


































Frontiers of Contemporary Education 
ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce 

75 
 

Original Paper 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach: The Case of 

SPUP Graduate School 

Inicia C. Bansig
1
 

1
 St. Paul University Philippines (e.g., Graduate School, St. Paul University Philippines), Tuguegarao 

City, Philippines  

 

Received: April 12, 2021        Accepted: April 20, 2021       Online Published: June 21, 2021 

doi:10.22158/fce.v2n1p75                 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v2n1p75 

 

Abstract 

This study aims to assess the implementation of the Blended Learning Approach (BLA) at the Graduate 

School level at St. Paul University Philippines. The study utilized the mixed research approach. More 

specifically, the study utilized the quantitative approach particularly the descriptive 

causal-comparative research design as it assessed the implementation of the BLA and associated 

factors. The qualitative approach dealt with the responses of the participants regarding their views on 

the strengths of the BLA and the challenges they encountered in the implementation of the BLA. The 

study utilized the questionnaire method in gathering the data and covered the faculty and students as 

the study participants. The tools used for data analysis tools include the frequency and percentage 

counts, t-test, F-test, and thematic analysis. The results reveal that the participant’s assessment of the 

extent of implementation of the BLA along the four learning areas is “high”. Most specifically, they 

rated the aspect on Assessment and Evaluation as “very high”, Methods, Learning Resources, and 

Modality as “High”. 

Keywords 

blended learning, graduate school, learning outcomes, online learning, face-to-face learning 

 

1. Introduction 

The continuous development in technology is increasingly affecting the lives of individuals and has 

reshaped our culture. It has transformed the practices in the area of education especially concerning 

approaches and methodologies/strategies employed in the delivery of instruction.  

As technology brings about changes in our society, more universities and colleges provide 

opportunities to students to engage in classroom activities that make them more proficient in using 

technology to manage their learning.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

76 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

With the advent of digital transformation transfer, education has undergone major changes in recent 

years. The development has allowed full access to global communication and many resources available 

to students at all levels. The introduction of different approaches of instructional delivery like blended 

learning, flexible learning, e-learning exemplifies the transformation that has been occurring in the 

educational landscape. 

Blended learning is defined as combining face-to-face teaching with computer-mediated instruction 

(Graham, 2006). Blended learning can also refer to both software and hardware or installed devices in 

physical learning spaces (i.e., DVD players, document cameras, whiteboard capture systems, 

videoconferencing, web cameras) and mobile devices (cell phones, clickers, PDAs, laptops, or Tablet 

PCs, iPods, iPads, digital cameras, USB drives, and GPS systems) to enhance interaction. According to 

Garrison and Vaughn, “blended learning is more than enhancing lectures. It represents the 

transformation of how we approach teaching and learning. Blended learning is a coherent design 

approach that openly assesses and integrates the strengths of face-to-face and online learning to address 

worthwhile educational goals” (Garrison & Vaughn, 2008).   

In (Kitchenman, 2011), Blended Learning is defined as a versatile tool with which to address all sorts 

of problems, to analyze their nature, and to treat them with greater depth and scope than other, more 

traditional approaches. Blended learning taps multiple resources to bridge the gulf between ordinary, 

everyday classrooms and the 21
st
-century skills our children should acquire. 

Blended learning is also about creating a more flexible learning environment. According to Collis and 

Moonen (2001), flexible learning has often been understood as distance education. However, this is not 

necessarily the case. “Flexibility can involve options in course resources, in types of learning activities, 

in media to support learning” even for full-time, on-campus students (Collis & Moonen, 2001, p. 9). 

Flexibility requires technologies because they enable students to overcome the limitations of time, location, 

delivery method, and the communication style offered in many face-to-face courses.  

The use and management of learning technologies have often been associated with distance education 

programs and with faculty/students who are “digital natives” participating in virtual environments. In 

blended learning, the web-based technologies are transferred to the face-to-face classroom to enhance 

interaction and student-centered activities (web-enhanced classrooms) or to enhance online education 

through classroom contact (classroom-enhanced online education) (Dziuban et al., 2004). 

In a study on Blended Courses as Drivers of Institutional Transformation conducted by Charles D. 

