PREDICTORS OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF EDUCATION

STUDENTS IN FLEXIBLE LEARNING

Mycaella Mae A. Irog
Jessa M. Guinte
Jonnielalyn O. Flores
Iverson Dela C. Cruz
Daryl-Hans P. Cortez
Loujane L. Castro
Von Harley T. Señeres

Bataan Peninsula State University, Balanga City,Bataan

Abstract - The COVID-19 pandemic crisis had an impact on all levels of education. Worldwide (in 192 countries), educational institutions
have either temporarily closed or implemented localized closures, affecting approximately 1.7 billion students. Many universities around
the world postponed or canceled all campus activities in order to reduce crowding and, as a result, virus transmission. This study entitled
“PREDICTORS OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF EDUCATION STUDENT DURING FLEXIBLE LEARNING” aimed to
determine the significant predictor of academic performance of education student in Bataan Peninsula State University- Balanga Campus
during the academic year 2021-2022.This study aims to determine the Predictors of Academic Performance among students of the
College of Education during the new learning system implemented in the country. The researchers will conduct the study on the 124
students of Bataan Peninsula State University A.Y. 2021-2022. This study is limited to first year to fourth year Education students of
Bataan Peninsula State University-Balanga Campus to successfully determine the predictors of academic performance in the academe.
Specifically, the profile of the respondents is identified base on the sex, year level and field of study. The data were analyzed using
various statistical tools such as weighted mean and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC). Weighted mean was used
to describe the levels of previous general weighted average, study habits, motivation, prior knowledge, parent’s involvement, learning
environment and internet accessibility. Further, Pearson r was employed to determine if there is a significant relationship between
student-related factors and home-based factors. The null hypothesis of the study is there is no significant relationship between student-
related factors and home- based factors to the academic performance of education students in flexible learning.The researchers found
out that the predictor of academic performance is “Parental Involvement” with a correlation coefficient (r) of .34, which suggests a
positive low relationship. Greatly affect students' academic performance during flexible learning.

Keywords: Study Habits, Motivation, Prior Knowledge, Parental Involvement, Learning Environment, Internet Accessibility, Academic
Performance,

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic crisis had an impact on all
levels of education. Worldwide (in 192 countries), educational
institutions have either temporarily closed or implemented
localized closures, affecting approximately 1.7 billion students.
Many universities around the world postponed or canceled all
campus activities in order to reduce crowding and, as a result,
virus transmission.
Due to the suspension of classroom instruction in many
colleges and universities implemented flexible learning. For
higher education institutions, “flexible learning” entails a mix of
digital and non-digital technology. According to the
Commission on Higher Education, flexible learning, “ensures
the continuity of inclusive and accessible education when
traditional modes of teaching are not feasible, such as in the
event of national emergencies.” However, these changes
impacted the academic excellence of students.
1
Academic achievement (in both traditional and online
learning settings) can be generally defined as achieving a
particular result in an online assignment, exam, subject, or degree,
and is ordinarily expressed in terms of a numerical grade or grade
point average (GPA; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012). In
flexible learning there are many reasons why this form of flexible
education is attractive to students: convenience, motivation,
personal and/or career enrichment, flexible scheduling,
geography, more suitable learning environment, etc. However,
there is much concern regarding the quality of instruction offered
via this medium, as well as, the performance of enrolled students.
Many studies (Gange and Shepard, 2001; Neuhauser, 2002;
Reuter, 2009; and Russell, 1999) have found no difference in the
success of students in a particular class, with the variable of
interest being method of delivery online instruction versus
traditional face-to- face lectures.
 In the Philippines face to face classes are prohibited performance of the students?
because of the surge of Covid-19 virus. Flexible learning affects
academic performance of the students during online class. There Methodology
are different factors in online and on campus influencing
student’s academic performance. An online survey conducted by This study was a quantitative research method. Burns and Grove
the multi sectoral group Movement for Safe, Equitable, Quality (2001) define quantitative research as a formal, objective,
and Relevant Education (SEQuRE) found that 86.7% of students systematic process to describe and test relationships and examine
under modular learning, 66% under online learning, and 74% cause and effect interactions among variables. This study which
under blended learning said they “learned less” under the aims to determine the significance predictors of academic
alternative modes of learning compared with the traditional face- excellence of Education students in flexible learning. The study
to-face setup. Because of the different dynamics, material that employed a descriptive correlational design. This study was
works well in a traditional environment does not necessarily descriptive in nature. According to Ethridge (2004), descriptive
work in the online environment (Ellis & Hafner, 2003). This research can be explained as a statement of affairs as they are at
study aims to determine the predictors of academic performance present with the researcher having no control over variables,
of the Education students in Flexible learning. “descriptive studies may be characterized as simply the attempt to
determine, describe or identify what is, while analytical research
Understanding the factors that influence performance attempts to establish why it is that way or how it came to be”.
can help universities determine and develop intervention
programs for performance improvement. It can also help with Moreover, a descriptive component of the study also revolved on
the development and revision of policies governing student the general weighted average of the students. Subsequently, the
admission, teaching, and learning (Mansour, Bahman and Hadis correlational component was centered on the relationship between
2011). According to McKenzie and Schweitzer (2001), through student-related factors and home-based factors to the academic
the identification of factors that influence students’ academic performance of the students.
