STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION ON FLEXIBLE LEARNING OF BSE-MATH OF PCCM

Abstract

The COVID-19 has resulted in schools shut across the country,

as a result, education has changed dramatically, with the notable rise of e-learning,

whereby teaching is carried out on digital platforms and remotely. Flexible learning is

one of the educational approaches and systems provided by DepEd and CHED with

providing the learners with increased choice, convenience, and personalization to suit

their needs. We studied flexible learning based on students' satisfaction with BSE-Math

of the Polytechnic College of the City of Meycauayan. Response rates for face-to-face

classes were not applicable for the academic year 2020-2021. The survey

questionnaire was online, the average rate of the scores was reliably lower than face-to-

face responses, and the magnitude of this change was minimal (0.5 on a five-item

Likert-like scale). Other topics were addressed, such as the student's mode of

communication, how much they use the internet, the factors that influence their flexible

learning satisfaction, and how long they struggle with flexible learning.

Keywords: Flexible learning, students’ satisfaction, online learning, digital platforms

and remotely, responses, rates, survey questionnaire

 Introduction

What is Flexible Learning?

Flexible learning refers to the ability to customize the speed, position, and mode

of learning. For example, with speed, learners can take accelerated programs or

participate in part-time education to ensure that they have time to work side by side. In

a range of settings, learning may occur in the classroom, at home via the Internet,

traveling, or as part of a work-study program.

“Flexible learning is a set of educational approaches and systems concerned with

providing learners with increased choice, convenience, and personalization to suit their

needs. In particular, flexible learning provides learners with choices about where, when,

and how learning occurs, by using a range of technologies to support the teaching and

learning process” (Lee and McLoughlin, 2010).

Teaching Philosophy

Deakin University, Australia (2009) study found the following:

Flexible learning is learner-centred, encouraging greater independence and

autonomy on the part of the learner. Its ethos is to enable and empower learners and

give them greater control of their learning and become more self-directed. It increases

choices available to both learners and teachers resulting in a ‘blurring of traditional

internal/external boundaries’ (George & Luke, 1995). Conceptions of flexibility also

include flexibility of admissions and enrolment processes, flexibility in assessment and

assessment times. Introducing flexibility or increasing flexibility is not necessarily ‘good’

in itself. The key issue is how it impacts on student learning and the quality of that

learning experience. It is about improving learning outcomes and maximising learner

engagement using appropriate learning approaches.

The Nature of Flexible Learning

The notions of lifelong learning and the need for prioritizing the students is becoming

more and more central in Higher Education. The Australian Higher Education has been

a pioneer in this area (Nagy & McDonald, 2007), but gradually other countries wished to

examine Flexible Learning, such as the 2008 HEFCE project that I was involved in.

Flexible Learning is an evolving concept, and this is reflected in the literature by the

variety of terms used to describe it throughout the years. For example, the term Flexible

Learning (and approaches within it) has also been found in the literature as flexible

delivery, flexible teaching, distributed learning, open learning, networked learning,

online learning and e- learning. Those terms have been used to describe a wide range
of educational methods, techniques, approaches and strategies that seek to provide

flexibility to both learners and teachers. In the figure below I tried to demonstrate how all

the different types of learning are blended and how they fall under the umbrella of

Flexible Learning.

Flexibility may be touted as a method for catering for students in a crowded higher-

education marketplace, distinguishing between students' demands and institutions’

supply initiatives is often difficult. It is not clear whether students have fundamentally

increased their demand for flexibility in time, place and mode of study (Casey & Wilson

2005); but it simultaneously increases student diversity. In reality, the

interconnectedness of these issues can no longer be separated: "Strategically,

operating flexibly can be seen as both an offensive and defensive tactic" (KirkPatrick

2001, p.169).

