251

1 INTRODUCTION

According to Horton [1], a blended learning approach

utilizes electronic technologies to create learning

experiences. A common definition is also shared by

Clark and Mayer [2] as to which blended learning

approach is delivered through digital devices to

support learning itself. In this nexus of the modern

age where technology is delivering education across

the globe befits the emergence of the blended learning

approach. Also cost reduction in training, education,

and transformed higher education is assured [2, 3]. On

the contrary, the blended learning approach also

poses several pitfalls. First, the limited cognitive

system and instructional fall down (Coherence

Principle). Second, degraded engagement on the

method or boring approach or even less interactive.

Lastly, losing sight of the intended learning outcome

[2].

In the Philippines, the blended learning approach

is synonymous with online learning [4]. However,

Moore, Dickeon – Deane, and Galyen [5] differently

defined online learning from the blended learning

approach as well as distance learning. They also

added that the implicit definition of the term relies on

Blended Learning Approach in Improving Student’s

Academic Performance in Information Communication,

and Technology (ICT)

R.R. Germo

John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University, Iloilo City, Philippines

ABSTRACT: This quasi-experimental study aimed at looking into the effectiveness of blended learning

approach in improving the performance in Information, Communication, and Technology (ICT) Course of

Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation (BSMT) first year students at JBLFMU-Arevalo during the second

semester of school year 2018-2019. The respondents of this research were the two sections comparable with each

other who were enrolled in the subject ICT. There were 40 student respondents composed of 20 in the

experimental group and 20 in the control group. A validated and reliability-tested 45 item researcher-made

multiple choice test was used as an instrument with a Cronbach index of 0.88. The statistical tools used were

mean, standard deviation, Mann-Whitney test, and Wilcoxon-Signed ranks test set at .05 level of significance.

The effect size was computed to determine the effectiveness of the blended learning approach in terms of

students’ performance in ICT. Results showed that in the pretest, though the experimental group had a higher

mean score than the control group, the Mann-Whitney test showed that the mean scores of the two groups were

comparable because the significant value was greater than .05. When the treatment was introduced, findings

showed that there were significant differences in the ICT performance in the pretest and posttest of

experimental and control groups as well as in the posttests of both groups. Results inferred that blended

learning approach was more than a hundred percent effective showing significant results on the experimental

group. It could also be inferred that the better performance of the control group could be attributed to the

traditional method of teaching, the lecture method.

http://www.transnav.eu

the

International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 16

Number 2

June 2022

DOI:

10.12716/1001.16.02.07

252

the author’s explicit definition. In addition; they also

stated that uncertainties of the definition become the

characteristics of the term “blended learning

approach” and it may be of any form as long as it can

provide a learning opportunity for an individual [6].

For a blended learning approach experience to be

authentic, Herrington, Reeves and Oliver [7] state that

it must follow the foundation in the theory of situated

cognition or situated learning with the application of

technology associated pedagogical approaches to

blend the course [2]. Esteves [8] even ventured the

application of social media for the enhancement of

learning.

For the blended learning approach experience to

be effective, it must follow the four key processes

outlined [2]. In addition, they also added the three

blended learning approach architectures - Receptive,

directive and guided discovery. However, there are

fewer papers for each individual architecture which in

turn be an opening for more studies to be conducted.

To fill in some interesting parts, Hrastinski [9] stated

that there are two types of blended learning

approaches namely: asynchronous [10, 11]. In

addition, Horton [1] also stated his different varieties

of blended learning approach which includes:

standalone course, learning games and simulations,

mobile learning, social learning, and virtual classroom

courses.

Modern Philippine educational instruction,

especially focused on higher education systems are

slowly pacing for blended learning approach

ventures. Interestingly, the University of the

Philippines Open University (UPOU) ventures for

mobile learning approach [1] to tap excluded sectors

of the Filipino society to reach their online learning

programs [4]. (Access to technology as indeed been a

challenge in implementing a blended learning

approach for developing countries like the Philippines

[12]. Further challenges include technological

awareness, curriculum design, motivation, and

learner’s behavior [13].

