Available online at ijci.wcci-international.

org
IJCI
International Journal of
International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2)
Curriculum and Instruction
(2022) 1343–1358

Flexible learning and its effectiveness in teaching

college subjects amidst Covid 19 Pandemic
Ramil Arciosa a *
a Sultan Kudarat State University, College of Teacher Education(CTE),; Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, Philippines

Abstract
The aim of the study is to determine the effectiveness of Flexible Learning using the three (3) online
teaching platforms; (i) Sultan Kudarat State University Electronic Learning Delivery System (SKSU
ELEADS); (ii) Facebook Group; (iii) Google meet. In the study, descriptive and experimental method was
adapted. In descriptive side, where one hundred thirty-eight (138) respondents, a Bachelor of Elementary
Education (BEED 2-All Sections) of College Teacher Education(CTE) of Sultan Kudarat State University
(SKSU), First Semester, Academic year 2020-2021. The respondents are randomly selected for online survey
through Google forms for the Flexible learning in terms of three (3) qualities; Content, Technical and
Instructional. In Finale, where the effectiveness of flexible learning is through pre and post-test scheme of
almost one month, discussed the chapter 1 of the subject -EDDMATH 2 entitled ‘Teaching strategies of
Intermediate mathematics’ as one major subject of the proponents. The data were analyzed via descriptive
mean, comparison of mean and ANOVA as statistical analysis of this study. The results revealed that the
difference weighted mean between the pre-test and post-test is 10.16, which signified a clear graphical
presentation of positive skewed in all respondents, which signified the effectiveness of flexible learning. In
terms of qualities of three (3) online learning modalities like FB Group, Google Meet and SKSU ELEADS,
where Google Meet got a highest mean of 3.68, as indicated that respondents need an interactive discussion
even though there is no Face to Face(F2F), due to COVID-19 pandemic era. Among the three (3) online
learning platforms, Facebook Group(FG) got F (7,6) = 9.617, p < 0.05 and significantly liked among the
respondents due to easy accessibility in rural areas.
Keywords: Flexible learning, Google meet, Facebook group, Sultan Kudarat State University(SKSU)
Electronic Delivery System(ELEADS)

© 2016 IJCI & the Authors. Published by International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (IJCI). This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The rate of change in the development of teaching and learning styles among educators
during this COVID 19 pandemic, affects the effectiveness of the process in gaining knowledge
from every learner’s perspective (Korkmaz & Mirici, 2021). Every achievement requires a great
effort from all parties in the education pedagogy, the most affected system in the whole academic
endeavor. The pre-Covid 19 pandemic conditions in education are already reflected in
* Corresponding author Ramil Arciosa. ORCID ID.: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2993-8185
E-mail address: [email protected]
1344 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) so that some reputable HEIs (Higher
Education Institutions) in the Philippines already adopt this kind of electronic learning(e-learning)
or online learning. According to Pawilen, G.T. (2021), this should be emphasized and he
suggested its recommendation as a model in universities and colleges, for use in planning for an
effective and efficient implementation of flexible learning. The Sultan Kudarat State
University(SKSU) is using an official interactive online platform called SKSU ELEADS
(Electronic Learning delivery system) which was launched this academic year 2021. Before the
launching of SKSU ELEADS as the official online platform to be used by faculty of the College
of Teacher Education (CTE) at SKSU Access Campus, the teachers were already using the
common online platforms such as Google Meet, Zoom and Face Book Group as the main online
platforms. The online classes are smoothly operating and are in normal condition despite many
complains about their technical qualities. In their study, Camara et. al. (2021) found that unstable,
weak, and poor internet connections as well as uncomfortable teaching and learning spaces at
home appear to pose as the greatest barriers for online learning to both faculty and students.
Furthermore, the study noted that Pangasinan State University (PSU) was quick to implement an
online learning platform but found that the gadgets available for use by a number of respondents
could not run the app, or, at least, run its full features, and, which led to another challenge found
on the difficulty to download teaching and learning resources using the software. The Philippine
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are adopting this trend of using online learning pursuant to
the Commission on Higher Education(CHED,2020) CHED COVID-19 Advisory No. 6, the
ECQ in Luzon, Philippines. The Commission granted considerable flexibility to HEIs as they
were advised to deploy available flexible learning and other alternative forms of delivery instead of
on-campus learning. Students who did not have internet access were given the option of meeting
the class requirements after the ECQ was lifted.
Due to the Covid 19 pandemic, higher education worldwide is one of the important
sectors that are really affected, particularly the no face-to-face instruction, because of the Covid
19 virus that very highly contagious disease that might hit both teachers and young adults. The
study of Delgado, J. E. & Arellano, J. (2021), stipulated that offering flexible learning could be a
great adjustment to graduate students taking up PhD courses in Samar State University(SSU), and
does not affect or impede learning for their professional advancement and growth. Furthermore,
despite flexible learning, taking advantage of online classes, not traveling to school, skills
developed to apply in the teaching and learning process in the workplace are more necessary. Due
to disruptions in internet connection disruption during student interaction, the graduate students
described their experience of taking their online classes as embarrassing. The quality of online
learning is hampered due to the schools lack of preparedness in terms of the ICT(Information
Communication Technology) infrastructure and students are really the ones affected by this full
shift to online education. Barrera,K.L.,Jaminal, B., & Arcilla, F. (2020), revealed in their study that
the JHS, SHS, College, and Teachers of Saint Michael College of Caraga, are ready for flexible
learning, for the majority of the respondents have smartphones, laptops and can connect to the
internet through mobile data and Wi-Fi providers, where smartphones, laptops and an internet
connections are the technical requirements for online education. The main agendum here is the
effectiveness of the online learning from the student’s side, where the internet connection is the
major problem both among the learners and teachers. Moralista, R. & Oducado, R. M. (2020),
emphasized that the faculty significantly differed whether they are in favor of online education
Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358 1345