Dziuban et al., at the University of Central Florida, USA, they concluded that institutional 

transformation at a university when properly managed, blended initiatives reposition the institution for 

better response to current student lifestyles and educational requirements while increasing the efficient 

use of classroom space. Outcome data suggest that these benefits enhance learning effectiveness while 

mitigating infrastructure expansion requirements created by demographic pressures. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

77 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In the same study, the reaction of the faculty to the associated workload, level of interaction within the 

course, and willingness to continue teaching in each modality was collected. The results showed that 

faculty responses to teaching blended courses were overwhelmingly positive. 

At St. Paul University Philippines, particularly in the Graduate School Department, the Blended Mode 

of instructional delivery, which is a combination of face-to-face classroom interaction and 

technology-driven independent and research-based learning is employed. Research on Blended 

Learning Best Practices and Challenges toward 21
st
 Century Learning was conducted in 2017, but no 

further research was done to investigate its effectiveness. Hence, this study is conducted to find out the 

effectiveness of the Blended-Learning in the Graduate School of St. Paul University Philippines.  

1.1 Conceptual Framework   

The investigation was based on the following framework. 

 

 

Figure 1. Blended Learning Approach Model 

 

Figure 1 presents the BLA model with which the study was anchored. As shown, the BLA is a 

conglomeration of three teaching modalities, namely, the face-to-face modality, the modular approach, 

and online instruction.  

Face-to-face learning is an instructional method where the course content and learning materials are 

taught in-person to a group of students. This allows for live interaction between a learner and an 

instructor. It is the most traditional type of learning instruction. Learners benefit from a greater level of 

interaction with their fellow students as well. In face-to-face learning, students are held accountable for 

their progress at the class‟s specific meeting date and time. Face-to-face learning ensures a better 

understanding and recollection of lesson content and gives class members a chance to bond with one 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

78 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

another (Tophat Glossary, n.d.).  

Modular Learning features individualized instruction that allows learners to use Self-Learning Modules 

(SLMs) in print or digital format/electronic copy, whichever applies to the learner. Learners under 

Modular Learning can also use other resources such as Learner‟s Materials, textbooks, activity sheets, 

study guides, and other study materials. Usually in this mode, teachers will have to deliver appropriate 

learning materials. However, students can also access these materials by downloading electronic copies 

through their computer, tablet PC, or smartphone Malaya (2020). 

E-learning, also referred to as online learning or electronic learning, is the acquisition of knowledge 

that takes place through electronic technologies and media. In simple language, e-learning is defined as 

“learning that is enabled electronically”. Typically, e-learning is conducted on the Internet, where 

students can access their learning materials online at any place and time. E-Learning most often takes 

place in the form of online courses, online degrees, or online programs (Abernathy, 2019). 

In the context of the study, the assessment of the implementation of the BLA was focused on the four 

key elements, namely, the instructional modalities, methods, assessment and evaluation, and learning 

resources. The instructional modalities involve the three aforementioned teaching modes. Methods 

include the strategies utilized by teachers in the delivery of the content in the various teaching modes. 

Assessment includes the different means which the teacher uses in measuring learning outcomes. The 

Learning resources encompass the teaching tools, facilities, and equipment used by the teacher in the 

delivery of the lesson through the various teaching modalities.       

1.2 Statement of the Problem 

This study aimed to assess the implementation of the blended learning approach at the graduate school 

level.  

More specifically, the study aimed to answer the following sub-problems: 

1. What is the profile of the faculty participants in terms of the following: 

1.1 Subjects handled; 

1.2 Number of subject preparations; 

1.3 Number of years in teaching in the Graduate School; and 

1.4 Employment status (parttime/fulltime)? 

2. What is the profile of the student participants in terms of the following: 

2.1 program cluster; 

2.2 program; and  

2.2 graduate-level? 

3. What is the extent of implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School 

concerning the instructional elements? 

3.1 modality 

3.2 methods 

3.3 assessment and evaluation 

http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_15/Jan15.pdf#page=34


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

79 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.4 learning resources  

4. Is there a significant difference in the participants‟ assessment of the extent of implementation of 

the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School concerning the instructional elements when 

they are grouped according to profile variables? 

5. What are the strengths of the Blended Learning Approach as assessed by the participants? 

6. What are the challenges encountered by the participants on the Blended Learning Approach in 

Graduate School delivery of instruction?  

1.3 Hypotheses 

The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance: 

1. There is no significant difference in the participants‟ assessment of the extent of 

implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School concerning the 

instructional elements when they are grouped according to profile variables. 