The rapid growth of computers and network

communication systems with the upbringing of

modern educational instructions has made

Information, Communication, and Technology (ICT) a

superb media in transforming education. ICT also

reaches far out to technology as much as cloud

computing. Nowadays, many are venturing for the

application of cloud computing in delivering a

blended learning approach namely: blended learning

approach cloud [14]. To add, ICT has been proven to

create a paradigm shift of Philippine educational

instruction methods and thus blended learning

approach has been embraced as a means of delivering

efficient and low-cost quality education [15]. ICT and

blended learning approaches have proven to address

educational development effectively as stated by

Button, Harrington, and Belan [16] for a blended

learning approach in nursing education.

This study comes with several critical reasons. First

and foremost is the introduction of blended learning

approach for maritime education systems especially in

the course of ICT. Second, the challenge for modern

instruction parallel to the rise of technology. Third,

the challenge to deliver quality, low cost and effective

education for the maritime workforce. Fourth, the

assessment of effectiveness of blended learning

approach course to the maritime students. Lastly, to

address the challenges of modern shipping in a way

of technological education with the help of modern

pedagogy as well as the rapid assimilation of

education to the leading maritime workforce supplier

of the world.

This study is anchored under the learning theories

for online education specifically the Theory of

Connectivism developed by Siemens [17] that

acknowledges major shifts in the way knowledge and

information flows, grows, and changes because of vast

data communication networks as well as guide the

development of effective learning materials together

with the application of other existing learning

theories.

Generally, this study aimed to determine the

effectiveness of blended learning approach to improve

the students’ academic performance in ICT.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Research Design

The quasi-experimental method of research was

utilized to effectively answer the questions relating to

the effectiveness of blended learning approach in

improving the student performance in ICT. According

to David [18] quasi-experimental design is nearly the

same as true experimental designs, except that the

former do not have restrictions of random assignment.

The study is a quasi-experimental in structure

since it uses two comparable groups of respondents.

The first group was the “Experimental Group” where

the intervention was applied and the other was the

“Control Group” where the traditional instruction

method is to be applied. In this case, the experimental

group shall receive the blended learning approach

intervention. Furthermore, in line with the objectives

of this research, a pretest-posttest method is to be

employed. The idea is to assess the respondents’

initial and final performances. At the same time,

assess their growth after the intervention. This is done

as to solely isolate the effectiveness of the intervention

with negligible factors affecting the results.

This pretest-posttest quasi-experimental research

design determines the effectiveness of blended

learning approach in improving the student

performance in ICT among first year BSMT students

during the first semester of school year 2019–2020.

2.2 Participants

The participants of this research were two intact

sections relatively comparable first year BS Marine

Transportation sections of the JBLFMU-Arevalo in

Iloilo City, who were enrolled in the course ICT

during the second semester of school year 2019-2020.

They were selected through match-group design

using their General Weighted Average (GWA) in the

second semester, school year 2018-2019. There was a

total of 40 students composed of 20 in the

experimental group and 20 in the control group. The

253

tossing of coin was used to determine the

experimental and control group. The head was

assigned for experimental group and the tail for

control group.

2.3 Instrument

A Table of Specification (TOS) was used to create the

questionnaire. It underwent content validity and

reliability-testing of 0.88 using Kuder-Richardson 20

set at .05 level of significance. Then after, a 45-item

researcher-made multiple choice test was made that

comprises topics from prelim to final was used in this

study.

The topics were taken from the prelim, midterm,

and final lessons which included the following:

Introduction to Computer Concept, Windows and

Desktop, Word Processor and Application

Spreadsheet and Application, Main Features of Data

Processing System Software and Management,

Hardware and System Technology Basic Construction

and Use of Computer Networks on Ships, Bridge-

Based and Shipboard Computer Application, and

Basic Hardware, Software and Network

Troubleshooting. The study was conducted from June

2019 to October 2019 of the school year 2019-2020.

2.4 Data Collection

The data needed for this study were gathered through

the use of achievement tests in pretest and posttest.

The pretest was submitted for preliminary validation

to a panel of jurors selected for their expertise in terms

of content and appropriateness of instrument.

Pre-and post-tests were administered to both

experimental and control groups. During the first-

class session, the researcher administered the pretest

to the experimental and the control group. This set of

data was tagged as the “pre-course” data.

The experimental group and control group were

handled by 2/M Karl Danielle Sira, an ICT Instructor.