based on age, sex, college, educational attainment, years in teaching, academic rank, level taught
and employment status. At the same time, Facultys of Higher Education Institutions must be
provided with continued support and training as they adapt to the new normal in the higher
education landscape and as they embrace the instructional challenges brought by the Coronavirus
disease 19 pandemic. Joaquin, J. J. B., Biana, H. T., & Dacela, M. A. (2020), reiterated in their
study that the Philippines should venture into a new mode of learning. Several factors need to be
considered such as the following: [i]teacher capacity; [ii] situation and context of the learner, and
[iv] efficiency of the learning environment. In their assessment, the study reiterated the more
obvious issues of internet speed, cost of materials, and mode of delivery. Further, the best way to
move forward is to take a step back and design a strategy that engages teachers, students, parents,
school administrators, and technology-based companies. Lagat, K. T. (2020) stated in his study
that faculty members, in general, considered flexible learning strategies to be slightly difficult to
implement, as a significant relationship was also found between the faculty members’ generational
age and their perceived difficulty in the Instructional Approach and resources domain. The
findings of this study suggest capacity building initiatives to address the identified difficult flexible
learning strategies of the faculty members. Abisado et. al (2020) ,revealed in their study that when
the students do not have any access to the Internet, different ways can be done to deliver through
the barangay when the students live in the remote and far areas and there should be a
asynchronous course delivery consisting of the design of outcomes-based teaching and learning
plan, course materials, scheduled on-line and face-to-face meetings, technology, and center for
technology education. Laguador (2021) revealed in his study that almost half of the students have
a moderate level of challenges encountered in conducting flexible learning where they expressed
difficult problems on the achievement of learning outcomes and attendance to a synchronous
learning classes with low internet connectivity as well as loss of electricity as major concerns in
rural areas. On the other hand, students from urban areas have the luxury of time to ask for
technical assistance from people within the city where their internet problems can be easily fixed
because of their proximity. Finally, he noted that the economic aspect of flexible learning is
considered an issue among the students regardless of their location. Students from suburban areas
felt that they were receiving less support from their family members. Students from rural areas
have expressed significantly more difficult challenges in terms of limited communication with
teachers, while there are moderate challenges with the delivery of instruction and achievement of
learning outcomes regardless of location. The COVID 19 pandemic forced the Philippines Higher
Education Institutions to use different online platform modalities. Mobo (2020) suggested that
there is a new alternative flexible learning that will ease up the situation of the current pandemic
in all education levels, including the integration of Virtual Reality of AR learning content as part
of the educational authoring tools, a web-based platform for the development of augmented
content, the distribution of which is accomplished through standardized Learning Management
Systems (LMS) using SCORM packages library.
The main reason that the Sultan Kudarat State University Academic Office launched and
initiated an an official online platform called SKSU ELEADS is to cater to all online teaching
peripherals. The Internet infrastructure is the main problem as these flexible learning started way
back 2019. The study of Gogotano et. al. (2021) also shows that most students possess just
mobile phones and use mobile data as their primary internet access, ranging from moderate to
poor connections. The majority are not fully equipped with adequate skills in digital media.
1346 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