1.4 Scope and Limitation 

The study was limited to the assessment of the implementation of the BLA at the graduate school level. 

This study was conducted during the academic year 2018-2019 which covered faculty and students as 

study participants. The study would not endeavor to establish the effectiveness of the approach but was 

solely focused on the extent of implementation of the approach concerning the defined instructional 

elements.   

 

2. Method 

2.1 Research Design  

The study utilized the mixed research approach. The quantitative approach dealt with the participants‟ 

profile and their assessment of the extent of implementation of the BLA for the defined instructional 

elements. The qualitative approach dealt with the responses of the participants regarding their views on 

the strengths of the BLA and the challenges they encountered in the implementation of the BLA. More 

specifically, the study utilized the descriptive causal-comparative research design as it investigated 

factors that affect their assessment of the implementation of the BLA. 

2.2 Participants of the Study 

The study covered two groups of participants particularly, the total population of graduate school 

faculty [N=42] and a random sample of students [315] for the academic year 2018-2019. The stratified 

random sampling was used in selecting the student participants with the program as the main strata 

under consideration.  

2.3 Instrumentation 

The survey questionnaire was the main tool that was used in data gathering. The survey tool involved 

three parts, the first part of which sought data on the personal profile of the participants, the second part 

asked for the participants‟ assessment on the implementation of the BLA, and the third part involved an 

open-ended question to elicit the participants‟ views on the strengths of the BLA as well as the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

80 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

challenges they experienced in the implementation of the said approach.    

2.4 Data Gathering Procedure 

The data were gathered through the following procedure: 

1. The researcher sought permission from the VP academics for the conduct of the study. 

2. The researcher identified the study participants and secured Informed consent from them. 

3. The research personally administered the questionnaire to the two groups of participants. 

4. The participants‟ responses were organized using appropriate data analysis tools. 

2.5 Data Analysis Tools 

The data obtained from the study were subjected to the following data analysis tools: 

 The frequency and percentage count were used to analyze the profile of the participants. 

 The mean was used to interpret the assessment of the participants on the implementation of the 

BLA. The means were further interpreted using the four-point Likert scale in a low-moderate-high-very 

high continuum. 

 F-test was used to test the inferences set in the study. 

 The deductive thematic analysis was utilized to organize the participants‟ responses on their 

views regarding the strengths of the BLA and the challenges they encountered in the implementation of 

the said approach.   

 

3. Results 

3.1 Profile of the Faculty-Participants  

 

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Faculty-Participants in Terms of Courses 

Taught 

Subject Cluster Frequency Percentage 

Core Subjects 24 57.14 

Major Subjects 28 66.67 

Cognate 13 30.95 

 

The majority of the faculty teaches the major courses or core subjects. This is traced to the fact that the 

highest percentage of courses offered for all programs are major subjects, followed by core courses.   

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

81 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Faculty-Participants in Terms of Number 

of Course Preparations   

Number of Subject Preparations Frequency Percentage 

3 19 45.24 

2 15 35.71 

1 8 19.05 

Total 42 100.00 

 

As shown in Table 2, the largest cohort of faculty participants has 3-course preparations. In every 

semester, a faculty may handle at most 3 courses, thus, the highest number of course preparations is 3. 

Due to the variations on course offerings for each program, particularly the major courses, faculty tend 

to have three-course preparations.  

 

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Faculty-Participants in Terms of Number 

of Years in Teaching 

 

Table 3 shows that the majority [52.38] of the faculty have been teaching in graduate school for more 

than 10 years. This is an indicator of their commitment to sharing their expertise in graduate school. 

 

Table 4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Faculty-Participants in Terms of Courses 

Taught of Employment Status 

Employment Status Frequency Percentage 

Full Time 36 85.71 

Part- time 6 14.29 

Total 42 100.00 

 

The majority [85.71] of the faculty are full-time faculty. Only 6 or 14.29 % of the participants‟ are 

part-time faculty.  