The experimental group who are the section Polaris 1

A was taught according to blended learning approach

using online session using Blackboard OLMS and

lecture-class discussion. On the other hand, section

Bowline the control group was taught the course

employing only the traditional lecture-class

discussion method. The intervention lasted for two

months, i.e. 18 weeks during the first semester of

school year 2019-2020.

2.5 Data Analysis

The statistical tools used in this study were the

following:

Mean was used to determine the students’

performance in the pretest and posttest. The mean

scale and description for interpreting the pretest and

posttest scores is shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Mean scale and description for interpreting the

pretest and posttest scores

_______________________________________________

Mean scale Description Indicators

_______________________________________________

36.04 – 45.0 Excellent Students have mastered all the

competencies

27.03 – 36.03 Very good Students have mastered most

of the competencies

18.02 – 27.02 Good Students have mastered at the

average competencies

9.01 – 18.01 Fair Students have mastered few

competencies.

1.0 – 9.0 Poor Students have mastered very

few competencies

_______________________________________________

Standard deviation was used to determine the

level of the students’ homogeneity in their ICT course

performance.

Mann-Whitney test was used to determine the

significant differences in the pretests and posttests of

two groups in ICT and for the significant difference in

the mean gain of the pretest and posttest of the

experimental and control groups set at .05 level of

significance.

Wilcoxon-Signed ranks test was used to determine

the significant differences in the pretest and posttest

of two groups in ICT set at .05 level of significance.

Effect size was used to determine the effectiveness

of the blended learning approach in terms of students’

performance in ICT. This is done by using the means

and standard deviation in the posttest among the

experimental and the control groups.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Pretest Score Performance of the Experimental and

Control Groups

The pretest was initially conducted to determine the

comparableness between the experimental and the

control groups in terms of cognitive levels. The

posttest was given to the respondents after the

experiment.

Table 2 shows the pretest scores among the

experimental and control groups. Twenty students

composed the experimental group and 20 for the

control group.

The experimental group’s pretest mean score is

19.15 described as “Good” (students have mastered at

the average competencies) while the controls group’s

mean score is 17.95 described as “Fair” (students have

mastered few competencies).

It is noted that the experimental and control

groups registered comparably the same mean scores

in the pretest, indicating their almost identical

cognitive levels before the experiment. This is closely

similar with the results of Navallasca, Damarcus, and

Atanacio [19] where the experimental group results a

higher mean compared to the control group.

However, when tested statistically, they are non-

significantly different with each other denoting that

the two groups are homogenous. Similarly, Simkins

and Allen [20], Kirk [21], and Aidoo, Boateng, Kissi,

and Ofori [22] coheres with this fact.

254

Table 2 Pretest Score Performance in ICT of the

Experimental and Control Groups

_______________________________________________

Compared Group n M Description SD

_______________________________________________

Experimental 20 19.15 Good 2.30

Control 20 17.95 Fair 3.14

_______________________________________________

3.2 Posttest Score Performance of the Experimental and

Control Groups

Table 3 shows the posttest scores among the

experimental and the control groups. The

experimental group’s posttest mean score is 29.95

while that of the control group is 27.05. Both means

scores are described as “Very Good” (students have

mastered most of the competencies).

On the other hand, the experimental group

manifested a higher mean score in the posttest than

the control group, implying that the experimental

group’s better performance in ICT after the

experiment. In conjunction, González-Gómez, Jeong,

Rodríguez, and Cañada-Cañada [23] agrees that

blended learning obtains higher results to traditional

methods. Israel [24] states the same.

Table 3 Posttest Score Performance in ICT of the

Experimental and Control Groups

_______________________________________________

Compared Group n M Description SD

_______________________________________________

Experimental 20 29.95 Very Good 2.84

Control 20 27.05 Very Good 2.68

_______________________________________________

3.3 Difference in the Pretest Score Performance in ICT

between the Experimental and Control Groups

Table 4 reveals that there is no significant difference in

the pretest scores of experimental and control groups,

U = 164.50, p = .331. This means that both groups

possess the same knowledge in ICT.