The Relationship of Different Types of Teaching and Learning

From the learner’s perspective, with regard to the particular courses at the institution

where the research took place, flexibility was seen as a module-based scheme,

focusing upon one module at a time during the summer school of 2009, and

experiencing a variety of teaching approaches. From the academic’s perspective,

flexibility was seen in terms of the ability to select such teaching methods, techniques,

resources and technologies that are in accordance with pedagogical aims and

objectives of a taught flexible course (Hallas, 2008). Universities have also seen these

developments as a way of expanding their student base, and of offering more

economical subject teaching through technological applications. As such, at the target

institution, as mentioned in Chapter 1, the Flexible Learning courses were available and

offered to students between the years 2008 and 2012. Those courses were designed in

such a way that would offer the opportunity to both academics and students to practice

both the didactic and the flexible approaches. The curriculum on modules, exams and

coursework was developed in a way to explore Flexible Learning in comparison to the

traditional didactic approach, to explore the future of Higher Education, and to meet the

institution’s future plans and requirements. Therefore, aim of this thesis is to explore

how Flexible Learning is affecting teaching and learning, and how it is supported,

determined and justified as a future need and requirement in Higher Education.

The term flexible teaching has often been used, especially in Australia, as a generic

term, which includes all aspects of flexibility in education. Research so far has

emphasized the use and delivery of packaged learning resources that tend not to

consider the educational process, but mostly seeing education as a product (Callender,

Wilkinson, Makinon, 2006).

Some academics have been conscious about the agenda of Flexible Learning

(Fazackerley, Callender, Chant, Wilkinson, 2009) feeling that it is only an ambition to

increase student numbers within an institution. However, such negative opinions could

be the result of negative experiences with open and distance education. Others feel that

flexibility in learning is a positive way forward, and an opportunity to engage and be

creative with new forms of teaching that provide greater equality and inclusion for

students (Hallas, 2008). The successful implementation of a Flexible Learning module

or degree is also seen as a strong dependent on the relationship between the teacher
and the students. Therefore, Flexible Learning can demonstrate a positive impact on the

educational.

Purpose of the Study

This research study intended to serve as a guide for school academics interested

in a pedagogical approach to flexible learning. It aims to provide a clearer

understanding of what flexible learning means, describe the benefits, and discuss the

consequences of adopting flexible learning approaches.

The research study would also address the following: Mode of communication

do the students use to access flexible learning; The length of use of internet rather than

books of the students; Factors that affect the satisfaction of the learners to flexible

learning; Hindrances to achieve the learning goals of the instructors in flexible learning

course; and lastly, the length of students to cope, especially in remote areas, with

flexible learning.

This research study was beneficial to the learners nowadays. The analysis can

determine what are likely more satisfied in learning mode, either online or the usage of

printed learning materials. This study will serve as a guide for the instructor on how

they will going to modify their pedagogical approach to accommodate the needs of

learners to deal with flexible learning. And lastly, the findings of the study will be the

avenue of the school administration to develop a curriculum that can cope with today's

situation wherein online learning is a method of teaching.

 Method

Sample

The target population for this study was the students of Bachelor of Secondary

Education major in Mathematics of the Polytechnic College of the City of Meycauayan.

But because of the current situation wherein there is a pandemic, it is not possible to

study an entire population. But since the population is known, a smaller sample is taken

using a random sampling technique. Slovin’s formula allows a researcher to sample the

population with the desired degree of accuracy (Stephanie, 2013).

Slovin’s formula was used to calculate the sample size. Concerning the level of

accuracy, a confidence level of 95% as suggested by Kothari (2005), this means that

there are 95 chances in 100 (or .95 in 1) that the sample results represent the true

condition of the population within a specified precision range against 5 chances in 100

(or .05 in 1) that it does not. The sample size is equal to the total population divided to

the sum of one and the product of the total population to the error tolerance of your

population.

The total enrollees this academic year 2020-2021 first semester of BSE-Math is

128 students. This included the following section: Math 1A, 19 students (15%), Math

1B, 18 students (14%), Math 2A, 22 students (17%), Math 2B, 20 students (16%), Math

3A, 23 students (18%), and Math 3B, 26 students (20%). Using slovin’s formula the

sample size is equal to 128 divided to the sum of 1 and the product of 128 and 0.5

(estimated error), and the answer will be 97. Therefore, the sample size from the
population of the study is 97 students, which will be selected randomly to be the

respondents of the research study.

