Volume 7, Issue 7, July – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Effectiveness of Flexible Learning on the Academic

Performance of Students
Elisa F. Grampil
Philippine State College of Aeronautics, Pasay City, Philippines

Abstract:- The study was undertaken to assess the the internet connection issues, no proper preparation and the
effectiveness of flexible learning on the academic lack of equipment needed would lead to poor effectiveness that
performance of the students in aviation electronics may hinder the development of the students’ academic
technology in Philippine State College of Aeronautics. The performance. Whereas the other starts to believe that modern
goal was to determine the significant difference on the level of education will arise soon because of its benefits.
academic performance of the students between the
traditional and flexible learning and to determine if there is  Purpose
a significant difference on the characteristics of the learning The study is primarily focused on the effectiveness of
tool they used. The findings of the study showed that there flexible learning on the academic performance of the students
is a significant difference on the academic performance of in Aviation Electronics Technology Batch 2020-2021 in
the students during flexible learning. Their GWA increased Philippine State College of Aeronautics in 2nd Year and 3rd
as opposed to traditional learning. However, there is no Year. The study aims to determine the effectiveness of flexible
significant difference when it comes to the characteristic of learning by analyzing their academic performance during the
the learning tool in thoughtful practice. The students may traditional learning vs. flexible learning and their evaluation on
have out form their GWA, but the internal learning was not the characteristics of the learning tool used in the traditional and
there. flexible.

Keywords:- Flexible Learning, Traditional Learning,

Synchronous, Asynchronous

I. INTRODUCTION

The traditional learning is the accustomed method of

learning and a well- established modality that has been refine
over the years in the Philippines. It is a learning method where
there is a face-to-face interaction of the learning process
between the students and teacher that takes place physically in
a classroom setting. The flexible learning is a form of distance
learning method being offered as the current modality due to
pandemic restrictions, whereas there are no physical face-to-
face interactions between the students and teacher. The learning
process of the student in flexible learning takes place in two
methods: synchronous and asynchronous. The sudden
transition to the new learning set up from being accustomed to
the traditional set up brought a challenge to the pedagogy of
learning of the students to their academic performance. The
objective of the study is to identify the effectiveness of the
flexible learning on the academic performance of the students
with opposed to the traditional learning; as stated in the
instructional design theory, one method may work best in one
situation while another may work best in a different situation.

Schools all over the globe have been closed due to the
outbreak of COVID-19. 1.3 billion students around the world
have been affected by the rapid change of the learning set up,
wherein the students were left with no choice but to adopt the
new learning set up which is the online learning(UNESCO,
2020). The unplanned transition to online learning along with