Relevant to the assessment of learning, Simkins

and Allen [20] defined pretest as an assessment of

fundamental knowledge of students and as a starting

point of assistive learning. Aidoo, Boateng, Kissi, and

Ofori [22] supports the results as pretests denote the

constancy of their cognitive capacities.

Table 4. Mann-Whitney test result for the significant

difference on the pretest score performance between the

experimental and control groups on knowledge in

swimming and life-saving techniques.

_______________________________________________

Compared group U W Z Asymp. sig.

( 2-tailed)

_______________________________________________

Experimental 91.50* 301.50 -2.95 0.003

Control

_______________________________________________

Note. ns means not significant at .05 level of probability.

3.4 Difference in the Posttest Score Performance in ICT

between the Experimental and Control Groups

Table 5 reveals that there is a significant difference in

the posttest scores of experimental and control

groups, U = 93.50, p = .004.

The experimental group is better than the control

group. This can be supported by the larger mean

scores (see Tables 1 and 2) as compared to the control

group as well as the higher mean gain that can be

gleaned later in Table 7. This simply implies that

blended learning is an effective intervention.

Dickinson [25] cited the fact that curriculum

intervention intensifies learning which is apparent on

the results. This was also supported by Navallasca,

Dumaicos, and Atanacio [19] and Metzler [26] stating

that an intervention with a successive and smooth

flow of activities embedded in the curricula is

effective in increasing learning.

Table 5. Mann-Whitney Test Result for the Significant

Difference in the Posttest Score Performance in ICT between

the Experimental and Control Groups

_______________________________________________

Compared group U W Z Asymp. sig.

(2-tailed)

_______________________________________________

Experimental 93.50* 303.50 -2.90 .004

Control

_______________________________________________

Note. Asterisk (*) means significant at .05 level of

probability.

3.5 Difference in the Pretest Score Performance in ICT

between the Experimental and Control Groups

The students’ pretest and posttest mean scores were

compared to determine their significant difference.

Table 6 reveals that there is a significant difference

in the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental

group, Z = -3.93, p = .000. This means that the

experimental group’s performance after the

intervention is significantly better than before the

intervention.

The experimental group’s performance after the

intervention is significantly better before the

intervention. Notwithstanding with today’s modern

age where students learn of the digital world at an

earlier age, the values denote that blended learning

provides a greater experience in assimilating

knowledge [23- 27].

Table 6. Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks Test Result for the

Significant Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Score

Performance in ICT of the Experimental Group

_______________________________________________

Compared test Z Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)

_______________________________________________

Pretest -3.93* .000

Posttest

_______________________________________________

Asterisk (*) means significance at .05 level of probability.

3.6 Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Score

Performance in ICT of the Control Group

Table 7 reveals that there is a significant difference in

the pretest and posttest scores of control group, Z = -

3.94, p = .000. This simply shows that the control

group’s posttest performance is significantly better

than their pretest performance.

Although blended learning is highly effective as

modified curricula, the traditional methods were also

effective in delivering knowledge [28]. The proof of

time is evident at such that the traditional methods

are still observed. However, since the traditional

curricula was also a modified one, Metzler [26]

adheres with the results

255

Table 7, Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks Test Result for the

Significant Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Score

Performance in ICT of the Control Group

_______________________________________________

Compared test Z Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)

_______________________________________________

Pretest -3.94 .000

Posttest

_______________________________________________

Note. Asterisk (*) means significant at .05 level of

probability.

3.7 Mean Gains of the Experimental and Control Groups

Table 8 shows the mean gains of the experimental and

control groups. It shows that the mean gain in their

scores in ICT of the experimental group is higher than

the control group.

The active theme of the blended learning

stimulates the learner to seek further knowledge. This

was evident to Metzler [26]. Thus, the harmonized use

of blended learning gains a larger mean gain

compared to the traditional form with better results

compared to the other [23, 24]. As a result, Potter’s

[27] implications would guarantee a higher mark for

those who undergo blended learning.

Table 8. Mean Gains Between the Experimental and Control

Groups

_______________________________________________

Compared group Pretest Posttest Mean Gain

_______________________________________________

Experimental 19.15 29.95 10.80

Control 17.95 27.05 9.10

_______________________________________________

3.8 Difference in the Mean Gains of the Experimental and

Control Groups

Table 9 reveals that there is no significant difference in

the mean gains of experimental and control groups, U

= -155.50, p = .004.