Research Instruments

The researchers conducted a survey questionnaire online and distributed it via

mail and group chats as one of the data collection instrument for this study. The data

collected by the researchers will be presented in a graphic presentation to assess the

level of satisfaction of our respondents in the flexible learning mode. And the factors

that affect the students' level of satisfaction in flexible learning.

The survey research instrument was a set of 13 questions. The first question

was about the mode of learning do the BSE-Math students preferred. The second up to

eleventh questions were a five Likert scale wherein the choices range from very

dissatisfied to very satisfied to get a holistic view of students' opinions with flexible

learning. Question number twelve was about the factors that affect the learning

satisfaction of the students. The last item is for the remote areas or those who

experience floods, the length of their coping capacity in flexible learning.

Research Design

The research study is quantitative research investigating flexible learning

phenomena that include the following topics such as, the mode of communication of

students to access flexible learning, the factors that influence the students’ satisfaction,

the hindrances with online learning, and the length of the students cope with flexible

learning, mainly in remote areas. The researchers chose the descriptive survey

research design to investigate the satisfaction of BSE-Math students of Polytechnic

College of the City of Meycauayan with flexible learning. The frequency table will be
used to analyze of the data for item number 1, 12, and 13. However, The rating scale

will be interpreted using weighted means and standard deviation.

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter presented, analyzed and interpreted the data gathered out of the

instrument used in the study. The data were presented in tabulation and the manner of

presentation was done as they appear.

After a deliberate gathering of varied essential, careful analysis and statistical

consideration, they are now presented and interpreted as follows:

1. How does the mode of communication use by the students to access flexible

learning in terms of:

1.1. Mean of Scores

1.2. Standard Deviation of Scores

1.3. Mean of Questionnaire Items

2. How does the important factors extremely affects the students' satisfaction in

flexible learning in terms of:

2.1. Mean of Grades

2.2. Standard Deviation of Grades

3. How does the correlation between the satisfaction level in learning of BSE

Mathematics students and flexible learning of the respondents at 0.05 level

of significance described in terms of:

3.1. All Sections

3.2. As a whole
1. FLEXIBLE LEARNING LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS

The researchers tabulated, interpreted and quantified the students' level of

satisfaction in flexible learning of the BSE Mathematics students.

TABLE 6

Mean of Flexible Learnings' Level of Satisfaction of the BSE Math Students

Flexible Learning Students' Level of Satisfaction

Mean of

Section Total Weighted Mean Descriptive

Score Score Interpretation
1-A Math 37.60 3.760 High Level
1-B Math 37.66 3.766 High Level
2-A Math 39.70 3.970 High Level
2-B Math 39.17 3.917 High Level
3-A Math 36.43 3.643 Moderate Level
3-B Math 32.20 3.220 Moderate Level
Weighted
Mean 37.13 3.713 High Level

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 6 shows the mean scores of the 44 respondents as

computed level of satisfaction in flexible learning. The section with the highest
quantified level of learning satisfaction was 2-A Math with a mean total score of 39.70
and weighted mean of 3.970 while the lowest computed level was 3-B Math with a
mean total score of 32.20 and weighted mean of 3.220. The BSE Math Students
depicted as having a high level of flexible learnings' level of satisfaction with a mean
total score of 37.13 and weighted mean of 3.713.

TABLE 6.1
 Learning Satisfaction Level Mean Scores of BSE 1-A Math

Flexible Learning Students' Level of Satisfaction

Respondent Total Descriptive

Score Mean Interpretation

1 39 3.9 High Level

2 38 3.8 High Level
3 40 4.0 High Level
4 37 3.7 High Level
5 34 3.4 Moderate Level
Total Mean 37.60 3.760 High Level

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 6.1 shows the mean scores of the BSE 1-A Math as quantified satisfaction

level in flexible learning. The highest computed level of math level of learning

satisfaction was High Level with a mean total scores of 40 and weighted mean of 4.0

while the lowest quantified level was Moderate Level with a mean total score of 34 and

weighted mean of 3.4. The BSE 1-A Math depicted as having a high level of learning

satisfaction with a total score of 37.60 as its mean and weighted mean of 3.760.

TABLE 6.2

Mean Scores of BSE 1-B Math

Flexible Learning Students' Level of Satisfaction

 Respondent Total Descriptive
Score Mean Interpretation

1 35 3.5 Moderate Level

2 41 4.1 High Level
3 40 4.0 High Level
4 35 3.5 Moderate Level
5 37 3.7 High Level
6 38 3.8 High Level
Total Mean 37.66 3.766 High Level

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 6.2 shows the mean scores of the BSE 1-B Math as computed satisfaction

level in learning. The highest computed level of mathematics anxiety level was High

Level with a mean total score of 41 and weighted mean of 4.1 while the lowest

computed level was Moderate Level with a mean total score of both 35 and weighted

means of 3.5. The BSE 1-B Math depicted as having a high level of satisfaction level in

learning with a total score of 37.66 as its mean and weighted mean of 3.766.

TABLE 6.3

Mean Scores of BSE 2-A Math

Flexible Learning Students' Level of Satisfaction

Total Descriptive
Score Mean Interpretation
Respondent
 1 41 4.1 High Level
2 38 3.8 High Level
3 44 4.4 High Level
4 44 4.4 High Level
5 40 4.0 High Level
6 40 4.0 High Level
7 34 3.4 Moderate Level
8 41 4.1 High Level
9 32 3.2 Moderate Level
10 43 4.3 High Level
Total Mean 39.70 3.970 High Level

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 6.3 shows the mean scores of the BSE 2-A Math as quantified satisfaction

level in flexible learning. The highest computed level of math level of learning

satisfaction was High Level with a mean total scores of 44 and weighted mean of 4.4

while the lowest quantified level was Moderate Level with a mean total score of 32 and

weighted mean of 3.2. The BSE 2-A Math depicted as having a high level of learning

satisfaction with a total score of 39.70 as its mean and weighted mean of 3.970.

TABLE 6.4

Mean Scores of BSE 2-B Math

Flexible Learning Students' Level of Satisfaction

Respondent Total Descriptive

Score Mean Interpretation

1 42 4.2 High Level

2 37 3.7 High Level
3 41 4.1 High Level
4 42 4.2 High Level
5 43 4.3 High Level
6 30 3.0 Moderate Level
Total Mean 39.17 3.917 High Level
Analysis and Interpretation

Table 6.4 shows the mean scores of the BSE 2-B Math as quantified satisfaction

level in flexible learning. The highest quantified level of learning satisfaction level was

High Level with a mean total score of 43 and weighted mean of 4.3 while the lowest

quantified level was Moderate Level with a mean total score of 30 and weighted mean

of 3.0. The BSE 2-B Math depicted as having a high level of learning satisfaction with a

mean total score of 39.17 and weighted mean of 3.917.

TABLE 6.5

Mean Scores of BSE 3-A Math

Flexible Learning Students' Level of Satisfaction

Respondent Total Descriptive

Score Mean Interpretation

1 38 3.8 High Level

2 34 3.4 Moderate Level
3 40 4.0 High Level
4 40 4.0 High Level
5 31 3.1 Moderate Level
6 39 3.9 Moderate Level
7 33 3.3 High Level
Total Mean 36.43 3.643 Moderate Level

Analysis and Interpretation

 Table 6.5 shows the mean scores of the BSE 3-A Math as quantified satisfaction

level in flexible learning. The highest quantified level of learning satisfaction level was

High Level with a mean total scores of 40 and weighted means of 4.0 while the lowest

quantified level was Moderate Level with a mean total score of 31 and weighted mean

of 3.1. The BSE 3-A Math depicted as having a moderate level of learning satisfaction

with a mean total score of 36.43 and weighted mean of 3.643.

TABLE 6.6

Mean Scores of BSE 3-B Math

Satisfaction Level in Learning

Total Descriptive
Score Mean Interpretation
Respondent
1 33 3.3 Moderate Level
2 21 2.1 Low Level
3 18 1.8 Low Level
4 31 3.1 Moderate Level
5 38 3.8 High Level
6 41 4.1 High Level
7 40 4.0 High Level
8 32 3.2 High Level
9 35 3.5 Moderate Level
10 33 3.3 Moderate Level
Total Mean 32.20 3.220 Moderate Level

Analysis and Interpretation

 Table 6.6 shows the mean scores of the BSE 3-B Math as quantified satisfaction

level in flexible learning. The highest quantified level of learning satisfaction was High

Level with a mean total scores of 41 and weighted mean of 4.1 while the lowest

quantified level was Low Level with a mean total score of 18 and weighted mean of 1.8.

The BSE 3-B Math depicted as having a moderate level of learning satisfaction with a

total score of 32.20 as its mean and weighted mean of 3.220

TABLE 7

Standard Deviation of Scores of the BSE Mathematics Students

Flexible Learning Students' Level of Satisfaction

Weighted Standard ±1 SD ±2 SD ±3 SD
Section Mean Score Deviation
1-A Math 3.421 to 3.082 to 2.743 to
3.760 0.3390 4.099 4.438 4.777
1-B Math 3.400 to 3.034 to 2.667 to
3.766 0.3662 4.132 4.498 4.865
2-A Math 3.611 to 3.251 to 2.892 to
3.970 0.3593 4.329 4.688 5.048
2-B Math 3.562 to 3.207 to 2.852 to
3.917 0.3554 4.272 4.628 4.983
3-A Math 3.313 to 2.984 to 2.654 to
3.643 0.3296 3.973 4.302 4.632
3-B Math 2.276 to 1.332 to 0.389 to
3.220 0.9438 4.164 5.108 6.051

Analysis and Interpretation

 Table 7 shows the weighted mean scores with standard deviations of 44

respondents as quantified level of satisfaction in flexible learning. The Section 3-B Math

interpreted having the lowest SD of 0.389 below the mean (-3 SD) while the Section 3-B

Math also interpreted having the highest SD of 6.051 above the mean (+3 SD). The

researchers easily observed that 3-B Math Major respondents have both lowest and

highest satisfaction level in flexible learning.

TABLE 8

Percentage of the Different Factors that Affect BSE Mathematics Students' Learning
Satisfaction

In flexible learning
(distance learning), what Number of
are the factors that really Respondents Percentage
affect your learning
satisfaction?

Poor internet connection 41 80.4 %

No data/WiFi at all 23 45.1 %
No devices available for 2 3.9 %
learning
Distant teacher means no 9 17.6 %
learning
Still adjusting in an online 29 56.9 %
learning
Prefer face-to-face than 39 76.5 %
online
Slow/fast learners 26 51 %
(Diversity of learners)
Work commitment 14 27.5 %
Household chores 38 74.5 %
Doesn't want flexible 8 15.7 %
learning at all
Anxiety, depression 17 33.3 %
 Flexible learning is not 10 19.6 %
flexible at all
Too early submissions 9 17.6 %
Social media barriers 22 43.1 %
Simultaneous submissions 5 9.8 %
Doesn't get the online 15 29.4 %
lessons at all
Affects sleeping routine to 16 31.4 %
meet deadline
Too much pressure 22 43.1 %
Total 19.17 37.58 %

Analysis and Interpretation

The table 8 shows the overall percentage of the different factors that really affect

the 44 respondents or the BSE Mathematics students' learning satisfaction. The highest

quantified percentage factor was the poor internet connection with a percentage of 80.4

%, and 41 respondents who agreed, while the lowest quantified percentage factor was

the availability of the device in a flexible learning with a percentage of 3.9 %, and 2

respondents who agreed.

A comparative study conducted (Adams et al., 2015) shows that "online learners

were less successful when compared with face-to-face learners which was inferred

through student’s motivation, satisfaction, and attendance".

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter discusses the summary of findings, conclusions and

recommendations based on the tabulated and quantified data of this study.

Summary

The researcher aims to answer the following questions:

1. What mode of communication do the students use to access flexible

learning in terms of:

1.1 Percentage

2. How does the respondents' learning level of satisfaction in flexible

learning described in terms of:

2.1. Mean of Scores

2.2 Standard Deviation of Scores

3. What are the important factors that extremely affects the students'

satisfaction in flexible learning in terms of:

2.1. Percentage

The instruments that used in this study were Spearman Brown Prophesy

Coefficient, Percentage and Measures of Central Tendency and Variability.

Summary of Findings

The researchers summarized the results by the following:

1. Preferred Mode of Communication of Students in Flexible Learning

1.1 Percentage

1.1.1 The mode of communication that the BSE Mathematics students prefer to
use in accessing flexible learning is the offline learning or the modular way of learning
with the total percentage of 76.5 %.
2. Learning Satisfaction Level on Flexible Learning of the Respondents

2.1. Mean of Scores

2.1.1 The BSE Mathematics Students got a high level of learning satisfaction in

flexible learning with a mean total score of 37.13 and weighted mean of 3.713.

2.1.2. The BSE 1-A Math got a high level of learning satisfaction in flexible learning

with a mean total score of 37.60 and weighted mean of 3.760.

2.1.3. The BSE 1-B Math got a high level of learning satisfaction in flexible learning

with a mean total score of 37.66 and weighted mean of 3.766.

2.1.4. The BSE 2-A Math got a high level of learning satisfaction in flexible learning

with a mean total score of 39.70 and weighted mean of 3.970.

2.1.5. The BSE 2-B Math got a high level of learning satisfaction in flexible learning

with a mean total score of 39.17 and weighted mean of 3.917.

2.1.6. The BSE 3-A Math got a moderate level of learning satisfaction in flexible

learning with a mean total score of 36.43 and weighted mean of 3.643.

2.1.7. The BSE 3-B Math got a moderate level of learning satisfaction in flexible

learning with a mean total score of 32.20 and weighted mean of 3.220.

2.2 Standard Deviation of Scores

2.2.1. The quantified standard deviation from the total weighted mean

of all sections were range from the lowest SD of 0.389 below the mean (-3

SD) and the highest SD of 6.051 above the mean (+3 SD). The researcher
 easily observed that 3-B Math Major respondents have both lowest and

highest satisfaction level in flexible learning.

3. Factors that Affects Students' Satisfaction in Flexible Learning

3.1 Percentage

3.1.1 The overall percentage of the different factors that affects the

BSE Mathematics students' satisfaction in flexible learning was 37.58 %.

3.1.2. A factor that extremely affects the BSE Mathematics students'

satisfaction in flexible learning and placed at the first rank was the poor internet

connection with a percentage of 80.4 %, and 41 respondents who agreed.

3.1.3. A factor that extremely affects the BSE Mathematics students'

satisfaction in flexible learning and placed at the second rank was the

Mathematics students preferred face-to-face than online with a

percentage of 76.5 %, and 39 respondents who agreed.

3.1.4. A factor that extremely affects the BSE Mathematics students'

satisfaction in flexible learning and placed at the third rank was students

are also busy with the household chores with a percentage of 74.5 %, and

38 respondents who agreed.

3.1.5. A factor that extremely affects the BSE Mathematics students'

satisfaction in flexible learning and placed at the fourth rank was the

learners are still adjusting in an online learning with a percentage of

 56.9 %, and 29 respondents who agreed.

3.1.6 A factor that extremely affects the BSE Mathematics students'

satisfaction in flexible learning and placed at the fifth rank was there are

diversity of learners with a percentage of 51 %, and 26 respondents who

agreed.

Conclusions

Based on the results of the study, the researchers made the following conclusions:

The mode of communication that the BSE Mathematics students prefer to use in

accessing flexible learning is the offline learning or the modular way of learning with the

total percentage of 76.5 %.

The most important factor that extremely affects the students' satisfaction in

flexible learning is the poor internet connection with the total percentage of 80.4 %, 41

as its respondents and place as 1st rank while the least important factor is the

availability of the device in a flexible learning with the total percentage of 3.9 %, 2 as its

respondents and place as 18th rank.

The hindrances on the online learning that significantly affects the students in

achieving their instructors' learning objectives are rank as follows: (1) Poor internet

connection with a percentage of 80.4 %, and 41 as its respondents, (2) The

Mathematics students preferred face-to-face than online with a percentage of 76.5 %,

and 39 as its respondents, and (3) Students are also busy with the household chores

with a percentage of 74.5 %, and 38 as its respondents.

The students have coping mechanism in flexible learning especially to the

remote areas or those who are experiencing floods within 1 week as its maximum

wherein 2 respondents agree. One learner state that it will be hard for them but does

not include a specific time frame while another respondent contradicts it and answers

that the coping mechanism of a student would not be that long. Additionally, another

learner states that she will not be able to think or even answer her modules once there

is a flood or total black out on her community because she will care about their flooded

house as well as their safety.

Recommendations

In the light of the discussions presented, the following recommendations were

made:

For the students

The researchers recommend that the BSE Mathematics students should also

appreciate the online or the flexible learning and be satisfied in order for the learners to

be productive even though the country is in the amidst of pandemic. Every student must

be aware about the study because it is important to determine whether a learner has a

very high satisfaction on the flexible learning or the new mode of learning should be

polished to meet the expectations of a learner with a low level of satisfaction on the

current mode of learning. A flexible learning will be flexible if a student has a specific
time frame and goals while answering their modules and having a participation on the

online classes. Learners can study efficiently through the use of flexible learning if the

priorities were already aligned. Students are referred as "diversity of learners", and their

level of learning satisfaction also differs. The learners could answer the level of

satisfaction through flexible learning google form survey before proceeding to the next

semester to know the student's level of satisfaction to the current mode of learning.

For the teachers

The research recommends that teachers, especially in mathematics, should be

skilled and educated about the appropriate techniques, methods, techniques and

principles in teaching mathematics that can help students especially now pandemic.

research also recommends teachers who should be determined in teaching his or her

students.

The classroom culture should reflect Hsuanwei Fan, Edmodo Team Member and

Former Educator (2020). The following statements would help not only the teachers but

also the students to keep in mind as we implement distance learning to make sure

students still feel the strong sense of community we have worked so hard to build in our

physical classrooms. First, Don’t give up your daily routines. Your routines matter and

the kids look forward to them more than we know. Second, Find ways for students to

showcase parts of their lives. Let’s take this opportunity to help students realize that

learning is ubiquitous and wonderful. Third, Respect student choice. Offering students a

choice is always a good practice for the physical classroom, and digital learning spaces
should offer them the same flexibility. Fourth, Continue your inside jokes using memes

and multimedia elements. My students particularly loved this aspect of having a space

to continue conversations outside of the classroom, even when distance learning was

not the norm. Fifth, Maintain a respectful digital environment for discussion. As we move

our discussions online during distance learning, we need to maintain the same high

expectations we have in the classroom for what students say to each other. And lastly,

Recognize and reward positive student behavior. The truth is, students love all tokens of

recognition, however small, that helps them know they’re on the right track.

For the school administration

The researchers recommend the administration that the learners should answer

the students' level of satisfaction in flexible learning survey test for assessing the level

of learning satisfaction towards the new mode of distance learning. There should be a

given test for the students after semester.

The flexible learning in relation to the satisfaction in learning of the students’ test

is important to ascertain the condition of a student towards the new mode of learning

and in order for the administration to polish the adopted way of learning for the benefit

of all the learners especially the BSE Mathematics students. This test will monitor the

satisfaction as well as the dissatisfaction of the target learners and the administration

can still provide quality education regardless of the distance between a teacher and a

student.

For the future researchers

 The researchers recommend that the results of this study could be used to plan

further studies around flexible learning and student satisfaction. The researchers also

recommend to have a further investigation to get the information needed to understand

what is flexible learning and students' level of satisfaction precisely. Collect more data

and be careful in analyzing the table that the future researchers will produce to be

satisfied. Keep a great mindset to finish your research. You need to have confidence

that you can do your research using the full strategies that you have to finish it. You also

need to understand the personal life of your members so that each of the researchers

can be able to help. Have a clear mindset every time you make a research. A

researcher should also put God as the center of your research to finish and guide each

of the members.

References

Adams, A., Randall, S., & Traustadóttir, T. (2015). A Tale of Two Sections: An
Experiment to Compare the Effectiveness of a Hybrid Versus a Traditional
Lecture Format in Introductory Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-
0118.

Anderson, T. (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed.).
https://www.aupress.ca/books/120146-the-theory-and-practice-of-online-learning/
AU Press, Athabasca University.

Anderson, T., Dron, J. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media,
https://www.aupress.ca/books/120235-teaching-crowds/ AU Press, Athabasca
University.

(Anonymous, n.d.). Statistics How To. https://www.statisticshowto.com/spearman-

brown/.

Bates, A. & Bates, T. (2005). Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education.

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?
q=related:mGDmnOnq0VAJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&scioq=e+le
 arning+bates.+2005#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DmGDmnOnq0VAJ. Psychology
Press.

Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R., & Tamim, R. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of
Blended Learning and Technology Use in Higher Education: From The General
to the Applied. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260678037_A_meta-
analysis_of_blended_learning_and_technology_use_in_higher_education_From
_the_general_to_the_applied.

Burge, E., Gibson, C. C., & Gibson, T. (2011). Flexible Pedagogy, Flexible Practice.
https://www.aupress.ca/books/120203-flexible-pedagogy-flexible-practice/. AU
Press, Athabasca University.

Chapman, J., Gaff, J., Toomey, R., & Aspin, D. (2005). Policy on lifelong learning in
Australia. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(2): 99–102. [Google
Scholar]. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/02601370903031280?
scroll=top.

Deakin University, Australia (2009). Introducing flexible learning. Consultado el 08 de.

Mayo del 2013. http://www.deakin.edu.au. Introducing flexible learning.

Hallas, J. (2008). Rethinking Teaching and Assessment Strategies for Flexible Learning
Environments. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Rethinking-teaching-and-
assessment-strategies-for-
Hallas/8515a6a6ae00117c0904c13f7cf4b2108ee57eff#citing-papers.

Ku, H., Akarasriworn, C., & Tseng, H. (2013). Collaboration Factors, Teamwork
Satisfaction, and Student Attitudes toward Online Collaborative Learning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257252931_Collaboration_factors_tea
mwork_satisfaction_and_student_attitudes_toward_online_collaborative_learning
.

McCarthy, H., Miller P., & Skidmore, P. (2004). Network Logic: Who governs in an
interconnected world. https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=zKy-
MOXXaJEC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=networks+are+the+language+of+our+tim
es,
+but+our+institutions+are+not+programmed+to+understand+them&source=bl&ot
s=7Jj1t31yK3&sig=ACfU3U3vQPwRtMoSsgag4aijsBhOMto94A&hl=en&sa=X&ve
d=2ahUKEwiSnOywnY7vAhVWPnAKHdgEAhQQ6AEwAXoECAoQAg#v=onepag
e&q=networks%20are%20the%20language%20of%20our%20times%2C%20but
%20our%20institutions%20are%20not%20programmed%20to%20understand
%20them&f=false/ Demos.
Moores, S. (2005). Media/Theory: Thinking About Media and Communications (1st ed.).
https://www.routledge.com/MediaTheory-Thinking-about-Media-and-
Communications/Moores/p/book/9780415243841. Routledge.

Palmer, S. (2011). The Lived Experience of Flexible Education - Theory, Policy and
Practice (Vol. 8). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=ms-android-
transsion-infinix-rev1&um=1&ie=UTF-
8&lr&q=related:uTcXa7ObzDrQ_M:scholar.google.com/. Deakin University,
Australia.

Singh, H.(2003). Building Effective Blended Learning Programs.

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Harvey-Singh-2053120284.

Thinkmap Visual Thesaurus. (2010). The Three M's of Statistics: Mode, Median, Mean
June 30,

2010. www.visualthesaurus.com.

Vaughan, N., Cleveland-Innes, M., &Garrison, D. R.(2013). Teaching in Blended

Learning
Environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press,
Athabasca University. https://www.aupress.ca/books/120229-teaching-in-
blended-learning-environments/

Veletsianos, G.(2010). Emerging Technologies in Distance Education.

https://www.aupress.ca/books/120177-emerging-technologies-in-distance-
education/ AU Press, Athabasca University.

Weisstein, E. (2020). Statistical Correlation. mathworld.wolfram.com. Retrieved 22

August
2020.

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (2014). Online Distance Education: Towards a

Research
Agenda. https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/18/review-of-online-distance-
education
-towards-a-research-agenda/. Athabasca AB: AU Press, pp. 508.