IJISRT22JUL1078 www.ijisrt.com 1298

Volume 7, Issue 7, July – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
The system approach used is the Flow Chart System in signed letter of consent in a PDF form was sent to the school
describing the conceptual framework of the study. As shown in registrar by the researchers. The researchers received the list
Figure 1, the participants of the study are studied according to of GWA sent by the school registrar in an Excel Form. The
their academic performance in the 2nd semester 2019 secondary data, demographic profile of the participants and
(Traditional) and 1st semester 2020 (Flexible) and their their evaluation on the characteristics of the learning tool used
evaluation on the characteristics of the learning tool used in the in Traditional and Flexible learning was collected through
traditional learning and flexible learning to know on what part survey questionnaire via Google forms. The collected data was
does the learning tools lacking on a specific area. Signed treated with utmost privacy and was used with the solely
consent letters permitting the researchers to collect their data purpose of the research.
through registrar are collected from the participants. After
collecting the consent letters, the letter of request is sent to the III. RESULTS
school registrar to collect the data. The academic performance
of the participants in 2nd semester 2019 and 1st semester in A. The demographic profile of the participants were taken
2020 is then collected from the school registrar. The evaluation according to:
of the participants on the characteristics of the learning tool
used on the clear information, thoughtful practice, informative  Year Level
feedback, strong intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation during their Finding shows that there are 50 students (50%) from the
traditional and flexible learning (synchronous and 2nd year level and 50 students (50%) from the 3rd year level.
asynchronous) is considered to find on where the learning tool The total participant of the study is 100 with a percentage of
lack on the effectiveness of the learning process of the 100%.All acquired participants was surveyed and their GWA
participants does the process of collecting the data on this is was collected.
through survey questionnaire.
 Gender
 Research Questions Finding shows that from the total number of 100
[1]. What is the demographic profile of the students in participants, there are 57 male students with(57%) and 43
Aviation Electronics Technology in terms of: Year Level; female students with (43%). Majority of the participants are
Gender; Age; Residence Location; Socioeconomic dominated by male and least dominated by female.
Status?
[2]. What is the academic performance of the students on 2nd  Age
semester 2019 and 1st semester 2020 in terms of: 2.1 Finding shows that from the total number of the
GWA? participants of 100, there are 58 students belongs to the age
[3]. Is there a significant difference on the academic bracket of 21 to 23 (58%); 41 students belong to the age bracket
performance of the students between 2nd semester 2019 of 18 to 20 (41%) and 1 student belongs to the age bracket of
(Traditional) and 1st semester 2020 (Flexible) in terms of: 24 to 26 (1%). Majority age bracket of the participants is 21 to
GWA? 23 and least on 24 to 26.
[4]. What is the characteristics of the learning tool used of the
students in terms of:  Residence Location
[5]. Traditional; Synchronous; Asynchronous? Finding shows that from the total number of the
[6]. Is there a significant difference between the characteristics participants of 100, there are 53 students that lives in the Rural
of the learning tool used on academic performance of the (53%); 30 students that live in the Urban (30%) and 17 students
students in terms of: Traditional vs Synchronous; that live in suburban (17%). Majority of the participants lives
[7]. What implications may be drawn from the result of the in the Rural and least on Suburban.
study on the effectiveness of Flexible learning on the
academic performance of the students in terms of:  Socioeconomic Status
Instructional Tools; Finding shows that in terms of socioeconomic status there
Instructional Outcomes? are 28 students with 10,000 to 20,000 monthly (28%) followed
by 26 students with 20,000 to 40,000 monthly (26%) and least
II. METHODOLOGY 4 students with 70,000 to 100,000 (4%). Majority of the
participants belongs to the bracket of 10,000 to 20,000 or low-
The method of collecting the primary data is on two parts. income class and least on 70,000 to 100,000 or upper middle
First, the letter of consent was collected from the participants class.
and second, the list of GWA was collected from the school
registrar. The researchers collected the signed letter of consent
from the participants, compiled in it a tabulated form together
with their student ID in a PDF form and a letter of request to
collect the data (GWA) of the participants together with the

IJISRT22JUL1078 www.ijisrt.com 1299

Volume 7, Issue 7, July – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
B. The academic performance of the students on 2nd semester their requirements. There might be a lack of instructors which
2019 and 1st semester 2020 was taken according to: results to work overload for them to handle.