 

 

 

Number of Years in Teaching Frequency Percentage 

More than 10 years 22 52.38 

6-10 years 17 40.48 

1-5 years 3 7.14 

Total 42 100.00 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

82 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.2 Profile of the Student-participants   

 

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Student-Participants in Terms of 

Program Cluster, Program and Level 

Program 

Cluster 

Programs Master‟s 

Level 

Programs Doctoral 

Level 

Total 

F % F % F % 

Health 

Sciences 

MSN 48 22.43 DNS 15 14.85     

MAN 12 5.61           

Sub-Total 60 28.04 Sub-total 15 14.85 75 23.81 

Education 

  

MST 65 30.37 DME 5 4.95    

MAED 23 10.75 PHD 27 26.73    

Sub-Total 88 41.12 Sub-total 32 31.68 120 38.10 

Information 

Technology 
MIT 12 5.61 DIT 26 25.74 38 12.06 

Business  MBA 7 3.27 DBM 5 4.95    

MSHM 8 3.74 DHM 7 6.93    

Sub-total 15 7.01 Sub-total 12 11.88 27 8.57 

Social 

Sciences 

MSSW 8 3.74 DPA 9 8.91    

MOP 6 2.80 
PHD 

PSYCHO 
7 6.93    

MAPSYCH 5 2.34          

MPA 20 9.35          

Sub-total 39 18.22 Sub-total 16 15.84 55 17.46 

Total 214 100.00 Total         101             100.00 315 100.00 

 

Table 5 reveals that the highest percentage [38.10] of the student-participants are enrolled in programs 

associated with education. These programs include the MST, MAED, DME, and Ph.D. Also, the table 

shows that there are more participants taken from the master‟s degree program which comprise 214 

[67.94%] participants while those in the doctoral level comprise 101[32.06] participants. For the 

master‟s degree program, students enrolled in the MST program got the highest percentage [30.37%] 

followed by those who are enrolled in MSN program [22.43%]. For the Doctoral program, the highest 

percentage [26.73%] are enrolled in the Ph.D. program which is closely followed by those who are 

enrolled in the DIT program [25.74%].     

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

83 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.3 The Extent of Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School for the 

Instructional Elements 

 

Table 6. Mean Assessment of the Faculty and Student Participants on the Extent of 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School Concerning Modality 

Indicators Faculty  Students 

x DI X DI 

1. Teacher-Student interaction is done face-to-face (onsite).  2.83 H 2.92 H 

2. Teacher-student interaction is conducted through non-physical means 

through technology but may not require internet connectivity. 

1.85 M 2.12 M 

3. Content delivery is done online in the synchronous mode where 

teachers and students interact simultaneously.  

2.02 M 2.13 M 

4. Content delivery is done online in the asynchronous mode where 

teachers monitor students‟ learning. 

3.15 H 3.21 H 

Category Mean 2.46 H 2.64 H 

 

Table 6 reflects that the students assess the extent of implementation of the BLA through the defined 

modalities is at a high extent. The high extent of use of the desired modalities is an indicator that the 

students have adequate exposure to the different teaching modalities, particularly the face-to-face and 

online-asynchronous modes.           

3.4 Methods 

 

Table 7. Mean Assessment of the Faculty and Student Participants on the Extent of 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School Concerning Methods 

Indicators Faculty  Students 

x DI X DI 

1. The use of the following strategies in onsite/offline modes:       

1.1 Classroom lecture  2.87 H 2.93 H 

1.2 Self-directed Modular Instruction 1.83 M 1.92 M 

1.3 Project-Based Learning 2.89 H 3.02 H 

Mean 2.53 H 2.62 H 

2. The use of the following strategies in remote/distance-offline 

modes:   

    

2.1 Discussion through Video Conferencing 1.54 L 1.68 L 

2.2 Interactive Online Collaboration and Discussion/Chat 2.92 H 3.11 H 

2.3 Virtual Learning  2.89 H 2.92 H 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

84 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Mean 2.45 M 2.57 H 

3. The use of the following strategies in synchronous-online modes:       

3.1 Discussion through Video Conferencing 3.32 VH 3.28 VH 

3.2 Interactive Online Collaboration and Discussion/Chat 3.28 VH 3.32 VH 

3.3 Virtual Learning 2.78 H 2.83 H 

Mean 3.13 H 3.14 H 

4. The use of the following strategies in asynchronous-online modes:       

4.1 Reading Assignments 3.28 VH 3.35 VH 

4.2 Pre-recorded Video/Audio Streaming 2.15 M 2.21 M 

4.3 Research Activities 3.34 VH 3.42 VH 

4.4 Case Study Analysis 2.56 H 2.76 H 

4.5 Lectures 3.67 VH 3.87 VH 

Mean 3.00 H 3.12 H 

Category Mean 2.78 H 2.86 H 

 

The data in Table 7 show that the students and faculty assess the implementation of the BLA methods 

as high. More specifically, both participants assessed the extent of implementation of 

synchronous-online modes such as discussion through Video Conferencing, and Interactive Online 

Collaboration and Discussion/Chat as well as the asynchronous-online mode such as Reading 

Assignments, Research Activities, and Lectures as Very High. 