Finally, they revealed that among the challenges are students experiencing the unavailability of a
network, economic instability, digital divide, shortage of digital devices, distractive learning
environment, expensive internet data, health-related problems, lack of resources, lack of digital
literacy skills, and loss of motivation .They also found out that even if flexible online learning is
the best solution for the university to replace face-to-face classes, it is not the best applicable and
suitable to all students living in rural areas or other places with unstable network, and, students
who belong to financially unstable families. The study of Tarrayo et.al (2021) discussed how the
learning content could be affected in online teaching, particularly flexible learning, However, the
most crucial concerns include comprehension of learning content, student engagement, and
internet connectivity, which were likewise claimed by the participants as disadvantages of flexible
learning. In the international setting, the surge of the COVID 19 also affected higher education
because the nature of the traditional school settings was changed into the online modality of
learning. Kummitha et.al (2020) remarked that the digital divide and lack of institutional
preparedness are found to be major problems that constrain the effective implementation of
online teaching/learning, and their should be training programmes for faculty members to utilize
web resources and facilitate online teaching. They pointed out that the instance and lack of
preparation for full implementation of flexible learning affect the quality of education that
learners should attain. Furthermore, they emphasized that the best indicator where online
learning could be successful in its implementation during the Covid 19 pandemic were through
their numeric achievements which denote the exact values of the increase or decrease in the
degree of learning in the learner’s side. Ali (2020) revealed that universities worldwide are moving
increasingly towards online learning or E- Learning and in which resources, staff readiness,
confidence, student accessibility, and motivation play important functions in Information
Communication Technology(ICT) integrated learning. Furthermore, they propose online and
remote learning as a necessity in times of lockdowns or social distancing due to COVID-19
pandemic. Agormedah et. al. (2020) concluded that students had a positive response to online
learning, known of online learning, and some of the platforms like UCC, Moodle platform,
Alison, and Google Classroom. They would also like to use other social media platforms. Further,
they would use a smart phones and laptops for online learning. However, they had a negative
response to online learning (not ready/prepared) because they lacked formal orientation and
training, perceived lack of constant access to internet connectivity, and financial unpreparedness.
Finally, the management of the university should provide resources to help students assess
whether they are ready to take an online course and offer suggestions for preparation. Taylor-Guy
& Chase (2020) revealed that the lecturer may deliver the same lecture or go a tutorial via video
that they would deliver face-to-face and they may use online discussion boards or chat rooms to
try and replicate small group work in tutorials. Finally, they also emphasized that the students may
work through course materials on their own and have little connection with each other or their
lecturer beyond real-time video or chat interactions. Further, their research shows that these sorts
of practices – which can be more accurately described as “remote learning” rather than “online
learning” - promote student disengagement and dropout.
As a researcher, the writer was motivated in pursuing this study to determine the effectiveness
of the current trends in online education, particularly the methodology like flexible learning as the
main mode of teaching and learning process. The following questions were the researcher want to
find :
Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358 1347

1. What are the respondents’ perceptions on the content, technical, and instructional quality
of the three (3) online learning modalities?
2. What is the pretest and posttest of the respondents?
3. Is there a significant difference in the achievement of the respondents under the three (3)
online learning platforms?
4. Are there significant differences among the three(3) online platforms ?

The researcher wants to recognize the positive effects of flexible learning despite the limited
online learning materials. The study of Gayeta (2020) stated that considering the global epidemic,
the positive attitude of teachers in State Universities and Colleges(SUCs) and Private Universities
and Colleges(PUCs) towards educational challenges and opportunities is very optimistic. Teachers
have a strong sense of duty and are active in incorporating interactive learning in remote areas.
The use of computer technology is very valuable. Furthermore, in his case study shows how the
Higher Education of the Philippines reacted to the need to challenge the current situation of the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and provides a high-quality and excellent education to
students through the Higher Education Commission. The most affected in this flexible learning
are the students/learners who really need education, but have problems with the
hardware(materials, peripherals) and software(people) components of the flexible learning. The
study of Lazaga and Madrigal (2021) emphasized that online learning makes students lazy, lack
motivation to learn due to lack of internet connection, confusion, and adjustment to the online
platform modality.

