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 20192020.
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
ns
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), 115.
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 elearning 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