On the other hand, a low level of implementation was revealed on the use of the Discussion through 

Video Conferencing in remote/distance offline modes while there is a moderate level of 

implementation of the Self-directed Modular Instruction in onsite/offline modes and pre-recorded 

video/audio streaming in asynchronous modes. 

3.5 Assessment and Evaluation  

 

Table 8. Mean Assessment of the Faculty and Student Participants on the Extent of 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School Concerning 

Assessment and Evaluation 

Indicators Faculty  Students 

x DI X DI 

1. Appropriate feedbacking mechanisms were done by professors in 

either online or offline mode. 

3.45 VH 3.28 VH 

2. Assessment tasks match the learning outcomes. 3.65 VH 3.67 VH 

3. Assessment forms used include either traditional and authentic 

assessments.  

3.76 VH 3.45 VH 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

85 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Multiple assessment strategies were used to measure students‟ 

knowledge, skills, and attitudes. 

2.34 M 2.43 M 

5. Students‟ grades are accessible to students. 3.67 VH 3.87 VH 

6. The use of offline assessment modes such as:     

6.1 Project-based Assessment 3.15 H 3.02 H 

6.2 Narrative Reports/Laboratory Reports 2.35 M 2.46 M 

6.3 Portfolio Assessment 1.89 M 2.00 M 

6.4 Reflection Paper 3.28 VH 3.65 VH 

6.5 Research/Literature Review 3.78 VH 3.67 VH 

6.6 Written Correspondence/Essays 3.34 VH 3.40 VH 

6.7 Case Analysis 3.35 VH 3.42 VH 

Mean 3.02 H 3.09 H 

7. Use of online assessment modes such as:     

7.1 Asynchronous and synchronous quizzes 2.80 H 2.76 H 

7.2 Major examinations conducted in synchronous mode 3.26 VH 3.56 VH 

Mean 3.03 H 3.16 H 

Category Mean 3.27 VH 3.28 VH 

 

Table 8 generally reveals that the two groups of participants assessed the extent of implementation of 

the BLA in graduate school instruction concerning Assessment and Evaluation at Very High. More 

specifically, assessment techniques with a very high level of implementation include the following: (1) 

providing feedback in either online or offline mode, (2) assessment tasks match the learning outcomes, 

(3) assessment forms used include either traditional and authentic assessments, (4) Students‟ grades are 

accessible to students, (5) Assessments in offline modes (e.g., Reflection Paper, Research/Literature 

Review, Written Correspondence/Essays, and Case Analysis), and online assessment modes such as 

major examinations in synchronous mode. 

Assessment strategies such as the use of multiple assessment strategies to measure students‟ knowledge, 

skills, and attitudes, as well Narrative Reports/Laboratory Reports, and Portfolio Assessment are 

implemented to a moderate extent.  

3.6 Learning Resources 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

86 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 9. Mean Assessment of the Faculty and Student Participants on the Extent of 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School Concerning Learning 

Resources 

Indicators Faculty  Students 

x DI X DI 

1. A link is provided to students to enable them to access library 

resources. 

3.58 VH 3.67 VH 

2. The use of the following learning resources  in offline instructional 

mode:  

    

a. Learning Modules 2.21 M 2.48 M 

b. Handouts/Worksheets/Lecture Notes/Manuals 3.27 VH 3.89 VH 

c. Teaching Videos (i.e. videotaped simulations, lecture videos) 2.45 M 2.24 M 

d. Open Educational Resources (OER) 1.87 M 3.11 H 

e. Case Studies 3.37 VH 3.86 VH 

Mean 2.69 H 2.90 H 

3. The use of the following resources in online instructional mode:       

a. MSTeams 3.27 VH 3.67 VH 

b. Frontlearners 1.56 L 1.49 L 

c. EDIS 1.58  L 1.87 L 

d. Google Meet 2.78 H 2.89 H 

e. Zoom 3.06 M 3.17 M 

f. Edmodo 2.02 M 1.80 M 

g. Canvas 1.67 L 1.59 L 

Mean 2.28 M 2.35 M 

4. The use of the following Communication modes in the Instructional 

process 

    

a. email 3.89 VH 3.78 VH 

b. text messaging 2.36 M 2.04 M 

c. messenger/group chat 3.29 VH 3.45 VH 

d. viber 1.98 L 1.98 L 

Mean 2.88 H 2.81 H 

Category Mean 2.85 H 2.97 H 

 