 GWA E. The significant relationship between the characteristics of

Finding shows that the academic performance of the 2nd the learning tool used on the academic performance of the
year students in terms of GWA on 2nd semester 2019 or on the students were taken according to:
traditional learning was 2.14 and on 1st semester 2020 or on the
flexible learning was 1.47; 3rd year students in terms of GWA  Traditional vs. Synchronous
on 2nd semester 2019 or on the traditional learning was 1.47 There was a significant difference on their mean for the
and on 1st semester 2020 or on the flexible learning was 1.37. given categories in the learning such as the clear information,
thoughtful practice, information feedback, intrinsic and
C. The significant difference on the academic performance of extrinsic motivation with a mean difference of .533, .327, .420,
the students on 2nd semester 2019 and 1st semester 2020 .780 and .435 respectively. It also shows that the mean of the
was taken according to: traditional learning has a greater mean against the synchronous
learning. Both traditional and synchronous has a visual and real
 GWA time interaction that helps the student on their learning process.
Finding shows that there is a significant difference on the The differences are on the part of physical interaction and
academic performance of the students for both year levels in the online interaction between the students and the instructors.
flexible learning with mean of 0.67 and 0.10. The learning
outcome of the participants or the GWA in the flexible learning  Traditional vs. Asynchronous
has found an increase as opposed to the traditional learning There was a significant difference on their mean for the
outcome. given categories in the learning such as the clear information,
informative feedback, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with a
D. The characteristics of the learning tool used of the students mean difference of .573, .790, .790, and .365 respectively. It
were taken according to: also shows that the mean of the traditional learning has a greater
mean against the asynchronous learning. While in terms of the
 Traditional thoughtful practice, there was no significant difference on the
Finding shows that the characteristics of the learning tool mean for the traditional and asynchronous learning. The
used in the traditional was attained in terms of clear information thoughtful practice was found no significant difference as the
with mean of 3.31; thoughtful practice with mean of 3.36; modules contains activities on the last part of the lesson.
informative feedback with mean of 3.20; intrinsic motivation
with mean of 3.75; extrinsic motivation with mean of 3.71.The F. The implications drawn from the result of the study on the
traditional has attained the characteristics of an effective effectiveness of Flexible learning on the academic
learning tool as it was the accustomed and well-shaped learning performance of the students in terms of:
modality.
 Instructional Tools
 Synchronous Flexible learning can be prolonged due to the intermittent
Finding shows that the characteristics of the learning tool condition or situation of the Philippines, school/instructors
used in the synchronous was attained in terms of clear should maintain the current quality and only improve the virtual
information with mean of 2.78; thoughtful practice with mean laboratory activities for the learning process of the students.
of 3.03; informative feedback with mean of 2.78; intrinsic
motivation with mean of 2.97; extrinsic motivation with mean  Instructional Outcomes
of 3.27. The synchronous has attained the characteristics of an Since, the effectiveness of flexible learning has been
effective learning tool as it has real time interaction the student, proved; school/instructors should look upon further on finding
like traditional by virtually. if the students really understand well the lesson such as
improving of the students especially on laboratory activities
 Asynchronous that can be found as the main lacking needs of the students due
Finding shows that the characteristics of the learning tool to the pandemic limitations.
used in the traditional was attained in terms of clear information
with mean of 2.74; thoughtful practice with mean of 3.38;
intrinsic motivation with mean of 2.96; extrinsic motivation
with mean of 3.34. The informative feedback was not attained
with mean of 2.41. The asynchronous has not attained the
informative feedback on the characteristics of an effective
learning tool as the instructors might be late in releasing the
grades of the students or the students might be late in passing

IJISRT22JUL1078 www.ijisrt.com 1300