2. Method

The researcher gathered the data through an online survey using google forms on the
perception of the respondents in terms of the quality of the three(3) online platforms, namely:
content, technical and instructional perceptions among five(5) sections of respondents, namely
:Bachelor in Elementary Education (BEED) section 2A, Bachelor in Elementary Education
(BEED) section 2B, Bachelor in Elementary Education (BEED) section 2C, Bachelor in
Elementary Education (BEED) section 2D and Bachelor in Elementary Education (BEED)
section 2E. This two hundred twenty-two(222) respondents are all students of the researcher in
their subject course EDDMATH 2 with its descriptive title ‘ Strategies in Teaching Elementary
Mathematics’ in the College of Teacher Education(CTE), Sultan Kudarat State University
(SKSU)- Access campus, located at EJC Montilla, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, 2nd semester
2020-2021. Further , the respondents went through a pretest posttest in their Chapter 1/unit
competency 1(UC1) for 25 items of multiple choice. The said subject was all about set theory
using the SKSU Eleads assessment tool. Lastly , the researchers used the IBM SPSS software in
the analysis of the data.

3. Results

What are the respondents’ perceptions in terms of content, technical, and instructional qualities of
the three(3) online learning modalities ?
1348 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

Table 3.1 The Respondents’ perception in terms of the Three(3) Qualities of SKSU Eleads
Online Learning Platform.
N Range Minimum Maximu Mean Std. Variance
m Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Statistic Statistic

Error
SKSULeads_2A 14 .78 3.03 3.81 3.40 .054 0.20 .041
SKSUELeads_2B 14 .82 2.96 3.78 3.33 .062 0.23 .054
SKSULeads_2C 14 1.58 2.21 3.79 2.70 .100 0.38 .140
SKSULeads_2D 14 1.48 2.63 4.11 3.40 .088 0.33 .109
SKSULeads_2E 14 1.55 2.17 3.72 2.94 .093 0.35 .120
Mean 14 1.24 2.6 3.84 3.15 0.0794 0.30 0.093
Legend: 0 -2.3 – Fair ; 2.4 – 3.4 – Good ; 3.5- 4.4 – Very Good ; 4.5 – 5.0 - Excellent

Table 3.1 shows the perception of one hundred thirty-eight (138) respondents on the content,
technical, and instructional qualities of SKSU Eleads Online Learning modalities. Results show a
range of 1.24, and variance of 0.093, a weighted mean of 3.15, and SD = 0.30, describing SKSU
Eleads online learning modality as of “good quality”.

Table 3.2 The Respondents’ Perception in terms of the Three(3) Qualities of Google meet
Online Learning Platform.
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Variance
Deviatio
n

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic

GoogleMet_2A 14 .50 3.53 4.03 3.85 .040 0.15 .021

GoogleMet_2B 14 .30 3.67 3.97 3.84 .022 0.08 .007
GoogleMet_2C 14 .73 3.00 3.73 3.26 .054 0.20 .040
GoogleMet_2D 14 .38 3.75 4.13 3.93 .031 0.12 .013
GoogleMeet_2E 14 .50 3.22 3.72 3.51 .042 0.16 .025
Mean 14 0.48 3.43 3.92 3.68 0.04 0.142 0.021

Legend: 0 -2.3 – Fair ; 2.4 – 3.4 – Good ; 3.5- 4.4 – Very Good ; 4.5 – 5.0 - Excellent

Table 3.2 Shows Google Meet as an online learning modality as perceived by respondents. The
weighted mean is 3.68 and SD is 0.142, describing the platform as “ of very good quality”.
Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358 1349

Table 3.3 The Respondents Perception in terms of the Three(3) Qualities of Facebook group
online learning platform.

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic

FacebookGrp_2A 14 1.15 2.91 4.06 3.75 .070 .26 .069
FacebookGrp_2B 14 .85 3.27 4.12 3.67 .052 .19 .037
FacebookGrp_2C 14 1.57 2.67 4.24 3.19 .100 .37 .137
FacebookGrp_2D 14 .48 3.48 3.96 3.66 .036 .14 .019
FacebookGrp_2E 14 .63 2.95 3.58 3.24 .045 .17 .029
Mean 14 0.94 3.06 3.99 3.50 0.061 0.23 0.06
Legend: 0 -2.3 – Fair ; 2.4 – 3.4 – Good ; 3.5- 4.4 – Very Good ; 4.5 – 5.0 - Excellent

As Table 3.3 reveals, the respondents’ perception of the fourteen (14) key elements that
describe the content, instructional, and technical aspects of the Facebook group online learning
modality have a weighted mean of 3.50 as “of very good quality” and SD = 0.23 to receive the 2nd
rank among the two online learning platforms.

What is the pre-test/post-test of the following respondents from sections 2A?2B?2C?2D? and
2E?

Figure 3.1.a. Pretest Figure 3.1.b. Posttest

As Figure 3.1(a-b), shows, Section 2A with a number of populations (N)=39, increased in

achievement scores from pre-test mean of 10.38, SD =4.10 to post –test mean = 21.77 with SD =
2.25, for a difference of 11.39, with the three(3) online learning modalities as dependent variables.
1350 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

Figure 3.2.a Pretest Figure 3.2.b Posttest

Figure 3.2.(a-b) describes a large increase in the achievement scores of Section 2B
(N=34) with initial score, mean = 7.59 ,SD = 3.32 to final score, mean = 20.18, SD = 4.34. The
difference is 12.59, showing effectiveness of the conduct of online learning using this learning
modality which is highly noticeable.

Figure 3.3.a. Pretest Figure 3.3.b. Posttest

Figure 3.3.(a-b) reveals that respondents from Section 2C( N = 35) manifested that the
difference between their post-test and pre-test is 11.74, a two-digit increase from the initial test
value of 9.86, SD = 3.51 to the final test value = 21.6,SD = 1.94. Excitement and fully motivation
are directly proportional to the achievement scores in reference to the online learning modalities.

Figure 3.4.a. Pretest Figure 3.4.b. Post test

Figure 3.4.a. Pretest Figure 3.4.b. Posttest

Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358 1351

Figure 3.4. (a-b) illustrates that the pre-test = 11.05, SD = 4.63 and post-test = 21.05,
SD = 3.80 with the difference of 10, showing an increase in value in terms of the achievement
scores of respondents from section 2D (N= 40).

Figure 3.5.a Pretest Figure 3.5.b. Post test

Finally, in Figure 3.5.(a-b), it describes that the increase in the achievement scores of
respondents’ from Section 2E (N= 40) with the pretest value of 13.2, SD = 2.73 and posttest
value of 18.26. This group of respondents has the lowest difference value of 5.06, showing that
the group uniqueness depends on its ability and the intervention activities in response to flexible
learning.
Is there a significant difference in the respondents achievement under the three (3) online
learning platforms?
Table 3.4. The BEED 2A Achievement Scores versus the Three (3) Online Learning Platforms.

Paired Differences T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence
Deviat Mean Interval of the
ion Difference
Lower Upper

Diff_PrePost_2A -
Pair 1 9.60 4.08 1.09 7.22 11.92 8.784 13 .000
Facebook(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2A -
Pair 2 9.40 4.09 1.09 7.04 11.76 8.604 13 .000
Gmeet(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2A –
Pair 3 9.92 4.19 1.12 7.51 12.34 8.864 13 .000
SKSU_Eleads(2A-2E)

MEAN 9.64 4.12 1.1 7.26 12.01 8.76 13

1352 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

Table 3.4 reveals that there is a significant relationship between the achievement scores
and the flexible learning process, particularly, the use of the three (3) online learning platforms
with the overall value of t = 8.76, mean =9.64, p < 0.05 level of significance. This group of
respondents (n= 39) are motivated in terms of their learning outcomes under this kind of online
learning modalities used as the main component in flexible learning.

Table 3.5. The BEED 2B Achievement Scores versus the Three (3) Online Learning Platforms.

Paired Differences T Df Sig.

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval (2-
Deviation Mean of the Difference tailed)
Lower Upper

Diff_PrePost_2B -
Pair 1 8.07 6.03 1.61 4.59 11.55 5.006 13 .000
Facebook(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2B -
Pair 2 7.90 6.04 1.61 4.41 11.38 4.896 13 .000
Gmeet(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2B –
Pair 3 8.42 6.06 1.62 4.93 11.92 5.206 13 .000
SKSU_eleads(2A-2E)

MEAN 8.13 6.04 1.61 4.64 11.62 5.04 13

Table 3.5 reveals that the three (3) online learning modalities with t=5.04, p < 0.05 level
of significance have a significant affect on the achievement scores of the respondents . This group
of respondents (n= 34) received a high impact from the flexible learning as the main indicator is
their achievement scores directly proportional to the effectiveness.

Table 3.6 The BEED 2C Achievement Scores versus the Three (3) Online Learning Platforms.

Paired Differences t Df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval of tailed)
Deviation Error the Difference
Mean Lower Upper

Diff_PrePost_2C -
Pair 1 8.86 4.02 1.08 6.53 11.18 8.240 13 .000
Facebook(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2C -
Pair 2 8.68 4.01 1.07 6.37 10.10 8.096 13 .000
Gmeet(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2C -
Pair 3 9.21 3.93 1.05 6.94 11.48 8.767 13 .000
SKSU(2A-2E)

MEAN 8.92 3.99 1.07 6.61 10.92 8.37 13

Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358 1353

Table 3.6 describes that the effect of flexible learning on this group of respondents
(n=35) is statistically significant with t= 8.37, p < 0.05 level of significance.

Table 3.7 The BEED 2D Achievement Scores versus the Three (3) Online Learning Platforms.

Paired Differences t Df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of tailed)
Devi Mean the Difference
ation Lower Upper

Diff_PrePost_2D -
Pair 1 6.75 5.61 1.50 3.52 9.99 4.508 13 .001
Gmeet(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2D -
Pair 2 7.28 5.55 1.48 4.08 10.49 4.910 13 .000
SKSU(2A-2E)
Diff_PrePost_2D -
Pair 3 6.93 5.59 1.49 3.70 10.15 4.640 13 .000
Facebook(2A-2E)

MEAN 6.99 5.58 1.49 3.77 10.21 4.686 13

Table 3.7 describes that the flexible learning for this group of respondents (n=40) is
statistically significant with t= 4.69, p < 0.05 level of significance.

Table 3.8 The BEED 2E Achievement Scores versus the Three (3) Online Learning Platforms.
Paired Differences T Df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval tailed)

Deviation Error of the Difference

Mean
Lower Upper

BEED2E_DiffPrPs -
Pair 1 16.04 3.72 .10 13.90 18.19 16.115 13 .000
Gmeet(2A-2E)
BEED2E_DiffPrPs -
Pair 2 16.57 3.67 .98 14.45 18.69 16.879 13 .000
SKSU(2A-2E)

BEED2E_DiffPrPs
Pair 3 16.21 3.75 1.0 14.05 18.38 16.169 13 .000
Facebook(2A-2E)

MEAN 16.27 3.71 0.69 14.13 18.42 16.39 13

1354 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

Finally, Table 3.8 describes that the flexible learning among this group of respondents
(n=40) is higher in the value of t = 16.39 which has almost the same with mean = 16.27
indicating that the said flexible learning is not excellent to the group.

Are there significant differences among the three(3) online platforms ?

Table 3.9 The Difference in Main Gain scores of the Three(3) Online Learning Platforms.
ANOVA

Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Between Groups .242 7 .035 9.617 .007
Facebook(2A-2E) Within Groups .022 6 .004
Total .264 13
Between Groups .035 7 .005 .579
.755
Google_meet(2A-2E) Within Groups .052 6 .009
Total .086 13
Between Groups .359 7 .051 .476 .823
SKSU_Eleads(2A-
Within Groups .646 6 .108
2E)
Total 1.005 13

In Table 3.9 shows that only one(1) was statistically significant among the three(3) online
learning platforms in relation to the achievement scores of the respondents. The Facebook group
online learning modality got F(7,6) = 9.617, p <0.05, while the two (2) other online learning
platforms have a computed p which is greater than 0.05, level of significant ( p >0.05),
specifically, Google meet have F(7,6) = 0.579, p> 0.05 and SKSU Eleads, F(7,6) = 0.476, p>
0.05.

4. Discussion

Deed, C., et.al. (2019) explained that teaching practices respond to the prompts,
resources and inherent potential of a school’s physical, social and cultural landscape. In
that case the Sultan Kudarat State University adapt the changes particularly the
shifting from traditional learning to the online learning due to this Covid 19 pandemic.
The creation of SKSU ELEADS is one of this example, but Deed C et.al, (2019) suggested
that there should be the adaptation process like awareness, experimentation and
coherence. It is shown that the perceptions of qualities among the respondents indicates
a lowest mean scores of 3.15 as new to the respondents it needs awareness and testing
its’ effectiveness. Shi (2020) suggested that all stakeholders should consider flexible
Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358 1355

learning from six aspects: infrastructure, learning tools, learning resources, teaching and
learning methods, services for teachers and students, and cooperation between schools,
governments, and enterprises To further strengthen the adaptability of flexible learning,
future researches on this subject should pay more attention to the adaption of flexible
learning in culturally and politically different context, the assessment and evaluation of
learning experiences and outcomes of flexible learning, and teachers' competency
building in the era of flexible learning (Canaran & Mirici, 2020). In the Mindanao,
Philippines particularly in SKSU, where mostly of the respondents are coming from the
rural areas, where there is a slow connection of Internet, the students and teachers are
trying to catch up the flexible method, which the main learning modalities are the Google
meet and Facebook. These two (2) learning modalities are very accessible, user friendly
among the students and teachers that’s why, Facebook group is the most favourite online
learning modality among the two (2) particularly the Google Meet and SKSU ELEADS.
Veletsianos & Houlden (2019) emphasized the effectiveness of the flexible learning with
six themes: the qualities of flexibility as affording “anytime, anyplace” learning;
flexibility as pedagogy; laboratory or service-oriented aspects of flexibility; limitations of
flexibility, especially in terms of technology, the constraints of time and space, as well as
cultural differences; flexibility as a quality needed by instructors and instructional
designers themselves; and critiques of flexibility as a concept.

5. Conclusions

The Flexible Learning was used by the writer as his major teaching strategy under the
conditions of this COVID- 19 pandemic, where no face-to-face was allowed, using three
(3) online learning platforms like (i) SKSU-E leads( Electronic Learning delivery system)
; (ii) Google meet ; and (iii)FB Group which received a weighted mean of 3.44 indicating
as ‘good quality’ and perceived by eighty six percent (86%) respondents described in the
Table 5.1 to Table 5.3. These respondents from five (5) sections ,took a pre-and post
teacher-made evaluation test. The positive skewedness as shown in Figure 5.1 to Figure
5.5 means that there is an increase in their achievement scores, even though no actual
class activities happened inside the classrooms. Table 5.4 to table 5.8, BEED 2D shows
that respondents got the lowest value of t= 4.69 and mean = 6.99. The BEED 2E did not
enjoy much as shown by the value of t = 16.39 and mean = 16.27. Table 5.8 reflects that
Facebook online platform is the most convenient, practical, and usable.
The most convenient and favorite online learning platform among the two
hundred twenty (222) respondents is the FACEBOOK Group online platform, Google
meet comes next and last in rank with the use of the SKSU Electronic Learning Delivery
System(ELEADS). The effectiveness of the flexible learning is highly shown in the t-test
results. It reveals that this flexible learning got an important value in terms of their
academic learning competencies and still the respondents highly regard. The online face-
1356 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

to-face modality, which shows that Google has a great impact on the effectiveness.
Despite limited resources, like technical aspects as revealed in the qualities of flexible
learning, online teaching modalities, the effectiveness of the learning delivered to every
respondent without face-to -face instruction due to COVID 19, imparted knowledge on
the subject matter.

Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the work and contributions of SKSU Vice President for
Academic Affairs in developing, initiating, and launching the SKSU ELEADS during the
1st semester, academic year 2020-2021 as the official online platform used by the SKSU,
as part and parcel of flexible learning.
Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358 1357

References

Abisado, M. B., Unico, M. G., Umoso, D. G., Manuel, F. E., & Barroso, S. S. (2020). A Flexible
Learning Framework Implementing Asynchronous Course Delivery for Philippine Local
Colleges and Universities. International Journal, 9(1.3).
Agormedah, E. K., Henaku, E. A., Ayite, D. M. K., & Ansah, E. A. (2020). Online Learning in
Higher Education during COVID-19 pandemic: A case of Ghana. Journal of Educational
Technology and Online Learning, 3(3), 183-210.
Ali, W. (2020). Online and Remote Learning in Higher Education Institutes: A necessity in light of
COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education studies, 10(3), 16-25.
Barrera,K.L.,Jaminal, B., & Arcilla, F. (2020). Readiness for flexible learning amidst Covid-19
pandemic of Saint Michael College of Caraga, Philippines. SMCC Teacher Education Journal,
2,1-15.
Canaran, O, Mirici, I. H. (2020). A New Model of Team Teaching for Teacher Professional
Development: A Case Study of In-Service English Teachers. Education and Science, 45(201),
247-271.
Camara, D., Jun, S., Cuison, A. T., C Dalisay, C. M., Salazar, J. M., & Valdez, M. (2021).
Implementation of Flexible Learning in PSU Lingayen, Philippines–Initial Assessment for
Sustainability Measures.
Commission on Higher Education (CHED). (2020). Philippine higher education response to
COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved on May 12, 2020, from https://ched.gov.ph/covid-19-updates/
Deed, C., Blake, D., Henriksen, J., Mooney, A., Prain, V., Tytler, R., Zitzlaff, T., Edwards, M.P.,
Emery, S., Muir, T., Swabey, K., Thomas, D., Farrelly, C., Lovejoy, V., Meyers, N., & Fingland,
D. (2019). Teacher adaptation to flexible learning environments. Learning Environments
Research, 23, 153-165.
Delgado, J. E., & Arellano, J. (2021). A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experiences of
Graduate Students Adapting Flexible Learning Modality Due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Asian
Journal of Education and Social Studies, 7-16.”
Gayeta, M. G. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 Outbreak on Higher Education in the Philippines:
Obstacles, Opportunities, and Threats. PROCEEDINGS E-BOOK, 218.
Gocotano, T. E., Jerodiaz, M. A. L., Banggay, J. C. P., Nasibog, H. B. R., & Go, M. B. (2021).
Higher Education Students’ Challenges on Flexible Online Learning Implementation in
the Rural Areas: A Philippine Case. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research, 20(7).
Korkmaz S.& Mirici, İ. H. (2021): Converting a conventional flipped class into a synchronous
online flipped class during COVID-19: university students’ self-regulation skills and anxiety,
Interactive Learning Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.2018615
Kummitha, H. R., Kolloju, N., Chittoor, P., & Madepalli, V. (2020). Coronavirus Disease 2019 and
Its Effect on Teaching and Learning Process in the Higher Educational Institutions. Higher
Education for the Future, 2347631120983650.
Lagat, K. T. (2020). Education amidst COVID-19 Disruption: Perceived difficulty in implementing
flexible learning strategies of teacher education faculty members in a state university.
Philippine Social Science Journal, 3(3), 142-150.
1358 Ramil Arciosa / International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(2) (2022) 1343–1358

Laguador, J. M. (2021). Challenges Encountered during Pandemic in Flexible Learning Among

College Students Living in Urban, Rural, and Suburban Areas in the Philippines. Asia Pacific
Journal of Educational Perspectives, 8(1).
Lazaga, T. B., & Madrigal, D. V. (2021). Challenges and Opportunities of Online Learning
Modality: Experiences of Social Science College Teachers in a Philippine Private School.
Technium Soc. Sci. J., 20, 255.
Joaquin, J. J. B., Biana, H. T., & Dacela, M. A. (2020). The Philippine Higher Education Sector in
the time of COVID-19. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 208). Frontiers.
Mobo, F. (2020). Transcending the Philippine Educational Culture through Virtual and
Augmented Reality with the Integration of the Learning Management Systems. International
Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 1(1), 4-5.
Moralista, R., & Oducado, R. M. (2020). Faculty perception toward online education in higher
education during the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Available at SSRN
3636438.
Pawilen, G. T. (2021). Preparing Philippine higher education institutions for flexible learning
during the period of COVID-19 pandemic: Curricular and instructional adjustments,
challenges, and issues: Preparing Philippine higher education institutions for flexible learning.
International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(3), 2150-2166.
Shi, Y.H. (2020). Handbook on Facilitating Flexible Learning During Educational Disruption: The
Chinese Experience in Maintaining Undisrupted Learning in COVID-19 Outbreak. Bulletin of
the Technical Committee on Learning Technology, 20.
Tarrayo, V. N., Paz, R. M. O., & Gepila Jr, E. C. (2021). The shift to flexible learning amidst the
pandemic: the case of English language teachers in a Philippine state university. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 1-14.
Taylor-Guy, P., & Chase, A. M. (2020). Universities need to train lecturers in online delivery, or
they risk students dropping out. The Conversation.
Veletsianos, G., & Houlden, S. (2019). An analysis of flexible learning and flexibility over the last
40 years of Distance Education. Distance Education, 40, 454 - 468.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the Journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).