For mean gains, the experimental group is better as

compared to the control group as showed on the

mean gain of scores. However, there is no significant

difference with each other. It can be inferred that the

intervention was effective as the traditional method,

however, slightly more effective than the traditional

ones.

The mean gains are not significant for both groups

but the posttests of both groups are significantly

different. With this, despite the absence of significance

on both groups’ mean gains, the experimental group

which is the blended learning approach is

significantly better than the control group.

The development of instructional models as stated

by Foster, Shurtz, and Pepper [29] guarantees higher

ratings when there is a successful utilization of the

developmental processes which is aligned to the

claims of Metzler [26]. The effectivity of both

instructional models has both achieved results.

However circumstantial, blended learning has proved

better as an instructional model as it is significantly

different to its posttest results which implies a greater

learning tool [23, 24, 27].

Table 9. Mann-Whitney Test for the Significant Difference in

the Mean Gains of the Experimental and Control Groups

_______________________________________________

Compared group U W Z Asymp. sig.

(2-tailed)

_______________________________________________

Experimental 155.50

365.50 -1.21 .226

Control

_______________________________________________

Note. ns means not significant at .05 level of probability.

The effectiveness of the blended learning approach

in terms of students’ performance in ICT was

quantified using the effect size. Using the means and

standard deviation in the posttest among the

experimental and the control groups, the value of the

effect size is 1.05. This means that the effect size was

large and the intervention was more than a hundred

percent effective [30- 32].

4 CONCLUSIONS

The experimental group appeared to have learned

significantly better in their ICT lessons after having

been subjected to the blended learning approach than

the control group. It was shown that the blended

learning approach was an effective teaching styles in

teaching ICT course.

In modern pedagogy where student centered

approach is widely applied, the means of learning of

students greatly attribute as to how the subject matter

is thoroughly delivered. Through and through,

modern technology is affecting basic education and

replacing traditional teaching methods. In effect,

technology is harnessed to be a guiding tool for

efficient learning by assimilating tools and methods of

orderly fashioned learning resource techniques that

stimulates cognitive absorption of knowledge and

thus enabling continuous and smooth learning output

and retention and that is blended learning approach.

However, learning may have barriers as to the

nature of a 21st century learner. Despite this, being

traditional and modern instruction may be way

separate in delivering learning. Attitudes and

epistemology of a learner are also believed to be a

factor. Nonetheless, triumph to modern and classic

pedagogy is attributed to the bond shared between a

teacher and a learner with trust as a key despite the

difference of instructional medium.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher is grateful to the Commission on Higher

Education (CHED) for funding this research through the

Institutional Development and Innovation Grant (IDIG).

REFERENCES

1. Horton, W. 2011. E-learning by Design. Retrieved

fromhttps://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=q

a8UU9xru_wC&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&d

q=e+learning+definitions&ots=UM8JgHhazk&sig=Ccmy

EuAd43jvprmipVS8lMp6ct8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q

=e%20learning%20definitions&f=false

256

2. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. 2016. E-Learning and the

Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers

and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id= v1uz

CgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=e+learning&ots=TM

wLiLeL8k&sig=ptpSAhY4lBdwAaQ9a0mksOJKCQ&red

ir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=e%20learning&f=false

3. Garrison, D. R. 2011. E-learning in the 21st Century: A

Framework for Research and Practice. Retrieved from

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books /9781136879913

4. Pena-Bandalaria, M. M. D. 2009. E-learning in the

Philippines: Trends, directions, and challenges.

International Journal on E-Learning, 8(4), 495-510.

5. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. 2011. e-

Learning, online learning, and distance learning

environments: Are they the same?. The Internet and

Higher Education, 14(2), 129-135.

6. Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. 2012.

Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An

approach to the conceptual framework. The

International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 13(2), 145-159.

7. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. 2009. A

Guide to Authentic E-learning. Retrieved from

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/

eprint/1903/1/ a_guide_to_authentic_learning.pdf

8. Esteves, K. K. 2012. Exploring facebook to enhance

learning and student engagement: a case from the

University of Philippines (UP) Open University.

Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 115.

9. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-

learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.