In general, participants‟ assessment on the extent of implementation of BLA along Learning Resources 

got a high extent rating. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

87 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Noteworthy is the very high extent of use of the following learning resources: (1) A link is provided to 

students to enable them to access library resources, (2) offline instructional mode such as the use of 

Handouts/Worksheets/Lecture Notes/Manuals, and Case Studies, (3) online instructional modes such as 

MSTeams, and (4) communication modes such as email and messenger/group chat. 

On the other hand, a low rating is given to the implementation of learning resources such as the use of 

Frontlearners, EDIS, and Canvas as online instructional modes, and Viber as a communication 

modality. 

 

Table 10. Summary Table on the Mean Assessment of the Faculty and Student Participants on 

the Extent of Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School 

Concerning Learning Resources 

Instructional Areas Faculty Students 

x DI X DI 

1. Modality 1.96 M 2.09 M 

2. Methods 2.78 H 2.86 H 

3. Assessment and Evaluation 3.27 VH 3.28 VH 

4. Learning Resources 2.85 H 2.97 H 

Overall Mean 2.72 H 2.80 H 

 

In summary, the participants‟ extent of implementation of the BLA along the four learning areas is high. 

Most specifically, they rated the aspect on Assessment and Evaluation as very high, Methods, and 

Learning Resources as High while have a moderate rating for Modality.   

3.7 F-Test Result on the Significant Difference in the Participants’ Assessment of the Extent of 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School For the Instructional 

Elements When they are Grouped According to Profile Variables 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

88 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 11. F test Results on the Assessment of the Faculty-Participants on the Extent of 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School Concerning the 

Instructional Elements When they are Grouped According to Profile Variables 

Instructional 

Elements 

Course Handled 

   

Number of Course 

Preparation 

    

Number of Years in 

Teaching in the 

Graduate School 

Employment Status   

F PV F PV F PV F PV 

Modality 2.56 0.15 2.03 0.23 2.14 0.21 2.76 0.67 

Methods 1.89 0.09 1.93 0.15 1.87 0.18 2.18 0.21 

Assessment 

and Evaluation 
2.47 0.21 2.02 0.23 1.76 0.52 1.98 0.08 

Learning 

Resources 
2.79 0.13 2.17 0.17 1.92 0.28 1.87 0.13 

 

As shown by the probability values that are less than 0.05, there exists no significant difference in the 

assessment of the faculty-participants on the extent of implementation of the BLA in the Graduate 

School for the instructional elements when they are grouped according to profile variables. This 

implies that regardless of the course handled, number of course preparations, number of years in 

teaching in the Graduate School, and Employment Status, the implementation of the BLA along the 

instructional elements are of the same extent.   

 

Table 12. F test Results on the Assessment of the Student-Participants on the Extent of 

Implementation of the Blended Learning Approach in the Graduate School for the Instructional 

Elements When they are Grouped According to Profile Variables 

Instructional Elements Program Cluster Program Level 

F PV F PV F PV 

Modality 2.67 0.23 2.09 0.17 2.45 0.12 

Methods 2.18 0.16 1.91 0.27 2.18 0.17 

Assessment and Evaluation 2.15 0.21 1.89 0.19 2.09 0.21 

Learning Resources 2.67 0.34 2.17 0.25 1.92 0.15 

 

The results reveal that the students do not differ in their assessment of the implementation of the BLA 

when they are grouped according to program cluster, program, and level. This result reflects the 

commitment of the Graduate School Unit in its initiatives to implement the BLA in its instructional 

delivery, an approach that is deemed appropriate for adult learners and the learning context brought by 

technological advancements.    



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

89 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.8 Strengths of the Blended Learning Approach    

Among the noted strengths of the BLA as exposed by the participants are as follows:   

1. It enhances learning. 

2. It promotes the acquisition of the desired skills and values.   

3. It promotes heightened accessibility to learning.  

4. It offers differentiation.  

5. It promotes flexibility in learning.  

3.9 Challenges Encountered by the Participants on the Blended Learning Approach in Graduate 

School Delivery of Instruction  

Among the challenges encountered by the students in their exposure to BLA are poor internet 

connectivity and Power Interruption, Lack of Gadgets and Technical Issues, and Insufficient 

Resources.  

