal among the three learning theories in terms of; 2.1. Constructivist Learning Theory; 2.2. Self-Actualization Theory; 2.3.Transformative Learning Theory 3. To explore if there is a significant difference in the level of students’ preferred teaching and learning style when analyzed by profile. 4. To identify the most preferred learning and teaching style in the new normal based on profile. METHOD Research Design This study utilizes a descriptive quantitative approach in attaining the research objectives. This design was selected because the study heavily emphasizes on the measurement of objective data and the analytical of data (Casuga, God, and Reyes, 2020). Moreover, this design aided in assessing and determining students’ learning and teaching preferences among the three learning theories in the new normal setup. Research Locale and Respondents This study was conducted at the University of Mindanao - Digos, Philippines. The said institution is located in the southern part of the country, part of the Mindanao area. Respondents of the study involved three-hundred forty- four (344) students from the entire population of college students of the institution who were officially enrolled in the school year 2021-2022 and currently taking the course under the Department of Teacher Education (DTE), Department of Business Administration (DBA); Department of Criminal Justice Education (DCJE); Department of Accounting Education (DAE); Department of Arts and Science Education (DASE), and Department of Technical Programs (DTP) from first- year level to the fourth year. Lastly, researchers applied a simple random sampling to each department. Research Instruments The researchers used adapted questionnaires based on the following authors: to understand what constitutes teaching methods and to gain in-depth knowledge of current trends in effective teaching methods, one can use the Constructivist Learning Theory questionnaire. - Sithara YJN Fernando and Faiz MMT Marikar (2017) entitled “Constructivist Teaching/Learning Theory and Participatory Teaching Methods.” “Self-Actualization Activity Measurement”- Jeevan D’Souza and Brian Fuss (2015) were used to determine whether self-actualizing values result in self-actualized actions through the self- actualization theory. Lastly, in Transformative Learning Theory, researchers adapted the questionnaires from https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 76 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 the study by Robert Charles Cox entitled “Assessing Transformative Learning: Toward a Unified Framework” (Cox, 2017) to evaluate the results and mechanics of applying transformative learning in any situation. With a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.933, the reliability analysis results during the pilot testing were highly acceptable. This suggested that all 30 adapted/modified items were valid and reliable. A 5 – point Likert scale was used in the 30-item survey questionnaire. The scale below was the basis for analyzing and interpreting the data gathered Data Gathering Procedure Table 1: Range of Means Range of Means Descriptive Levels Descriptive Meaning 4.20-5.00 Very High It indicates that students strongly agree with this learning and teaching style in the new normal. 3.40-4.19 High It indicates that students agree with this learning and teaching style in the new normal. 2.60-3.39 Medium It indicates that students feel undecided about this learning and teaching style in the new normal. 1.80-2.59 Low It indicates that students disagree with this learning and teaching style in the new normal. 1.00-1.79 Very Low It indicates that students strongly disagree with this learning and teaching style in the new normal. A request letter to conduct the study was sent to the Research and Publication Center (RPC) of the University of Mindanao-Digos, indicating the purpose and general objective of the study. Once approved, a request letter to commence the study was sent to the college dean of the institution. Once granted, the researchers now sent a google form to the respondents of the study (google form was used due to online modality of learning implemented by the Philippine government at the time of data collection in response to Covid-19 outbreak). The google form is composed of three major sections, first section is the description of the study, second is the consent form, and lastly the variables of the study. After gathering the necessary data, data tabulation and analysis was then carried out. Materials used in this study, such as Google forms, were kept and secured. Data Analysis This study utilizes the mean score and Kruskall-Wallis H test in data analysis. Mean score was used to determine the behavior of the sampled population per indicator. Moreover, Kruskall-Walis H test was used to analyze the data for the significant difference between department and year levels. All interpretations were based on a significance threshold of 0.05. Furthermore, the mean test was used to analyze the students’ level of preference in teaching and learning style in the new normal. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Profile of Respondents Table 2 shows the profile of 344 respondents from six departments at UM Digos. As depicted in table 2 , the results revealed that the DTE obtained the highest frequency of 101 (29.4%). DCJE then followed it with a frequency of 87 (25.3). Third, DBA with a frequency of 77 (22.4%), The fourth highest frequency was DAS, 29 (8.4%). After that, DAE with a frequency of 28 (8.1%). Moreover, the DTP reaped the lowest frequency, 22 (6.4%). At the year level, third-year-level students got the highest frequency of 130 (37.8%). First-year students followed them with a frequency of 77 (22.4%). Then, second-year students with a frequency of 73 (21.2%). Fourth-year students have the lowest frequency of 64 (18.6%). Table 2: Profile of Respondents (n=344) Profile f % Department DTE 101 29.4 DCJE 87 25.3 DBA 77 22.4 DAS 29 8.4 DASE 28 8.1 DTP 22 6.4 Year Level 1st Year 77 22.4 2nd Year 73 21.2 3rd Year 130 37.8 4th year 64 18.6 Students’ Level of Preference in the Teaching and Learning Style in the New Normal Table 3 shows the mean results of the theories included in the study. Constructivist learning showed a high preference for the teaching and learning style in the new normal (x̄=3.98, SD=0.713). The first question, “Lecture is a good teaching method in the new normal of education” (x̄=4.03, SD=0.810), indicates that students respond highly to this learning approach. The second question, “Question-and-answer is an effective teaching strategy in the new normal of education,” supports the third question (x ̄=4.12, SD=0. 854) “Using the question- and-method will help you learn more effectively in the new normal of education,” got the highest respond (x̄=4.15, https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 77 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 SD=0.824). The fourth question, “Group discussion promotes meaningful learning in a new normal setup,” got a high-level indication (x ̄=4.13, SD=0.925). According to Arik and Yilmaz (2020), students actively participate in conducting experiments and drawing their results. As a result, each learner interprets and constructs knowledge differently, igniting the students’ innate desire to explore the actual world and discover how things operate. Transformative Learning Theory revealed a high preference for the teaching and learning style in the Table 3: Mean results of the theories with Level of Preference Indicators x̄ SD Level of Preference Constructivist Learning Theory 3.98 0.713 High Transformative Learning Theory 3.78 0.688 High Self-Actualization Theory 3.57 0.651 High Overall 3.78 0.684 High new normal (x̄=3.7849, SD=0.68759). It indicates that students respond highly to this teaching and learning style in the new normal. The first question, “Different points of view were usually included in a group discussion which helps promote effective learning” (x̄=4.1279, SD=0.8746), indicates that students agree with this learning and teaching style in the new normal. The second question, “In the new normal, I explored new ways to think about my beliefs with the help of the class by raising questions about my beliefs in a certain topic” (x ̄=3.8285, SD=0.87212). The third question, “Stepping out from my comfort zone will help me learn perspective,” got the highest response (x̄=4.1686, SD=0. 8843). Mezirow (1991), referenced by Sahin, Mehmet, Dogantay, & Hidayet (2018), emphasizes the need for transformative learning to help adult learners develop into independent thinkers and learners. Teachers should instruct students on how to think independently in this situation. Additionally, instructors or other educators who can forge genuine connections with their learners might benefit from transformative learning. Thus, according to Cranton (2006), as cited by Sahin et al. (2018), children who have a sincere relationship with their teachers are better able to identify uniqueness in their own lives. Lastly, the Self-Actualization Theory obtained a high level of preference in the teaching and learning style in the new normal (x̄=3.5727, SD=0.65073). It indicates that students respond highly to this teaching and learning style in the new normal. The question “It is preferable to be yourself in class than to be popular” (x ̄=4.157, SD=0.90596) indicates that students agree with this learning style in the new normal. The second question “I believe that people are inherently good and can be trusted in-class activities in a new normal setup” (x ̄=4.157, SD=0.90596). Arslan (2017) concluded that students who were happy with their educational experience had more self-confidence to realize their full potential. Additionally, students develop a passion for self-actualization by feeling secure and confident in class (Ordun & Akun, 2017). Additionally, Ackay & Akyol (2012), as referenced by Aljaser (2019), demonstrated that students could fulfill their demands for self-actualization in schools that employ learning methods that satisfy their needs. Teachers must concentrate on instructional methodology and enhancing creativity because self-actualization is a crucial objective in the learning process. Students’ Preferred Teaching and Learning Style when Analyze by Department Table 4 presents the Kruskal-Wallis H test results that showed the different theories when analyzed by department. Constructivist Learning theory Kruskal-Wallis H test result showed no significant difference in the students’ preference in this learning theory when analyzed by discipline, χ2(2) = 2.787, p = 0.733. The result failed to reject the null hypothesis. A new normal learning setup is a current learning environment where students can work together to create meaningful learning experiences. This provides an opportunity to develop teaching practices in a constructivist and collaborative online setting. According to the research done by Matcha, Gasavic, & Uzir et al. (2020), there is no discernible difference