10. Adrian, L. A. D. O. (2013). Asynchronous E-learning.

Retrieved from http://web. rau.ro/websites/e-

society/lucrari/adrian%20lado.pdf

11. Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. 2007.

Synchronous E-learning. The eLearning Guild.

Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.

com/academia.edu.documents/32520313/synchronousbo

ok.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A

&Expires=1538987905&Signature=0xYNJ2g4pMNYxxa7

5wmr2oAFoKA%3D&response-content-

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSynchronous_e-

Learning_The_eLearning_Gui.pdf

12. Andersson, A., & Grönlund, Å. 2009. A conceptual

framework for e‐learning in developing countries: A

critical review of research challenges. The Electronic

Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries,

38(1), 1-16

13. Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., &

Ciganek, A. P. 2012. Critical success factors for e-

learning in developing countries: A comparative

analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers

and Education, 58(2), 843-855.

14. Masud, M. A. H., & Huang, X. 2012. An e-learning

system architecture based on cloud computing. System,

10(11), 255-259.

15. Acosta, M. 2016. Paradigm shift in open education and

e-learning resources as teaching and learning in

Philippines. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 4(2), 161-172.

16. Button, D., Harrington, A., & Belan, I. (2014). E-learning

& information communication technology (ICT) in

nursing education: A review of the literature. Nurse

Education Today, 34(10), 1311-1323.

17. Siemens, G. 2004. Connectivism: A Learning Theory

for the Digital Age. Retrieved from

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

18. David, F. 2005. Understanding and doing research: A

handbook for beginners. Jaro, Iloilo City: Panorama

Printing Inc.

19. Navallasca, M.C., Dumaicos, M., & Atancaio, F. 2017.

The use of problem-based learning (PBL) in improving

the student performance in navigation 3. Journal of

Shipping and Ocean Engineering, 4, 161-167.

20. Simkins, S., & Allen, S. 2000. Pretesting students to

improve teaching and learning. International Advances

in Economic Research, 6 (1), 100-112. doi:

10.1007/BF02295755,Wellness, and Brain Development.”

The Journal of School Health 85 (10): 704-13.

21. Kirk, R. E. 2009. Experimental design. In R. Millsap

and A. Maydeu-Olivares

(Eds.). Sage handbook of quantitative methods in

psychology (pp. 23–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22. Aidoo, B., Boateng, S., Kissi, P., & Ofori, I.N. 2016.

Effect of problem-based learning on students’

achievement in chemistry. Journal of Education and

Practice, 7, 103-108.

23. González-Gómez, D., Jeong, J. S., Rodríguez, D. A., &

Cañada-Cañada, F. 2016. Performance and perception

in the flipped learning model: An initial approach to

evaluate the effectiveness of a new teaching

methodology in a general science classroom. Journal of

Science and Education Technology, 25 (3), 450-459.

24. Israel, M. J. 2015. Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs

in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students.

International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 16 (5), 102-118.

25. Dickinson, D. 2011. Teachers’ language practices and

academic outcomes of preschool children. Science, 333,

964 – 967.

26. Metzler, M. 2017. Instructional models in physical

education (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

27. Potter, J. (2015). Applying a hybrid model: Can it

enhance student learning outcomes? Journal of

Instructional Pedagogies, 17, 1-11.

28. Olicia, J. V. 2016. An Action Research on the

Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction in Teaching

English for Grade Four Classes. Retrieved from

https://www.teacherph.com/sample-action-research-

about- education/

29. Foster, M., Shurtz, S., & Pepper, C. 2014. Evaluation of

best practices in the design of online evidence-based

practice instructional modules. Journal of the Medical

Library Association, 102 (1), 31-40.

30. Bartolucci, A. A., Tendera, M., & Howard, G. 2011.

Meta-analysis of multiple primary prevention trials of

cardiovascular events using aspirin. The American

Journal of Cardiology, 107(12), 1796-1801.

31. Carson C. 2012. The Effective Use of Effect Size Indices

in Institutional Research. Retrieved from

http://www.keene.edu/ir/effect_size.pdf.

32. Coe, R. 2002. It's the Effect Size, Stupid: What “Effect

Size” is and Why it is Important. Retrieved from

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/

00002182.htm