Volume 7, Issue 7, July – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IV. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

Based on the indicated findings, the following conclusions [1]. Blake, C. (2021, January 3). Resilient Educator. Retrieved
were drawn: July 2, 2021, from Cultivating Motivation: How to Help
Students Love Learning:
 The flexible learning has a significant difference on the https://resilienteducator.com/classroom-
academic performance of the 2nd year and 3rd year students resources/cultivating-student- motivation/
in Aviation Electronics Technology in Philippine State [2]. Brown, B., Schroeder, M., & Eaton, S. (2016). Institute of
College of Aeronautics. The GWA of the students during Education Sciences. Retrieved July 2, 2021, from
the flexible learning was higher as opposed to traditional Designing Synchronous Online Interactions and
learning. Discussions:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573166.pdf
 The learning tools characteristics in terms of clear [3]. [3] Buenaventura, R. D., Ho, J. B., & Lapid, M. I. (2020,
information, thoughtful practice informative feedback, April 30). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has a significant 20, 2021, from COVID-19 and mental health of older
difference on the academic performance in traditional and adults in the Philippines: a perspective from a developing
synchronous of the students. However, in terms of the country:
thoughtful practice on asynchronous, there was no https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-
significant difference on the mean for the traditional and psychogeriatrics/article/covid19-and-mental-health-of-
asynchronous learning. The students might have higher older-adults-in-the- philippines-a-perspective-from-a-
GWA on the flexible learning but do not really developing-
understand/learn well as opposed to traditional learning that country/CE99711179336AD47C3BDA6C981BEAB4?fb
they might have lower GWA, but they do really clid=IwAR2AOC9k p9kYuqvTpP6lLhOLbR17tV2nX
understand/learn the lesson. [4]. Calhoun, C., Sahay, S., & Wilson, M. (2020). Design for
Learning. Retrieved May 4, 2021, from Instructional
RECOMMENDATION Design Evaluation:
https://edtechbooks.org/id/instructional_design_evaluatio
The effectiveness of flexible learning on the academic n
performance of the students was revealed. Thus, the following [5]. CHED. (2020, May 21). Retrieved May 3, 2021, from
recommendations are hereby presented: Guidelines on the Implementation of Flexible Learning:
https://ched.gov.ph/wp- content/uploads/CMO-No.-4-s.-
 In terms of not attaining the informative feedback in the 2020-Guidelines-on-the-Implementation- of-Flexible-
asynchronous, the researchers recommend the future Learning.pdf
researcher interested to conduct a study on where the [6]. Culatta, R. (2018, May 11). Instructional Design.
discrepancy exists between the students and the instructors. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from History of Instructional
The informative feedback may not be attained due to the late Design: During World War II, when the US military
releasing of grades by the instructors but also it may not be needed to quickly train vast numbers of people to perform
attained due to the late submissions of the requirements by complex technological tasks, the groundwork for
the students. There might be also a shortage in instructors to instructional design was laid (Culatta
handle the class efficiently as there might be a work [7]. Delas Peñas, E. (2020, August 19). SDSN Youth.
overload to the instructors. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from Challenges of Online
Learning vs Traditional Learning for Students:
 The basis of this study was based on the GWA of the https://covid19.sdsnyouthph.org/article.php?id=51
students by general. The researchers recommend to the [8]. Domingo, K. (2020, September 17). ABS-CBN News.
future researchers interested in continuing this study to Retrieved July 1, 2021, from Who are identified rich,
modify further the learning outcome of the students by their poor? Gov't shows income class brackets in PH:
academic performance in terms of examination, quizzes, https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/17/20/who-are-
activities etc. as the discrepancy can also be seen in these identified-rich-poor- govt-shows-income-class-brackets-
parts to further modify the effectiveness. in-ph
[9]. Finol, M. O. (2020, March 26). Bryn Mawr College.
Retrieved May 3, 2021, from Asynchronous vs.
Synchronous Learning: A Quick Overview:
https://www.brynmawr.edu/blendedlearning/asynchrono
us-vs- synchronous-learning-quick-overview