 

4. Discussion 

The data in Table 1 indicate that majority of the teachers handle major subjects. The vast majority of 

the courses offered to graduate school are major subjects. These courses are offered to add up to the 

existing knowledge of the students in their field of expertise. This is intended for the mastery of their 

craft to improve the way they perform their tasks in their respective workplaces. The data in Table 2 

implies that the number of subject preparations of faculty is manageable. Three subjects preparation is 

reasonable enough to allow the faculty to prepare their lessons and to monitor students‟ progress. Table 

3 reflects that majority of the faculty have been in the teaching profession for more than 10 years. This 

indicates their passion and commitment to share their expertise in graduate school. The majority of the 

faculty are full-time employees of the University. These faculty handle subjects both at the 

undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of them hold administrative functions in the University. The 

data in Table 5 reflects that the faculty from the different programs are represented. The table in Table 

6 reflects that the high extent of implementation of the BLA through the face-to-face and online 

modalities. This result is an indication that the participants have rich exposure to the various teaching 

modalities. The data in Table 7 reflect the high extent of implementation of BLA concerning 

instructional methods. Noteworthy is their very high extent of implementation of the 

synchronous-online teaching modes such as discussion through Video Conferencing, and Interactive 

Online Collaboration and Discussion/Chat as well as the asynchronous-online mode such as Reading 

Assignments, Research Activities, and Lectures. These methods are those that involve either the 

face-to-face and online instructional modes. Most of the methods that were utilized promote the use of 

technology and the conduct of activities that promote critical thinking. Table 8 reflects that the faculty 

participants utilize varied assessment tools in providing feedback in either online or offline mode. This 

mode of assessment depends on the nature of tasks required from the students. Online assessments are 

oftentimes utilized in a distance learning mode where students could only be reached through online 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

90 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

modality. The assessment tasks that the faculty require the students match the learning outcomes that 

were defined in the syllabi. Further, teachers use either traditional and authentic assessments to 

measure whether students acquire the desired knowledge, attitudes, and skills as defined in the course 

syllabi. Furthermore, the faculty ensures that students‟ grades are accessible, and grade computations 

are transparent to show objectivity. Table 9 reflects that the faculty have a very high extent of use of 

learning resources particularly those that are linked to online modes. Students are provided with 

opportunities to access library resources through online modes. In the face-to-face modes, instructional 

materials such as Handouts/Worksheets/Lecture Notes/Manuals, and Case Studies are highly utilized. 

These materials are important aids to facilitate students in understanding the course content and the 

required outputs. Online instructional modes such as MSTeams and Zoom are commonly used 

especially for classes with foreign students or those on distance learning. Moreover, social resources 

such as email and messenger/group chat are highly utilized. Online resources such as the Frontlearners, 

EDIS, and Canvas for online instructional modes, and Viber for communication modality are rarely 

utilized by the participants due to their limited features and accessibility. In summary, the participants 

have a high extent of implementation of the BLA along modality, methods, assessment, and learning 

resources.  

The data in Table 12 reveal that the faculty implementation of the BLA along the instructional elements 

are of the same extent regardless of the course they handled, number of course preparations, number of 

years in teaching in the Graduate School, and Employment Status. 

The BLA enhances learning, promotes the acquisition of the desired skills and values, promotes 

heightened accessibility of learning, offers differentiation, and promotes flexibility of learning. 

Students‟ exposure to the blended learning approach leads them to a deeper understanding of the 

content and a higher level of content mastery. Teachers can track students‟ compliance to the learning 

activities and their extent of engagement and can monitor the amount of learning that they acquired. 

Because most students today are surrounded by technology in their everyday life, they often engage 

more easily with the material when technology is incorporated in instructional settings (Walker, 2018). 

The BLA incorporates multiple methods of instruction from an assortment of perspectives, thus, proves 

to have an effective learning outcome for most students involved (Giarla, n.d.). 

The BLA exposes the students to meaningful and varied activities that allow them to acquire and 

improve their digital skills. The various instructional modes particularly the use of online learning 

trained the students to acquire digital skills. Students become empowered as they expand their 

technological skills and competency with technology (Walker, 2018). Multifarious activities harness 

students‟ innovative skills. The BLA also trained students to acquire adaptability skills as they deal 

with one mode to the other. In their written outputs where they derived ideas from reputable sources, 

they learned the skill in proper documentation of sources and requirements. Moreover, BLA trains 

students to be independent learners, have a strong determination to learn, and commitment towards 

attaining quality learning.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

91 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The BLA provides accessible materials both print and non-print. Students consider BLA as a 

convenient mode of learning since the teacher has a range of options for the delivery of lessons. BLA is 

considered safe and comfortable since it reduces travels to schools as there are other teaching modes to 

choose from such as online or modular. With this, there is an ease of access to education. BLA is also 

the most appropriate instructional mode for professionals as they are given time to manage their 

learning while performing their work functions.   

The high-quality digital educational tools allow teachers to measure each student‟s learning level and 

provide activities and instruction that meet the child where they are to give them appropriate lesson 

material (Walker, 2018). 

BLA is multimodal, hence provide variation to students, particularly the mode of teaching and 

assessment. Students in remote areas can attend classes through other modes, can learn while working. 

Students‟ exposure to various online learning modalities hastens their flexibility skills caters to various 

learning styles/diverse students. Blended learning classes offer flexibility for teachers in how they 

present material and for students in the pace and variety of the learning approaches they experience 

(Walker, 2018). Because blended learning incorporates a variety of instructional approaches, learning 

activities can be tailored to address numerous learning styles. Blended learning also offers flexible time 

frames that can be personalized to each person, offering them the ability to learn at their own pace 

(Giarla, n.d.). 

 

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 

In the light of the findings, the following conclusion is arrived at: 

The graduate school has been successful in the implementation of the BLA as supported by the high 

rating it garnered in areas of modality, instructional methods, assessment and evaluation techniques, 

and learning resources. This is made possible through the strong support of the administration and 

commitment of the graduate school faculty in the attainment of the graduate school program objectives 

through the BLA. Moreover, clarity of the implementation plan of the BLA and the constant follow-up 

and monitoring from the top administration facilitated the implementation of the approach. Also, the 

subjects handled, number of subject-preparation, number of years in teaching, and employment status 

of faculty do not affect the extent of implementation of the BLA in the graduate school. The strengths 

of the BLA as exposed by the participants are driving factors for its high extent of implementation. The 

BLA enhanced learning, assists in the acquisition of the desired skills and values, enhances the 

accessibility of learning, provides opportunities for differentiation, and promotes flexibility of learning. 

The challenges encountered by the participants are external thus, considered as factors that are beyond 

control.   

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 1, 2021 

92 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are derived: 

1. The graduate school to sustain the high extent of implementation of BLA as an instructional 

approach. 

2. The administration and faculty may consider enhancing the implementation of the BLA 

specifically on areas where these are rated at „moderate‟ levels. 

3. Faculty may consider investigating the effectiveness of the BLA in improving learning 

outcomes.   

4. Future research may consider expanding the investigation by considering other related 

variables.   

 

References 

Abernathy, D. (2019). What is E-Learning? Retrieved from https://e-student.org/what-is-e-learning/ 

Chen, P. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of 

Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 

1222-1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008 

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2007). Blended learning. Educause Centre for Applied 

Research, 7, 1-12. 

Garrison, R. D., & Vaughn, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, 

and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558 

Giarla, A. (n.d.). The Benefits of Blended Learning. Teach Thought. Retrieved from 

https://www.teachthought.com/technology/the-benefits-of-blended-learning/ 

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definitions, current trends, and future directions. In C. 

Bonk, & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs 

(pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. 

Kitchenham, A. (2011). Blended learning across disciplines: Models for Implementation. University of 

Northern British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-479-0 

Malaya, B. (2020). Modular Distance Learning: Here’s what you need to know. Retrieved from 

https://www.whatalife.ph/modular-distance-learning-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ 

Tophat, G. (n.d.). Face to Face Learning. Retrieved from 

https://tophat.com/glossary/f/face-to-face-learning/ 

Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013, May 28). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher 

education: The need for better understanding of the academic blended practice. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.786720 

Walker, S. (2018, September 12). 5 Benefits of Blended Learning. Topics in Education. I imagine. 

Retrieved from https://www.imaginelearning.com/blog/2018/09/5-benefits-blended-learning 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-479-0
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.786720