in student involvement levels between the computer engineering and biology courses, given that both have a solid correlation to academic success. Dikmen, Tuner, & Simsek (2018) research also revealed no significant difference between university students’ learning styles and attitudes. This shows that there are still indications that students may retain learning even when they are in a new situation and experience challenges. Bhati and Song (2019) concluded in a research study that learners had better ownership of their learning and flexibility to create their understanding in a new typical context in an atmosphere free of teacher-directed education but with overall encouragement from the teacher. Self-actualization theory A Kruskal-Wallis H test result showed a statistically significant difference in this learning theory when analyzed by discipline, χ2(2) = 12.555, p = 0.028. According to Ahmed (2018), studying self-actualization in college students is crucial for optimal growth because it involves using creativity, seeking spiritual enlightenment, pursuing knowledge, and the desire to help society. The researcher found that college students from different streams do not differ in self-actualization. On the contrary, in a study, Al Lawati (2020) demonstrated how https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 78 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 self-actualization and its connection to a student’s field of study in higher education impact their ability to learn. She also noted that psychology students place a higher preference for self-actualization than students in other disciplines.The current study showed that when analyzed by department, self-actualization theory as a teaching and learning preference among college students has significant differences. The results showed that further study could be done to determine which of the departments preferred the self-actualization teaching style. Transformative Learning theory A Kruskal-Wallis H test showed a statistically significant difference in this learning theory when analyzed by discipline, χ2(2) = 12.062, p = 0.034. During the pandemic, the transformative learning process comprises bringing education students closer to critical thinking and assisting them in defining, organizing, and evaluating learning independently at home (Dalimunthe, Sutisna, Zakiah, & Handayani, 2021). The students’ changed perspective towards learning can be of greater use in adjusting to the demands of the school community. As investigated by Nichols, Choudhary, & Standring (2020), four hundred ninety-nine students across six discipline areas affirm how distance education promotes transformative learning outcomes among learners. The results revealed that teaching and learning styles and the discipline studied are related and should be included in learning interventions. The current study showed that transformative learning theory as a teaching and learning style preference among college students has significant differences when analyzed by department. The results show that further study can be done to determine which of the departments preferred transformative learning styles. Students’ Preferred Learning and Teaching Style Table 4: Kruskal-Wallis H test results show the different theories when analyzed by the discipline Department N Mean Rank Chi-Square df Asymp. Constructivist Learning Theory DBA DTE DCJ DTP DAE DAS Total 77 101 87 22 28 29 344 180.0 178.63 170.29 165.32 164.23 149.67 2.787 5 .733 Self-Actualization Theory DCJ DTE DBA DTP DAE DAS Total 87 101 77 22 28 29 344 185.58 183.36 174.88 167.14 139.45 125.09 12.555 5 .028* Transformative Learning Theory D DBA DCJ DTP DAE DAS Total 101 77 87 22 28 29 344 188.34 183.61 172.24 157.77 140.04 131.14 12.062 5 .034* p=.05* when Analyze by Year Level Table 5 presents the Kruskal-Wallis H test results that showed the different theories when analyzed by year level. Constructivist Learning Theory A Kruskal-Wallis H test showed no significant difference in students’ preference in this learning theory when analyzed by students’ year level score, χ2(2) = 7.747, p = 0.52. This result fails to reject the null hypothesis. According to research by Singh, Govil, and Rani (2015; cited by Leasa, Corebima, Ibrohim, & Suwono, 2017), secondary school students preferred visual learning the most (45.7%), followed by auditory (21%), tactile (18.3%), and kinesthetic (15%). Furthermore, (Khan, Arif, & Yousuf, 2019) discovered that constructivist learning preferences, particularly visual and kinesthetic methods, had no significant relationship to college students’ academic achievement. This indicates that regardless of year level, all college students can sustain learning through constructivist teaching and learning approaches in the new normal. Self-actualization theory A Kruskal-Wallis H test showed a statistically significant difference in students’ preference in this learning theory when analyzed by students’ year level score, χ2(2) = 11.160, p = 0.011. The result rejects the null hypothesis. Students have had various educational experiences, https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 79 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 and their evaluations are influenced in part by their level of happiness with the educational experience. Based on Schordpp (2008), as cited by Lam & Hassan (2019) study, the best predictors of academic success were senior baccalaureate nursing students and their educational needs, while the best predictor of perceived self-actualization was happiness with the educational experience. Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, Kurt (2020) said that a better understanding of each student’s fundamental needs will enable the teacher to help the student in addressing their diverse educational challenges and enable each student to realize their full academic potential. Students should start with the most basic educational materials, move on to belonging to and being protected by others, and finish with self-fulfillment. When students’ learning requirements are met, they are more likely to be satisfied with their educational experience and more likely to complete more complicated activities and reach higher levels of learning (Schordpp, 2008, as cited by Lam & Hassan 2019). Transformative Learning theory A Kruskal-Wallis H test showed no significant difference in this learning theory when the student’s year-level score was analyzed, χ2(2) = 6.092, p = 0.107. The result rejects the null hypothesis. ElSayary (2021) discovered that elementary and high school STEM students develop relationships with their peers, community, and the wider world, critically reflect on their learning, actively engage in problem-solving, transform their viewpoints, and engage in sustainable community practices. According to Moloi and Adegoriolu (2021), the use of transformative methods also helps students develop ownership or self- directed learning by beginning their learning, acting as active agents of their learning, and accomplishing collaborative learning. The study’s findings suggest that college and university students can improve proficiency and abilities by utilizing transformative learning theory as a teaching and learning technique regardless of their year level. Teachers accomplish these objectives by developing a shared understanding of a particular field, providing modeling and mastery opportunities, challenging and motivating students, offering individualized attention and feedback, designing experiences that go beyond the walls of the classroom, and giving students plenty of opportunities for reflection” (Slavick & Zimbrado, 2012 as cited by Larson & Fay 2016). Most Preferred Teaching and Learning Style Table 5: Kruskal-Wallis H test results show the different theories when analyzed by year level Year Level N Mean Rank Chi-Square df Asymp.Sig Constructivist Learning Theory 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th year Total 77 73 130 64 344 188.76 162.29 158.97 192.07 7.747 3 .052 Self-Actualization Theory 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th year Total 77 73 130 64 344 171.87 145.00 173.96 201.66 11.160 3 011* Transformative Learning Theory 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th year Total 77 73 130 64 344 179.77 148.80 174.07 187.60 6.092 3 .107 p=.05* Table 6 shows the mean results of the theories. DTE and DBA show the highest mean score of 4.04 in terms of Constructivist Learning Theory. The second highest mean is DCJE, and DTP scored 3.85. DAS scored the least mean score of 3.83. This supports the results of Table 3 that Constructivist Learning Theory shows no significant difference among departments. A new normal learning setup is a current learning environment where students can work together to create meaningful learning experiences. It will also provide an opportunity to develop teaching practices in a constructivist and collaborative online setting. According to (Bhati & Song, 2019), learners had better ownership of their learning and flexibility to create their understanding in a new typical context in an atmosphere free of teacher-directed education but with overall encouragement from the teacher. For Transformative Learning Theory, DBA shows the highest mean score of 3.82, followed by DCJE with 3.78 and DTP with 3.77. DTE and DAS got a 3.51 mean score, and DAE with 3.50. This result backs up the result in Table 3 that Transformative Learning Theory as teaching and learning style of students in the new normal shows significant differences. During the pandemic, the transformative learning process comprises bringing education students closer to critical thinking and assisting them in defining, organizing, and evaluating learning https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 80 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 independently at home (Dalimunthe, Sutisna, Zakiah, & Handayani, 2021). When learners are confronted with scenarios like as a global pandemic that forces schools to close, they are forced to question their current frames of reference and, as a result, adjust them to reflect on their acquisition of understanding and knowledge (Mezirow, 1994 as cited by Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020). A new normal arrangement would signal that this department was more likely to participate in a learning experience that could be transformational. Lastly, for Self-Actualization Theory, DCJE obtained the highest mean score of 3.66, followed by DTE with 3.64 and DTP with 3.63. DAE acquired a 3.37 mean score, while DAS got the lowest mean score of 3.24. This relates to the result in Table 3 that Self-Actualization Theory has significant differences in teaching and learning styles when analyzed by department. The traditional educational model emphasizes the maintenance of status through the ability to think critically about reality (Kershaw, 2012, as cited by Nixon, 2020). Sarici Bulut (2018) shows that teaching students self-actualization skills will improve their