IJISRT22JUL1078 www.ijisrt.com 1301

Volume 7, Issue 7, July – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[10]. Ibyatova, L., Oparina, K., & Rakova, E. (2018, May 25). Retrieved May 30, 2021, from
Modular Approach to Teaching and Learning English https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume11No12/Paper_12-
Grammar in Technical Universities. The_Effectiveness_of_Adopting_e_Learning.pdf
[11]. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, I, [20]. Parajuli, M., & Thapa, A. (2017). Gender Differences in
11. Retrieved July 2, 2021, from the Academic Performance of Students. Journal of
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325368627_M Development and Social Engineering, 9. Retrieved July 1,
ODULAR_APPRO 2021, from
ACH_TO_TEACHING_AND_LEARNING_ENGLISH https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014920630
_GRAMMAR_IN_TEC HNICAL_UNIVERSITIES 202800504?jour nalCode=joma
[12]. Kent State University. (2021, June 28). Retrieved July 1, [21]. Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019, November 12). A
2021, from SPSS TUTORIALS: PAIRED SAMPLES T Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an
TEST: Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course
https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/PairedSamplestT From 2009 to 2016. Original Research, 9.
est doi:10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007
[13]. Laguador, J. (2021, August 8). Challenges Encountered [22]. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools : better thinking and
during Pandemic in Flexible Learning Among College learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.
Students Living in Urban, Rural, and Suburban Areas in Retrieved May 4, 2021
the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational [23]. Rahman, I., Kabir, R., & Al-Bashir, M. (2016). The Value
Perspectives, 8(1), 10. Retrieved May 30, 2021, from and Effectiveness of Feedback in Improving Students’.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/66286591/APJEA Journal of Education and Practice, 4. Retrieved July 2,
S_2021.8.1.02- with-cover-page- 2021, from
v2.pdf?Expires=1626019663&Signature=E441rZ9TTzD https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105282.pdf
0DbTVl7lINsNeUk [24]. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional Design Theory
hPgnX8uUs2SN12Jydiopck0q5TthRILlH0cwaJzNa9nlk (Vol. II). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
GzW58RgRIEP1a7 Associates, Inc., Publishers. Retrieved May 20, 2021,
shsseRWt4kTmRlP5iyM8MdSxQ0L2UemMO59i3qbgi from
XcQHfWCKAep https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OUq5
[14]. Markovic, I. (2020, September 30). Edume. Retrieved 5prZIMEC&oi=fnd
from Why Giving Instant Feedback is Important for &pg=PT18&dq=instructional+design+theory&ots=1MvB
Effective Learning: https://edume.com/blog/role- of- SGUskv&sig=u6kd
feedback-in-improving-learning SfMIpd06hOrCSA7fokH4iZk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage
[15]. Mathewson, T. G. (2019, March 27). The Hechinger &q&f=false
Report. Retrieved July 2, 2021, from How to unlock [25]. Rohani, L., & Francescucci, A. (2018, December 13).
students’ internal drive for learning: Exclusively Synchronous Online (VIRI) Learning: The
https://hechingerreport.org/intrinsic-motivation-is-key- Impact on Student Performance and Engagement
to-student- achievement-but-schools-kill-it/ Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 16. Retrieved
[16]. Mehrbach, L., & Beingessner, C. (2018, August 8). July 2, 2021, from
Getting Smart. Retrieved July 1, 2021, from Why Flexible [26]. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/027347531
Learning Environments?: 8818864?fbclid=IwAR1a
https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/08/why-flexible- i3kJQuut9Quz_LvLcu7lwkPxVl9iYpdhMcNjZ42ITjLLv
learning- environments/ ZdBSpoUCNs
[17]. Meşe, E., & Sevilen, Ç. (2021). Factors influencing EFL [27]. Scheiderer, J. (2021, March 24). The Ohio State
students’ motivation in online learning: A qualitative . University. Retrieved May 3, 2021, from What's the
Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, Difference Between Asynchronous and Synchronous
12. Retrieved July 2, 2021, from Learning?: https://online.osu.edu/resources/learn/whats-
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1286748.pdf difference-between-asynchronous-and-synchronous-
[18]. Neubauer, A. B., Smyth, J. M., & Sliwinski, M. J. (2019, learning
January 1). The Journals of Gerontology. Retrieved July [28]. Shivaramaiah, G. (2018, June 1). Xavier University
1, 2021, from Age Differences in Proactive Coping With School of Medecine. Retrieved July 1, 2021, from
Minor Hassles in Daily Life: Teaching Learning Methods: Traditional vs. Modern vs.
https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/7 Peer-Assisted Learning:
4/1/7/5042148?lo gin=true https://xusom.com/uncategorized/teaching-learning-
[19]. Obeidat, A., Obeidat, R., & Al-Shalabi, M. (2020). The methods-traditional- vs-modern-vs-peer-assisted-
Effectiveness of Adopting e-Learning during COVID-19 learning/
at Hashemite University. International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11, 9.

IJISRT22JUL1078 www.ijisrt.com 1302

Volume 7, Issue 7, July – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[29]. Taneja, V. (2020, May 8). India Today. Retrieved July 1,
2021, from What makes traditional learning or offline
learning so important and why it cannot be completely
eliminated?: https://www.indiatoday.in/education-
today/featurephilia/story/traditional-learning-will-
always-have-a-place-in- our-classrooms-1675692-2020-
05-08
[30]. Uenishi, K. (2019, March 27). The Usefulness of Original
Teaching Materials for Motivation.
doi:10.5772/intechopen.85440
[31]. UNESCO. (2020, May 11). Retrieved April 29, 2021,
from Education: From disruption to recovery:
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
[32]. UNESCO. (2020, April 29). UNESCO. Retrieved April
25, 2021, from 1.3 billion learners are still affected by
school or university closures, as educational institutions
start reopening around the world, says UNESCO:
https://en.unesco.org/news/13-billion-learners-are-still-
affected-school- university-closures-educational-
institutions
[33]. Villanueva, M., & Núñez, J. (2020, July 25). Institute of
Education Sciences. Retrieved July 1, 2021, from A Study
on the Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Emergency
Electronic Learning:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607644.pdf
[34]. Weaver, B. (2021). Scholastic. Retrieved July 2, 2021,
from The Importance of Assessment:
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-
content/importance-assessment/
[35]. Wind, D. K. (2020, November 2). Eduflow. Retrieved
from Synchronous vs Asynchronous Learning: What's
More Effective?:
https://www.eduflow.com/blog/synchronous-vs-
asynchronous-learning- whats-more-effective

IJISRT22JUL1078 www.ijisrt.com 1303