performance, universities are better equipped to target
interventions and support services to meet the needs of their
students, with a view to optimizing the retention of students and Results and Discussion
maintaining standards. An understanding of factors affecting
students’ academic performance also assists universities with the
This chapter presents analysis and interpretation of data relevant to
efficient and effective distribution of limited resources, such as
determine the significance predictors of Academic Performance of
accommodation and finance. Without such an understanding,
Education students during flexible learning.
resources may be spent on activities that might not add value to
the institutions and students. This claim is corroborated by
Ballester (2012), who argues that knowledge of the factors
Table 2 reveals the academic profile of the respondents
affecting academic excellence assists with efficient distribution
at Bataan Peninsula State University – Balanga Campus in terms
of financial, human and infrastructure resources with the aim of
of previous general weighted average.
improving the quality of teaching and the performance of
students.
Table 2. Previous General Weighted Average
f %
Objectives of the Study
1.00-1.25 13 10
The general problem of the study was to determine 1.50-2.00 70 57
the significant predictors of Academic Performance of Education
Students during flexible learning. 2.25-2.50 8 6
2.75-3.00 16 13
Specifically, the researcher sought to answer the following: 5.00 17 14
Total 124 100
1. How may the Academic Performance be described in
terms of Previous General Weighted Average? As presented in table 2, more than half of the respondents
2. How may the 'student-related factors' be described in or fifty-seven percent (57%) or seventy (70) of the respondents
terms of; accumulated the highest frequency with previous general weighted
2.1 study habits; average of 1.50 – 2.00. On the contrary, six percent (6%) or eight
2.2 motivation; and (8) of the respondents attained the lowest frequency with previous
general weighted average of 2.25 – 2.50.
2.3 prior knowledge.
3. How may the 'home-based factors' be described in terms
Most education students had the highest frequency with a
4. of;
preceding general weighted average of 1.5-2.00, according to the
3.1 parental involvement;
findings. Graduates' academic success in all professional subjects
3.2 learning environment; and
is taken into account. The GWA is a reflection of a student's overall
4.3 internet accessibility.
academic status that was used to evaluate them. It was regarded as
5. How do these factors influence the academic
2
a critical factor in the advancement of students to the next level priorities for each day, week, month and year can help students
(Salustiano, 2013). The students' GWA performances were also accomplish their goals. It also helps to ensure activities that are
observed to have low standard deviations indicating the vitally important but not urgent such as personal devotions,
closesimilarities of their performances. The close similarities may adequate sleep and exercise are given precedence.
be attributed to comparable capabilities, similar Intelligent
Quotient (IQ) levels, then having been exposed to the same Table 4 depicts the level of student-related factors of the
learning experiences in the university, they have shown the same respondents in terms of motivation.
level of performances (De Leon, 2013). This finding was also
supported by the study of De Guzman and Guy As revealed in Table 4, “I comply to all the required
(2013) in which education students perform fairly in requirements for the course ahead of time” and “I am happy in
major subjects. learning new things” obtained the highest mean =3.38; sd = .77.
Contrary to the indicator “I actively participate in the discussion
Table 3 reflects the level of student-related factors in and activities” accumulated the lowest mean = 2.93; sd = .79.
terms of study habits.
In general, the mean of 3.22 suggests that the level of
Table 3. Study Habits student-related factors at Bataan Peninsula State University-
Indicator M SD DE Balanga Campus in terms of motivation is satisfied.
I keep track of deadlines and Very
3.45 .77 Table 4. Motivation
important dates Satisfied
I prefer study group to learn Indicator M SD DE
from different ideas and
2.84 .80 Satisfied I finish my assigned task on Very
understandings from my 3.34 .76
classmates time. Satisfied
I review my notes before and I actively participate in the
2.93 .78 Satisfied 2.93 .79 Satisfied
after class. discussion and activities.
I study my notes in preparation Very I comply to all the required
3.26 .78 Very
for my short quizzes and test. Satisfied requirements for the course 3.38 .77
I manage my time accurately to Satisfied
study and to do my assigned 3.25 .79 Satisfied ahead of time.
tasks. I feel motivated whenever I
3.02 .84 Satisfied
Composite 3.14 .78 Satisfied perform academic all
Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51 I am happy in learning new Very
3.38 .89
Satisfied; 2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied; things. Satisfied
Sd-standard deviation I put a lot of effort in Very
3.27 .81
understanding the lesson. Satisfied
As presented in Table 3, the highest mean provided by
I am eager to learn and
the respondents was on “I keep track of deadlines and important Very
dates” with (mean = 3.45; sd = .77). While the lowest (mean = understand the lesson in a most 3.32 .85
Satisfied
2.84; sd = .80) was attained on indicator “I prefer study group to conducive way.
learn from different ideas and understandings from my I am motivated to attend and
3.18 .85 Satisfied
classmates”. participate academically
Totally, the mean of 3.14 recommends that the Composite 3.22 0.82 Satisfied
respondents' level of Study Habits at Bataan Peninsula State
Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51 Satisfied;
University, Balanga Campus is satisfied.
2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied; Sd-standard
deviation
The result proved that most education students' study
habits are keeping track of deadlines and important dates. As
The result of this study focuses on how students are happy
revealed by Scherer, Talley, and Fife (2017) found that
in new learning. Student engagement has also been described as the
noncognitive personal behaviors such as a student’s time
level of interest demonstrated by students, how they interact with
perspective are effective predictors of academic outcomes as poor
others in the course, and their motivation to learn about new topics
time management approaches mean that students find it hard to
(Briggs, 2015). Jaggars and Xu (2016) found that the quality of
plan their work and may feel agitated toward the end of a course
interaction within the course parameters positively correlated to
when they are likely to be assessed. Time management is greatly
student grades in online courses. By evaluating the level of student
relevant as it affects tracking of dates and deadlines.
engagement and considering these affective aspects, instructors can
more effectively plan lessons and activities that will encourage
Moreover, it is revealed that most education students' students to be more active participants in their learning and
study habits are keeping track of deadlines and important dates. coursework. Furthermore, this means that the students who are
Nzewi, H., Chiekezie, O., & Ikon, M. A. (2016) stated that by happy to learn new things are motivated and most likely to gain
assessing what needs to be achieved within a given timeframe, more knowledge and achieve their goal by being glad for their new
tasks can be rated according to their importance. Setting learning.
3
 Table 6. Student-Related Factors
Table 5 displays the level of student-related factors of Student-Related
the respondents in terms of prior knowledge. M SD DE
Factors
Study Habits 3.14 .78 Satisfied
Table 5. Prior Knowledge
Motivation 3.22 0.82 Satisfied
Indicator M SD DE
Prior Knowledge 2.63 .7 Satisfied
I have initial thoughts about the
2.78 .63 Satisfied Grand Mean 2.99 .76 Satisfied
lesson before the discussion.
I excel in taking pre-test in Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51
2.62 .63 Satisfied Satisfied; 2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied;
different subjects.
I read books to gather ideas Sd- standard deviation
2.53 .73 Satisfied
before the actual discussion.
As presented in the table 6, the highest mean among the
I do advance research about the
levels of Student-Related Factors was on “Motivation” with
certain topic before entering the 2.51 .72 Satisfied
(mean = 3.22; sd = 0.82). In addition, “Study Habits” attained the
class.
second highest mean = 3.14; sd = .78. On the opposite, the lowest
I volunteer in giving my insights
2.56 .72 Satisfied mean obtained on “Prior Knowledge” with (mean = 2.63; sd =
and ideas before the discussion.
0.7).
I can still answer the given
Altogether, the mean of 2.99 shows that the level of
activity even I am absent in 2.80 .77 Satisfied
Student-Related Factors of the respondents at Bataan Peninsula
synchronous classes.
State University-Balanga Campus was satisfied.
Composite 2.63 .7 Satisfied
Motivation, according to Bzuneck (2001), is an internal
Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51
Satisfied; 2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied; process. Goals, activities, and preferences are guided, changed, or
Sd-standard deviation maintained by this structure. According to the author, a student's
motivation is one of the most important predictors of success in
As shown in the table 5, the indicator “I can still answer learning activities and, as such, must be addressed in teachers'
the given activity even I am absent in synchronous classes” got preparation of teaching method.
the highest mean = 2.8; sd = .77. In contrast, the indicator “I do Additionally, achievement motivation energizes and
advance research about certain topic before entering the class” directs behavior toward achievement and therefore is known to be
achieved the lowest mean = 2.51; sd = .72. an important determinant of academic success (e.g., Robbins et al.,
2004; Hattie, 2009; Plante et al., 2013; WigfiAld et al., 2016)
Generally speaking, the mean of 2.63 proposes that the
level of student-related factors at Bataan Peninsula State Table 7 presents the level of home-based factors of the
University-Balanga Campus in terms of prior knowledge is respondents in terms of parental involvement.
satisfied.
Table 7. Parental Involvement
The result in this table proved that most education Indicator M SD DE
students can still answer the given activity even if they are absent My parents are willing to engage Satis
in synchronous class. Nieuwoudt (2020) found that it did not make 2.78 .95
in different school activities. fied
a difference for student achievement whether students attended My parents make sure that I have Very
synchronous virtual classes or watched the recordings of the enough resources during flexible 3.29 .89 Satis
virtual classes. With this, students have the capacity to answer the learning. fied
given activities using their prior knowledge. My parents are always attending
Satis
the teacher and Parents 2.84 .96
Table 6 summarizes the level of student-related factors fied
conference.
of the respondents at Bataan Peninsula State University – Balanga My parents always check the
Campus in terms of study habits, motivation, and prior Satis
status of my grades every end of 3.14 .98
knowledge. fied
the semester.
My parents always try their best Satis
2.92 .96
to help me on my task. fied
Sati
Composite 2.99 .94
sfied
Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51
4
Satisfied; 2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied; Table 8. Learning Environment
Sd-standard deviation Indicator M SD DE
I have a comfortable and
conducive learning 2.89 .76 Satisfied
It could be gleaned from the table 7 that, among the environment
indicators, the highest mean = 3.29; sd = 0.89 is indicator “My I have a clean and well-
parents make sure that I have enough resources during flexible ventilated space whenever I 3.07 .78 Satisfied
learning.” while the lowest mean = 2.78; sd = .95 was obtained on study.
“My parents are willing to engage in different school activities”. I find flexible learning more
2.68 .77 Satisfied
conducive to focus and study.
In all, the mean = 2.99; sd = 0.94 described that the level I encountered a lot of
of home-based factors of the respondents at Bataan Peninsula 3.06 .84 Satisfied
distractors
State University-Balanga Campus in terms of parental I have healthy and supportive
involvement was satisfied. 3.21 .82 Satisfied
family around Me.
I have enough of suitable
The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the learning materials on my
importance of parental support, as parents have had to join the 3.00 .75 Satisfied
surroundings for flexible
front-line teaching and learning process (Winthrop et al., 2020). learning
Parents’ lack of education and ability to provide support for I experienced to avoid classes
homework may crucially affect child learning outcomes, Unsatisfi
because I am distracted on my 2.40 1.01
especially during school closures (Brossard et al., 2020). ed
atmosphere.
Composite 2.90 .81 Satisfied
The result proved that most students' parents made sure
Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51 Satisfied;
that they have enough resources during flexible learning. 2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied; Sd-standard
According to Goodall (2014), there are several aspects that parents deviation.
could do to help children learn among others. In relation parents'
support in providing resources during flexible learning greatly Table 8 depicted that, among the indicators, the highest
contributed to learners' success. (mean = 3.21; sd = 0.82) on “I have healthy and supportive family
around Me” whereas “I experienced to avoid classes because I am
Furthermore, Stevens & Borup (2015) found that the distracted on my atmosphere” has the lowest (mean = 2.4; sd =
role of parents‟ engagement would increase when their children 1.01).
are engaged in online learning, as the children tend to face With respect to (mean = 2.9; sd = 0.81) depicted that the
problems with self-management, motivation, and understanding level of home-based factors of the respondents at Bataan Peninsula
the learning material without the help of the teacher. State University-Balanga Campus in terms of learning
environment was satisfied.
Table 8 explains the level of home-based factors of the
respondents in terms of learning environment. The result proved that the learning environment of an
education student is effective to perform in flexible learning as they
have a healthy and supportive family.

Environmental, emotional, and capability assistance are

all examples of family support. Students' interactions with their
proximal social environment (e.g., family environment) are critical
in the development of their learning capacity (Mudrák et al., 2020).
The development of learning competences and motivation was
influenced by students' family support, which includes family
socioeconomic position, parental support, parental expectations,
family social and material resources, and so on (Elliot et al., 2017;
Ericsson et al., 2018). As a result, further research was needed on
the relationship between family support and e-learning
engagement, as well as the contributions of many elements to this
relationship, such as learning normative consciousness and
behaviors, and self- efficacy.

5
 during flexible learning as stated by Siraj et al., (2015) The internet
Furthermore, the study of Lehrl et al., (2020) stated that is sometimes used as a supplementary learning material and has led
home learning environment (HLE) for early age children to an improvement in students’ academic performance. Updated
development was crucial and also acts as a foundation that and current information is well organized on the internet for easy
encourages upcoming educational success. With these vital search, and has contributed significantly to students’ academic
consequences in mind, it is essential to develop ways to: (a) help laurels (Kumah, 2015). With this internet accessibility has a great
parents in improving their children’s learning, (b) afford suitable contribution in students’ academic performance.
training and support for educational professionals in order to
support parents to improve their children’s learning at different Also, the study of Apuke and Iyendo (2017) found that
ages before school start and at later stages of education, and (c) technology has reshaped tertiary educational practice in terms of
look for effective ways to do this both in settings and/or at home. improving academic learning and would be more feasible in the
future. Hussain (2012) reported that the internet and its usage in
Table 9 discusses the level of home-based factors of the higher education have improved educational development and
respondents in terms of internet accessibility. research and has encouraged virtual interactions for sharing
research findings.
As revealed in Table 9, the highest mean provided by the
respondents was on “I used Wi-Fi internet during flexible Table 10 summarizes the level of home-based factors of
learning” with (mean = 3.13; sd = 1.07). While the lowest (mean the respondents in terms of parental involvement, learning
= 2.41; sd = .88) was attained on indicators “I can study well even environment, and internet accessibility.
there is a limited and poor internet connection” and “I open my
camera during online discussion even if it causes depletion of my Table 10. Home-Based Factors
data”. Student-Related Factors M SD DE

Parental Involvement 2.99 .94 Satisfied

Totally, the mean of 2.69 recommends that the
respondents' level of home-based factors at Bataan Peninsula State Learning Environment 2.90 .81 Satisfied
University, Balanga Campus was satisfied. 2.69 .87 Satisfied
Internet Accessibility
Table 9. Internet Accessibility Grand Mean 2.86 0.87 Satisfied
Indicator M SD DE Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51 Satisfied;
I used Wi-Fi internet during Satisfie 2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied; Sd-standard
3.13 1.07
flexible learning. d deviation
I have strong internet connection Satisfie
2.83 .76
at home. d As shown in the Table 10, the highest mean among the
I attend all my synchronous class levels of Home-Based Factors was on “Parental Involvement” with
Satisfie
because I have a good internet or 3.06 .78 (mean = 2.99; sd = .94). In addition, “Learning Environment ''
d
signal. attained the second highest mean = 2.9; sd = .81. On the opposite,
I used mobile data in attending Satisfie the lowest mean obtained on “Internet Accessibility” with (mean =
2.54 .99
flexible learning d 2.69; sd =.87).
I can study well even there is a
Unsatisf
limited and poor internet 2.41 .88 Altogether, the mean of 2.86 showed that the level of
ied
connection. Home-Based Factors of the respondents at Bataan Peninsula State
I can participate during online University-Balanga Campus was satisfied.
Unsatisf
learning even if the internet 2.48 .8
ied
connection is not good. The result proved that parental involvement affects the
I open my camera during online academic performance of the students. A study by Rosie Thornton
Unsatisf
discussion even it causes 2.41 .86 (2015) concluded that students whose parents are intently involved
ied
depletion of my data. in their children’s academic activities have better academic results
Satisfie than parents who are not dynamically involved in the academic
Composite 2.69 .87
d activities of their children.
Scale of Means: 4.00 – 3.26 Very Satisfied; 3.25 – 2.51
Satisfied; 2.50 – 1.76 Unsatisfied; 1.75 – 1.00 Very Unsatisfied; Additionally, parental involvement affects the academic
Sd-standard deviation performance of the students. Therefore, parental involvement was
seen as quite significant in students’ learning and academic
The result proved that most students used Wi-Fi internet
6
achievement. The relationship between parental involvement and attributed to the other factors.
academic achievement has long been an area of research across
the world (Boonk, Gijselaers, Ritzen & Brand-Gruwel, 2018; Generally speaking, “Home-Based Factors” have
Epstein, 1991; Roy and Giraldo-García, 2018). positive low correlation (r = .34) in academic performance of the
respondents at Bataan Peninsula State University – Balanga
Table 11 explains the relationship between student- Campus.
related & home-based factors and academic performance of the
respondents. Home-Based Factor as Determinants of Students’ Academic
Achievements
Table 11. Correlation Matrix
Academic Performance Table 12 reflects the regression model with significant
Factors Sig. predictors of students’ academic achievements. The multiple
r R2 Remarks
value regression analysis procedure involved statistics such as multiple
ns No correlation coefficient (R), adjusted coefficient of multiple
Study Habits .16 .03 .064
Correlation regression (R2), F-values, standard error of estimates, beta and t-
No values.
Motivation .17 .03 .059ns
Correlation
No Table 12. Stepwise Regression Analysis
Prior Knowledge .13 .02 .126ns
Correlation Stand
M Stan
Student-Related No Ad ard
.18 .03 .054ns o F- Unsta dard t-
Factors Correlation Predi jus Error
d r val ndard ize value
Parental Low ctors ted of
.34 .12 .000** e ue ized B Beta s
Involvement Correlation R2 Estim
l (β)
Learning Low ate
.26 .07 .003**
Environment Correlation Const . .12 16. 1.802 .406 4.439
Internet Negligible ant + 3 00 .523 .131 .341 **
.19 .04 .029*
Accessibility Correlation Paren 4 ** 4.000
Home-Based Low 1 tal **
.34 .12 .000**
Factors Correlation Invol
*significant at 0.05 level, ns – not significant at 0.05 level veme
**significant at 0.01 level nt
**significant at 0.01 level, ns – not significant at 0.05 level
Table 11 depicted that student-related factors and all
indicators (Study Habits, Motivation, Prior Knowledge) of Table 12 generated one regression model after applying
student-related factors are not significantly correlated in the the stepwise regression procedure on academic performance of the
respondents' academic performance because the "Sig. value" respondents with “Parental Involvement” as the predictor. The
column is greater than 0.05. models were significant, as manifested by the significant values of
the F test or ANOVA. The t-values that determined each
With respect to “Home-Based Factors,” all indicators independent variable's significance included in the regression
have significant relationships with Academic Performance. models are significant at 0.01, although 0.05 is the accepted level
“Parental Involvement” and “Learning Environment” have a of significance in this study.
positive low correlation (r = .34, r = .26 respectively), And The model indicated that the predictor of academic
“Internet Accessibility” has positive negligible correlation (r = performance was “Parental Involvement” with a correlation
.19). However, “Internet Accessibility” is significant only at 0.05 coefficient (r) of .34, which suggested a positive low relationship.
level of significance. The adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) of .12 implies that
twelve percent (12%) of the variability in “Parental Involvement”
In addition, the corresponding R2 value (Parental could be attributed to the variability in students’ academic
Involvement = 0.12, Learning Environment = 0.07, and Internet performance. In comparison, the other 88% could be explained by
Accessibility = 0.04) implied that twelve percent (12%) for the other factors. The F-value of 16.00, which is significant at 0.01
Parental Involvement, seven percent (7%) for Learning level, suggested that the regression model was significant. The t-
Environment, and four percent (4%) for Internet Accessibility of value of 4.000 significant at 0.01 level indicated that “Parental
the variance in students’ academic performance was explained by Involvement” is a significant predictor of students’ academic
the variance in “Home-Based Factors.” The other percent was performance. The standardized beta of 0.341 for model 1

7
corresponds to the correlation coefficient of “Parental
Involvement” with students’ academic performance.
Conclusions
In this research, the gathered data through survey
questionnaires showed a positive low correlation between the
home-based factors to the academic performance of education
students in Bataan Peninsula State University-Balanga Campus.
The result implies that the significant predictor of
academic performance during the flexible learning is parental
involvement. Based on the indicated findings, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The previous general weighted average of the
majority of respondents ranges from 1.5 to 2.25.
This means that the academic performance of the
education students are better during flexible
learning.
2. The findings revealed that the students preferred to
keep their deadlines and important dates on track.
3. The researchers found out that students could
comply with his academic responsibility even
though he missed the synchronous classes.
4. The researchers found out that students could
comply with all the required requirements for the
course ahead of time.
5. The researchers found out that most of the
respondents have an access to internet connection
during online learning.
6. The study revealed that even with a restricted and
poor internet connection, students could still study
effectively.
7. The findings revealed that an education student's
learning environment is conducive to flexible
learning since they have a healthy and supportive
family.
8. The findings revealed that the significant predictor
of academic performance is the parents’
involvement.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study and the conclusions
drawn above, the following recommendations are made:
1. Researchers found that most students don't like
working in groups, the research recommends
creating an activity or projects that require less
students involved.
2. Since only few students participate actively in the
discussion, the researchers recommend creating a
required recitation or an engaging discussion.
3. Some students avoid classes because they are
8
distracted by their atmosphere. The researchers
recommend that since online learning is difficult for
every student, teachers should have a high
consideration in checking attendance.
4. The findings revealed that most students do not
study before attending their class, the researcher
recommends creating assignments about certain
topics before the discussion.
5. The majority of parents do not want to participate
in school activities. The researcher recommends
having a webinar to encourage parents to take part
in school activities.
6. The researchers found out that some students can’t
study well because of limited and poor internet
connection. The researchers recommend creating
pre-recorded learning materials to minimize the
internet usage of the students.
7. For future researchers, continue conducting study
about the predictors of academic performance and
try to explore another variable.
Acknowledgment
We, researchers, would like to express our
deepest gratitude to those who helped us turn this
research into reality.
To Dr. Romeo T. Quintos Jr., for his expertise,
dedication, and most of all patience in giving us
guidance and constructive criticisms in our research
paper. For every word that he said indeed encouraged
and inspired us to work harder.
To Mr. Orly Del Mundo, the researchers’
statistics practitioner, for sharing his expertise in terms
of quantitative data of this study.
To the members of panel, Mr. Job D. Paguio
and Mr. John Albert R. Dela Rosa, for the suggestions,
comments, and for all their skills and wisdom in their
field of expertise.
To Dr. Leandro T. Olubia, Dean of College of
Education, for all his encouragement, assistance, and
support.
To our research validators, Ms. Donna T.
Santos-Villanueva, Ms. Evangerline D. Tamayo, and
Mr. Rollyn Flores who has been a great help in leading
our research instrument into a great success.
To all of our respondents who gave their time
and effort to answer the questionnaire and participated
in the study.
To our family and friends for their supportive
and inspiring words that served us our motivation to
pursue this study.
Above all, to the Lord Almighty for his divine
guidance throughout the process of this Study

References
Ballester, C. P. M. 2012. “Determinants of Students’ Performance
in Financial Accounting.” Economics of
Education. AccessedJune 15,
2015.
http://2012.economicsofeducation.com/user/pdfsesione
s/007.pdf.
Bahman, and E. Hadis. 2011. “Factors Affecting Accounting -
Students’ Performance: The case of Students at the
Islamic Azad University.” Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 29: 122–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.216.
De Leon J (2013). Academic and Licensure Examination
Performances of BSN Graduates: Bases for Curriculum
Enhancement. Dissertation study. Centro Escolar
University, Manila.
Erdem, C., Senturk, I., & Arslan, C. K. (2007). Factors affecting
grade point average of university students. The
Empirical Economics Letters, 6(5), 360-368.
Baños, R., Ortiz-Camacho, M., del, M., Baena-Extremera, A., and
Zamarripa, J. (2018). Efecto del género del docente en
la importancia de la Educación Física, clima
motivacional, comportamientos disruptivos, la intención
de práctica futura y rendimiento académico. Ret. Nuev.
Tend. Educ. fís. Dep. Recreac. 33, 252–257
Bayat and Fox . (2007) “A Guide to Managing Research” Juta
Publications, p.45
Burns, N. and Grove, S.K. (2001) The Practice of Nursing
Research, Conduct, Critique, and Utilization.
4th Edition, W.B. Saunders
Company, Philadelphia
De Guzman R, Guy I (2013). Teacher’s Time Management and
Student’s Academic Achievement in LPU College of
Nursing: Basis for an Enhanced Classroom
Management.E – Int. Sci. Res. J., 5(3):225-236.
Dove Press. (2019, August 15). Relationship between study habits
and academic achievement in students | AMEP.
DovePress. Retrieved November 13, 2021,from
https://www.dovepress.com/relationship-between-
study-habits-and-academic-achievement-in-students-
peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-AMEP
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In
P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology 416–
436. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21800-020
Dogan, U. (2017). Student Engagement, Academic Self-efficacy,
and Academic Motivation as Predictors of Academic
Performance. The Anthropologist, Vol. 20(Issue 3,
p553-561). DOI: 10.1080/09720073.2015.11891759.
Dong, A., Jong, M. S. Y., & King, R. B. (2020). How does prior
knowledge influence learning engagement? The
mediating roles of cognitive load and help-seeking.
Frontiers in psychology, 2992.
Guidry, K.2013."Predictors of student success in online courses:
Quantitative versus qualitative subject matter",
Nicholls State. University
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097128.pdf
9
Gao, H., Ou, Y., Zhang, Z., Ni, M., Zhou, X., & Liao, L. (2021).
The Relationship Between Family Support and e-
Learning Engagement in College Students: The
Mediating Role of e-Learning Normative Consciousness
and Behaviors and Self-Efficacy. Frontiers in
psychology, 12, 573779.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.573779
Hawkins, C.D.(2012)."Academic Predictors of Online Course
Success in the Community College".Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD),Dissertation, STEM Education &
Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI:
10.25777/ed9c-
gq8https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/stemps_etds/70
Ivwighreghweta, O., & Igere, M. A. (2014). Impact of the internet
on academic performance of students in tertiary
institutions in Nigeria. Information Impact: Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management, 5(2), 47-56.
Koch, A. (2018, April). How Academic and Extracurricular
Workload and Stress Impacts the Mental and Physical
Health of College Students (No. 4– 2018).
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic
le=1164&context=uhp_theses
Kupczynski, L., Brown, M.,Holland, G., & Uriegas, B. (2018). The
Relationship between Gender and Academic Success
Online. Files.eric.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1020184.pdf
Kurata, Y. B., Bano, R. M. L. P., & Matias, A. C. (2015). Effects
of Workload on Academic Performance among Working
Students in an Undergraduate EngineeringProgram.
Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3360–3367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.497
Learning: Voices of Philippine University Students in the Wake of
COVID-19 Crisis, Volume 15(Issue 2, 2020).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1285295.pdf
Millar, S. K., Spencer, K., Stewart, T., & Dong, M. (2021).
Learning Curves in COVID-19: Student Strategies in the
‘new normal’? Frontiers in Education, 6.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.641262
McKenzie, K., and R. D. Schweitzer. 2001. “Who Succeeds at
University?Factors Predicting Academic Performance in
First Year Australian University Students.” Higher
Education Research and Development 20 (1): 21–33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07924360120043621.
Palos R., Drobot, L. (2010). The impact of family influence on the
career choice of adolescents. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 2. Pages 3407-
3411.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1877042810005641
Pascual, N. T. (2014). Factors affecting high school students’
career preference: A basis for career planning program.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and
AppliedResearch,16(1),114.https://www.google.com/url
?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.urs.edu.ph/
wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2261-4881-1
PB.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiwlJHI_Jr0AhWIr1YBHT3wDu
Q4HhAWegQIGRAB&usg=AOvVaw2KN9cRUOIF2l
QRSyKoSH91
Piniero, I. Estevez, I., Freire, C., et al. (2019). The Role of Prior
Achievement as an Antecedent to Student
Homework Engagement. Frontiers
in Psychology.
 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019
.00140/full.
Pogue, F. (2000). A correlation on the Study Habits of Second
Year Students in Special Science Curriculum
and Basic Education
Curriculum of Dasmarinas National High
School, Dasmarinas National High School.
Ribeiro L. et al. (2019). First-Year Students Background and
Academic Achievement: The Mediating Role of Student
Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019
.02669/full
Rodrigo, M., Ong, A., Bringula R., Basa R., Dela Cruz C.,
Matsuda N. (2018). Impact of Prior Knowledge and
Teaching Strategies on Learning by Teaching. Impact of
Prior Knowledge and Teaching Strategies on Learning
by Teaching, 4. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1009/0408.pdf
Rodriguez, S., et al. (2019). Relationship Between Students’ Prior
Academic Achievement and Homework Behavioral
Engagement: The Mediating/Moderating Role of
Learning Motivation. Frontiers
in Psychology.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019
.01047/full
Rotas, E. (2020). Difficulties in Remote Learning: Voices of
Philippine University Students in the Wake of COVID-
19 Crisis. Difficulties in Remote
Rugutt,Chemosit, J. K. C. C. (2005). A Study of Factors that
Influence College Academic Achievement: A Structural
Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of
Educational Research & Policy Studies,
5, 67–69.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ846830.pdf
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Self-regulated
learning strategies & academic achievement in online
higher education learning environments: A systematic
review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387.
https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?start=30&q=pred
ictors+of+academic+excellence+among+students+duri
ng+flexible+learning&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1#d
=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DCTdrKM6CHXYJ
Steinmayr, R., Weidinger, A., Schwinger, M., & Spinath, B.
(2019). The Importance of Students’ Motivation for
Their Academic Achievement Replicating and
Extending Previous Findings. Frontier in Psychology.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019
.01730/full
Stephen,s Larry J. and Schaben, Laura A. (2002). The Effect of
interscholastic sports participation on academic
achievement of middle level school students. NASSP
Bulletin 86 34-41.
Salustiano R (2013). Correlation Analysis of Performance in
College Admission Test, Nursing Aptitude Test, General
Weighted Average and Nurse Licensure Examination of
Nursing Graduates. Arellano University Graduate
School J., Vol 11, No 1.
Scherer, S., Talley, C. P., & Fife, J. E. (2017). How personal
factors influence academic behavior and GPA in African
American STEM students. SAGE Open, 7(2),
2158244017704686.
Tus, J. (2020). Academic Stress, Academic Motivation, and Its
10
Relationship on the Academic Performance of the Senior
High School Students. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary
Studies, 8(11).
Umali, R. (2018, February 28). Effects of Lack of Internet Access
in the Academic Performance of STEM Students.
Academia Edu.
https://www.academia.edu/36039629/Effects_of_Lack_
of_InternetAccess
in_the_Academic_Performance_of_STEM_Students
Usman, Y. D., & Madudili, C. G. (2019). Evaluation of the Effect
of Learning Environment on Students' Academic
Performance in Nigeria. Online Submission.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602386.pdf
Wallace O. (2007). A Study of Gender Differences in Academic
Performance in a Rural County in Tennessee. Digital
Commons East Tennessee State University.
https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3462&co
ntext=etd
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory
of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational
psychologist, 45(1), 28-36.
Wentzel, Kathryn R.1988. “Gender Differences in Math and
English Achievement: A Longitudinal Study.”
Sex Roles 18:11-12. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-
17206-001
Yukselturk, E. & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for Student Success
in an Online Course. Educational Technology &
Society,10(2), 71-83.
http://anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/Yukselturk.pd
f
Yebowaah, F. A. (2018). INTERNET USE AND ITS EFFECT ON
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN WA
MUNICIPALITY OF GHANA. Library Philosophy &
Practice.
Arieta, K. M., Gementiza, R., & Saco, C. J. (2017). Factors
affecting study habits on the academic performance of
Senior High School students of Davao Doctors College.
https://www.journal.com/document/358797618/Factors-
Affecting-Study-Habits-onAcademic-Performance-of-Senior-
HighSchool-Students-of Davao-Doctors-College
ACT. 2005. “2005 ACT National and State Scores: The 2005
National Score Report.” Iowa City, Iowa: ACT News.
Retrieved October 5, 2005
http://www.act.org/news/data/05/data.html
Akraka, B. (2015). Effect of prior knowledge of topics and the
instructional objectives on students’ achievement in
literature-in-English. Journal of Education and Practice,
Vo. 6, No. 20.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079053.pdf
Alyahyan E. & Düştegör D. (2020). Predicting academic success
in higher education: literature review and best practices.
International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education.
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/
articles/ 10.1186/s412390
Artino, A. R. (2007). Self-regulated learning in online education.
Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Learn, 4,
3-
18.https://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_07/article01.htm
Amasuomo J. (2014). Academic Performance of students admitted
 with different entry certificates to the Nigerian 41, no. 3 (2004): 551-567.
Certificate in Education Programme at the Federal Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2020). Investigating synchronous and
College of Education (Technical), Omoku. Journal of asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic
Technology and Science Education. Vol.4, No. success in online education. Australasian Journal of
1. Educational Technology, 36(3), 15–25.
https://www.jotse.org/index.php/jotse/article/view/107/ https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5137
122
Ariaso N. (2020). Factors of Learning in Filipino and Students’
Performance of Secondary Education in Eastern Visayas
Philippines. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egyp.
https://archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/view/22
43httpsit.
Broh, B. A. (2002, January). Linking extracurricular
programming to academic achievement: Who benefits
and why? [Electronic version]. Sociology of Education.
v. 75.
Darling, N., Caldwell, L. L., & Smith, R. (2005). Participation in
school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent
adjustment. [Electronic version]. Journal of Leisure
Research. v.37.
Datu, J. (2017). Peace of Mind, Academic Motivation, and
Academic Achievement in Filipino High School
Students. Cambridge Core, Vol. 20.
Ebele F., Olofu, P. (2017). Study habit and its impact on
secondary school students’ academic performance in
biology in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
Academic Journals, Vol. 12, pp
583-588.
Fereidooni-moghadam et al. (2017). Relationship between
Achievement Motivation and Academic Performance in
Nursing and Midwifery Students at Ahvaz Jundishapur
University of Medical Sciences in 2014- 2015. Journal
of Research Center for Medical Education
Development. Vol. 8(Issue 3, p335-
344).
Fouché, J. (2017). The reported study habits and time-
management trends of post- graduate students in
accountancy. South African Journal of Higher Education
Khan, F. N., Begum, M., & Imad, M. (2019). Relationship
between Students' Home Environment and Their
Academic Achievement at Secondary School Level.
Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 5(2),
223-234.
Kori et al. (2016). The Role of Programming Experience in ICT
Students' Learning Motivation and Academic
Achievement. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology, Vol. 6(No.
5). DOI:10.7763/IJIET. 2016.V6.709.
Magulod, G. (2019). Learning styles, study habits and academic
performance of Filipino University students in applied
science courses: Implications for instruction. Journal of
Technology and Science Education, 9(2), 184.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.504
Magpily M., Mercado, J. (2015). Non-Cognitive Factors
Affecting the Academic Performance of Fourth Year
College Students of a Private College in Manila. Athens
Journal of Education - Volume 2, Issue 3 – Pages 233-
244.
Mansfield, Phylis M., Mary Beth Pinto, Diane H. Parente, and
Thomas I.Wortman. "College students and academic
performance: A case of taking control." NASPA Journal
11
12