ability to adapt and their level of life satisfaction. Because of this, self-actualization activities should be a part of school curricula. He believed that these activities would help learners overcome hurdles to self-actualization and play a good effect in lowering anxiety. Table 6: Mean results of the theories Indicator Dte Dcje Dba Das Dae Dtp Constructivist Learning Theory 4.04 3.95 4.04 3.83 3.85 3.95 Transformative Learning Theory 3.51 3.78 3.82 3.51 3.50 3.77 Self-Actualization Theory 3.64 3.66 3.57 3.24 3.37 3.63 CONCLUSION The study’s primary purpose was to determine the students’ teaching and learning styles in the new normal. Specifically, to describe the level of students’ preference in teaching and learning style in the new normal among the three learning theories in terms of Constructivist Learning Theory, Self-Actualization Theory, and Transformative Learning Theory. Also, to explore if there is a significant difference in the level of the student’s preference and to identify the most preferred teaching and learning style. It was revealed that Constructivist learning, Transformative learning, and Self-Actualization showed a high preference for the teaching and learning style in the new normal. Additionally, the Kruskal-Wallis H test result showed no significant difference in the students’ preference for Constructivist learning theory when analyzed by discipline. In comparison, both Self-Actualization and Transformative learning significantly differ in the students’ preference for these learning theories. On the other hand, both Constructivist and Transformative learning show no significant difference when analyzed by year level, while Self-Actualization shows a significant difference. Lastly, most DBA and DTE students preferred Constructivist Learning based on mean scores. In contrast, most DBA students preferred Transformative Learning, and DCJE students preferred Self-Actualization theory as their teaching and learning style in the new normal. Students from all departments who were seeking college degrees and who could therefore be considered college students made up the sample used for this study. The findings of this study might not be relevant to students who are not enrolled in colleges such as kindergarten, elementary, junior high school, and senior high school. For future researchers, it is suggested that they look at the other educational theories to incorporate with the teaching and learning styles of students from different levels of education, such as elementary, secondary, and senior high school. Teachers and university professors should explore different teaching and learning strategies suited to the year level and program where the students belong. REFERENCES Aboytes, J. G. R., & Barth, M. (2020). Transformative learning in sustainability: a systematic literature review (1999-2019). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-05-2019-0168 Acuña, A., Aman, F., Apas, P., & Diquito, T. (2021). Exploring students’ attitudes towards online-based learning system in the new normal: an exploratory factor analysis. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(11). http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i11.3964 Akcay, C., & Akyol, B. (2012). Self-actualization needs and education of participants in lifelong education centers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3456- 3459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.084 Alnujaidi, S. (2018). The relationship between EFL students’ perceptual learning styles and their language learning strategies in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(1), 69. https://doi. org/10.5539/ijel.v9n1p69 Berková, K., Boruvková, J., Frendlovská, D., Krpálek, P., & Melas, D. (2020). Learning Style Preferences of University and College Students. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(4), 486-499. https:// doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.486 Bhati, A., & Song, I. (2019). New methods for collaborative, experiential learning to provide personalized formative assessment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14, 179-195. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9173 Carbonel, L. G. I. (2013). Learning styles, Study Habits, And Academic Performance of College Students at Kalinga-Apayao State College, Philippines. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 81 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 2(8), 245-258. Casuga, F., Tandoc, W. C., Tabor, J. K., Te, J. B., Uy, J. K., Vidallo, G., & Villafuerte, M. (2022). Cross- sectional, quantitative research on the perception of pharmacy students from the University of Santo Tomas and their parents toward vaccination. Pharmacy Education, 22(1), 383-389. https://doi.org/10.46542/ pe.2022.221.383389 Cox, R. C. (2017). Assessing transformative learning: Toward a unified framework. Crawford, J., & Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2022). Sustainability in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1879. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14031879 Dalimunthe, H. H. B., Sutisna, A., Zakiah, L., & Handayani, S. (2021, April). Transformative science education: Empowering self-regulated learners during pandemic COVID-19. In AIP Conference Proceedings 2331, 1, 050022. AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi. org/10.1063/5.0041666 Diez, J., Ebro, E., Dequito, R., & Diquito, T. (2021). Uncovering learners’ experiences to new normal education: implications of asynchronous instruction in ge 5: science, technology, and society course teaching. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(10). http://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i10.3937 D’Souza, J. F., Adams, C. K., & Fuss, B. (2015). A pilot study of self-actualization activity measurement. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41(3), 28. ElSayary, A. (2021). Using a Reflective Practice Model to Teach STEM Education in a Blended Learning Environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/ ejmste/9699 Fernando, S. Y., & Marikar, F. M. (2017). Constructivist Teaching/Learning Theory and Participatory Teaching Methods. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 110-122. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v6n1p110 Kershaw, A. (2012). Critical pedagogy in criminal justice higher education: A liberative paradigm (Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Kentucky University). Khan, S. A., Arif, M. H., & Yousuf, M. I. (2019). A Study of Relationship between Learning Preferences and Academic Achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(1), 17-32. Larson, J. M., & Fay, M. (2016). Uncertainty Management and Sensemaking as Precursors to Transformative Learning in an International Immersion Service- Learning Experience. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 1. https:// doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2016.100106 Matcha, W., Gasevic, D., Uzir, N. A. A., Jovanovic, J., Pardo, A., Lim, L., ... & Tsai, Y. S. (2020). Analytics of Learning Strategies: Role of Course Design and Delivery Modality. Journal of Learning Analytics, 7(2), 45-71. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2020.72.3 Mehmet, Ş. A. H. I. N. (2018). Critical thinking and transformative learning. Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics, 22(1), 103-114. Mejia, R., Queroda, P., & Mangrobang, S. (2018). Learning Style Preferences of Hospitality Management (H.M.) Students of Pangasinan State University, Philippines: Basis for Enriched Pedagogical Strategies. Southeast Asian Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 105-109. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood (pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2014.510085 Moloi, T. J., & Adegoriolu, E. T. (2021). The Transformative Methodology: Expository Study of Teaching English as the Second Language Acquisition. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 6(2), 219-232. https://doi. org/10.46303/ressat.2021.20 Munna, A. S., & Kalam, M. A. (2021). Teaching and learning process to enhance teaching effectiveness: a literature review. International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI), 4(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.33750/ ijhi.v4i1.102 Nichols, M., Choudhary, N., & Standring, D. (2020). Exploring transformative learning in vocational online and distance education. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 24(2), 43-55. Ordun, G., & Akün, F. A. (2017). Self-actualization, self- efficacy and emotional intelligence of undergraduate students. Journal of Advanced Management Science 5(3), 170-175. Rezigalla, A. A., & Ahmed, O. Y. (2019). Learning style preferences among medical students in the College of Medicine, University of Bisha, Saudi Arabia (2018). Advances in medical education and practice, 10, 795. https://doi.org/10.2147%2FAMEP.S219176 Sarici Bulut, S. (2018). Obstacles to Self-actualization of Collage Students-The Case of Gazi Faculty of Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.061026 Schorpp, M. M. O. N. (2008). The relationships among perceived importance of educational needs, satisfaction with the educational experience and self- actualization of senior baccalaureate nursing students: An application of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Doctoral dissertation, Widener University School of Nursing). Selçuk, A. R. I. K., & Yilmaz, M. (2020). The effect of constructivist learning approach and active learning on environmental education: A meta-analysis study. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 10(1), 44-84. Shi, Y., & Lin, X. (2021). A Test of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Concept by a Correlational Model among Adult Learners. American Association for Adult and Continuing Education. Singh, L., Govil, P., & Rani, R. (2015). Learning style preferences among secondary school students. International journal of recent scientific research, 6(5), 3924- 3928. Sison, M., Galvez, R., & Coronel, J. M. D. (2017). Assessing https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 82 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 2(1) 74-82, 2023 the learning styles of senior high school students of La Consolacion University Philippines: Implications in the teaching-learning process. International Journal of Education and Research, 5(12), 45-52. Timisina, P. P., Tschewang, U., Tshering, N., Sherab, R., Dawa, K., Dorji, T., & Tashi, P. (2021). Preferred Learning Style of Students of Nangkor Central School, Bhutan. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 25(1), 35-47. Tuncer, M., Dikmen, M., & Akmençe, A. E. (2018). Investigation of higher education students’ learning styles and attitudes towards mobile learning according to various variables. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 4(3), 433-446. https:// doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.412095 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri