Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 77

National University

COLLEGE OF ALLIED HEALTH


Department of Nursing
551 MF Jhocson Street, Sampaloc Manila
Trunk line: 712-1900 Telefax: 749-8154 www.national-u.edu.ph

THE QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG THE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NURSING


STUDENTS ON BLENDED LEARNING AT NATIONAL UNIVERSITY-MANILA 

An Undergraduate Proposal Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Nursing

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN


NURSING

Researchers:

Taguba, Ma. Cecilia B.

Tan, Joana Nicole A.

Tejedo, Kurt Yoko E.

Torres, Liz Desiree C.

Tungol, Maria Alecsandra C.

Thesis Adviser:
Nelson J. Moleta Jr. RM, RN, LPT, M.Ed, MSN

Date of Submission
October 13, 2022

Nursing Department
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I..........................................................................................................................................iii

ii
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
Quality of Life is a highly subjective measure of how a person is satisfied and content

with their current position in life, as defined by the World Health Organization. It centers on

the individual’s perception of life factors that affect their daily living. It focuses on the

mental, social, and physical well-being of the individual which can result in either a poor or

rich quality of life depending on how they react to certain factors of life. Measuring an

individual’s quality of life is a complicated procedure as the factors that affect them can be

differently perceived depending on the person. A negative event in life could be a motivation

which could result in a better Quality of Life, or it could also deteriorate someone’s will to

move forward which can negatively affect their quality of life as well. In order to accurately

measure the quality of life, one must keep in mind that each individual is different in terms of

dealing with the problems they encounter. With that in mind, it is still a necessary procedure

as the result of the respondents’ quality of life can greatly affect  the goals, expectations,

standards, and life values. As these achievements contribute in molding each individual’s

path in the future, the foundation through education is a major basis. The conventional

method of learning consists of factors that have already been affecting and changing lives,

but with the change in the educational system various learning modalities emerged and along

with it are new factors that can create another level of challenge on the Quality of life.

Blended learning is a combination of Remote Asynchronous and Synchronous

Learning that are online learning modalities constructed to address the educational needs of

students amidst the pandemic. Under normal conditions, learning skills and concepts of a

skill-based program, like Bachelor of Science in Nursing, are already difficult as it is, and

transitioning to a modern setting of using new technology and lack of hands-on

iii
demonstrations, resulted in the rise of additional challenges. With the challenges brought by

technological advances and personal hurdles, blended learning has made an impact to

student’s quality of life. 

          Nursing education faces a fundamental transition from traditional to distance learning.

Students deemed campus-based education to be beneficial to their learning in courses that

used a mixed pedagogical approach with both distant and campus-based learning. A blended

learning method, which includes both campus-based and distant learning, may provide

students with enhanced motivation in their learning process when compared to distance

learning alone. As a result of the COVID-19 epidemic in march 2020, a number of

universities throughout the world were compelled to shift quickly from traditional campus-

based learning to distance learning using digital resources. This move posed a significant

challenge for both teachers and students, and it merits a thorough examination. To improve

didactic tactics in nursing education, additional information about students' experiences with

various pedagogical approaches, including distant learning, is needed.

Understanding the feelings and expectations of students when confronted with such a

significant transition is critical in assisting educational and teaching authorities in allocating

adequate resources and reorienting university education for nursing students. It is vital to

learn from these experiences and describe the strong and weak aspects in order to be able to

manage this issue in the near future. Therefore, the researchers came up with the study

entitled The Quality of Life among the Bachelor of Science in Nursing students on Blended

Learning at National-University Manila.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The study aims to describe and assess the quality of life among the Bachelor of

Science in Nursing students at National University-Manila.

iv
 Specifically the study aims to answer the following questions:

1.What are the socio-demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 Age

1.2 Gender

1.3 Religion

1.4 Marital status

1.5 Year level

1.6 No. of units enrolled

1.7 Residence

2. To determine the level of the respondents Quality of Life in terms of:

2.1 Physical Health

2.2 Psychological 

2.3 Social Relationships

2.4 Environment

2.5 Over-all Quality of Life and General Health


3. To determine the level of the respondents’ perceived implementation of Blended Learning.

4. How significant is the difference exist among respondents’ Quality of Life and perceived

implementation of Blended learning when grouped according to their socio-demographic

variable.

5. How significant is the correlation exist among respondents’ Quality of Life to their socio-

demographic variable. 

6. How significant is the correlation exist among respondents’ perceived implementation of

Blended learning to their socio-demographic variable. 

v
 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study mainly focused on assessing the quality of life among the Bachelor of

Science in Nursing students at National University-Manila. Furthermore, the study would be

of importance to the following.

● Nursing Students  - This study was beneficial to the respondents in a way that helped

them cope up with their struggles during blended learning. Furthermore, this helped the

respondents balance their quality of life in terms of utilizing blended learning in their day-to-

day lives.  

● Academic Institution - The outcome of this study provides the professors with how

blended learning affects the quality of life of the nursing students. With this, the Academic

Institution would create intervention plans or strategies among nursing students to balance

quality of life and academic requirements that did not affect the day-to-day living of the

nursing students in terms of quality of life. 

● Support system/Family - This study promoted understanding between the nursing

students and their support system or family in terms of quality of life. In addition, this paper

allows the support system/family to comfort the students while utilizing blended learning by

providing them their own space with proper ventilation and avoid making noise to allow the

students to focus more during class.

● Nursing researchers - This study helps the nursing researchers assess the quality of

life among Bachelor of Science in Nursing. The researchers are able to study furthermore and

investigate the other phenomenon of this topic. This study also serves as a basis to improve

future studies. 

vi
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 

  The study focuses on the Quality of Life among the Bachelor of Science in Nursing

students at National University-Manila. The respondents of the study are from level I to IV

Bachelor of Science in Nursing who are enrolled in the academic year 2021-2022 at National

University-Manila, located at 551 M.F. Jhocson St, Sampaloc, Manila utilizing online

blended learning modalities.

The study utilized the World Health Organization Quality of Life - BREF

(WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire and Blended Learning Student survey were used to gather

data, and via online survey google forms. The information and results were acquired from

level I to level IV of Bachelor of Science in Nursing students. 

vii
CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Determining someone’s overall physical wellness can be done through lab tests and

diagnostic procedures, but measuring someone’s quality of life may be complicated as this is

highly subjective. Measuring an individual’s quality of life can determine what interventions

or changes are needed to improve or maintain their current state. A more general term known

as quality of life (QoL) encompasses experiences, states, assessments, behaviors, skills, and

emotional responses to situations (Chattu, et. al., 2020). Depending on the environment, one's

health, and psychological state, it is defined and determined differently. Nursing students'

lives become challenging by the effort they put out to learn concepts ranging from basic to

complicated issues and health concerns for preserving human health as a whole. Because of

this, it's crucial to evaluate nursing students' Quality of Life (QoL) to see if they have high

levels of well-being as they engage in their studies. (Cruz, et. al. 2018). According to (Bruno,

2017), the word "quality of life" refers to a person's physical, mental, psychological, and

emotional health, social connections with family and friends, health, education, and other

aspects of their existence.

Poor Quality of Life (QoL) is linked to an unhealthy lifestyle, psychological distress,

and academic failure in medical students, which may impact how they treat patients in the

future (Bamashmous, Banjari, Malibary, Omer, & Zagzoog, 2019). Given the fact that health

workers are responsible for the Quality of Life of their client, they also must take care of their

own Quality of Life. Being able to assess and be aware of their Quality of Life promotes a

healthy lifestyle to the students. This helps them to handle their academics and prevent

acquiring psychological distress.  

viii
Physical Health 

Physical pain in general can cause a massive impact to an individual’s overall

function. The body works as a system, and having problems on certain parts can cause a

negative relation to the individual’s skills and abilities. In the healthcare field, it is inevitable

to suffer physically due to workload. With that in mind, health problems show a significant

relationship towards the healthcare professionals’ job and their overall quality of life (Zahra,

N., Sheha, E., & Elsayed, H., 2020).

Most of the students spend their time at school or in doing school activities or

requirements. This hinders them from participating in different leisure activities to release

their academic stress due to different amounts of workload. According to Pavlova Iuliia,

Vynogradskyi, Bogdan, Kurchaba, Tetiana, Zikrach, Dmytr, physical activity during leisure

time has been found to improve the physical and mental aspects of young adults' quality of

life. The Physical Role Scale, General Health Scale, Social Activity Scale, and Role

Emotional Scale all indicated that higher levels of leisure-time physical activity were

associated with improved quality of life in women (p < 0.01). This bolsters the notion that

engaging in various leisure activities will enhance the quality of life.

The quality of students' sleep can impact their daily lives. According to Kay M.

Johnson, Nancy Simon, Mark Wicks, Karen Barr, Kim O'Connor, and Doug Schaad's (2017)

study, insufficient sleep on a typical weeknight (less than 6 hours, 6-6.9 hours, or 7 or more

hours) was linked to a variety of adverse outcomes, including: (1) higher Epworth sleepiness

scale scores, (2) dozing off behind the wheel, (3) signs of burnout or depression, (4) a decline

in quality of life, and (5) lower perceived academic  success (all p values ≤0.01). This shows

that it is important to give attention to the sleep satisfaction and duration to prevent having

burnout and to promote quality of life.  

Psychological

ix
Due to today's current condition, students become more stressed in this time of

pandemic due to limited interaction, sudden lifestyle changes, restriction, and social isolation

that affects their life satisfaction. Also, according to Rogowska, Kusnierz, and Ochnik’s study

(2021), University students were found to have a 48 percent prevalence of low life

satisfaction and a 34 percent prevalence of high stress during the second wave (W2) of the

pandemic. On the other hand, a thorough analysis revealed a population-wide incidence of

heightened stress symptoms of 27% during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, a

meta-analysis showed that 45% of Chinese people experienced extreme stress throughout the

crisis. Nearly 50% of Australian adults reported experiencing psychological distress during

the first wave of the covid-19 pandemic, which was inversely related to coping techniques

like humor, acceptance, and positive reframing and positively related to self-blame, venting,

behavioral disengagement, and self-distraction. Additionally, their research suggests that

those with higher stress levels tended to utilize more passive than active coping mechanisms

during the pandemic, lowering life satisfaction. Enjoying life and determining its meaning

can be classified as how an individual is satisfied with their current state. A study on the life

satisfaction and quality of life of Spanish nurses revealed that self-care and compassion

positively affect the quality of life, directly impacting the care they deliver. Emphasizing

nurses' self-care and compassion for themselves ensure their general wellbeing. (Sansó, N.,

Galiana, L., Oliver, A., Tomás-Salvá, M., & Vidal-Blanco, G., 2020). 

Body positivity and confidence shows to have an effect on the quality of life of an

individual. Women of all ages reported having similar body image worries, according to

research by Carolyn Becker, Christina L. Verzijl, Lisa S. Kilpela, Salome A. Wilfred, and

Tiffany Stewartl (2017). The quality of life, adverse effects, and functional impairment are all

highly correlated with having a negative body image. This supports that acceptance to bodily

appearance has a significant effect on the behavior and quality of life of an individual. 

x
Determining how often an individual goes through a hard time is essential to identify

their current overall state. In a study by Ruiz-Fernandez, Perez-Garcia, and Ortega-Galán

(2020), the authors discovered a substantial correlation between healthcare professionals'

degrees of burnout, weariness, and compassion satisfaction and their quality of life. This can

be due to exposure from challenges brought by the nursing profession. Additionally, these

circumstances result in stress, tiredness, and anxiety (Dev, V.; Fernando, A.T., III; Lim, A.G.;

Consedine, N.S., 2018). In relation, satisfaction towards their profession and quality of care

they provide has caused a decrease in general, and eventually cause negative impact to their

overall state. (Cocker, F.; Joss, N., 2016; Lim, W.Y.; Ong, J.; Ong, S.; Hao, Y.; Abdullah,

H.R.; Koh, D.L.; Mok, U.S.M., 2020)

Environment

The physical environment, according to Terras and Ramsay (as referenced by Ng, C.

F., 2021), includes sensory stimulation from the constructed environment including lightning,

noise, and temperature as well as the actual presence of other people. These environmental

factors can significantly influence students' learning and performance as it may cause

attentional distraction and may reduce student's concentration. In contrast, spending time in

nature is connected to a good impact on a person's wellbeing, according to a study by Payne,

E., Loi, & Thorsteinsson (2020). Numerous studies, particularly experimental studies, have

discovered compelling evidence that being exposed to the outdoors can have a positive effect

on your psychological health, especially in lowering high levels of stress. As a result, they

proposed that a brief visit to a natural setting could lead to benefits in psychological health.

According to the article entitled “Student Well-being and the Physical Environment”

by Ferco Seating (2016), the physical environment has a strong influence on the learning

experience of the students, which can be beneficial or not depending on the architecture and

xi
design of the facility or building.  It may have a profound effect on students' physical,

emotional and mental health. The design of any structure, how it grows, and how it is

furnished and maintained are all important factors in addressing both the physical and

emotional well-being of the students.  The location of the students' homes or places where

they spend the majority of their time, where they study, etc., all have a significant impact on

their health and general well-being. Furthermore, good physical environmental factors such

as exposure to natural light, a fresh air flow and steady temperature, peaceful environment,

etc. helps the students to stimulate productivity and it enhances their academic performance.

Social Relationship

Although not everyone is open on sharing their personal life, especially their sex life,

it is still a factor to an individual’s quality of life. According to Ji, Jiang, Lin, Zhang, Zheng,

Cheng, Lin, Hu, and Zhuo (2017), Sex Life Satisfaction (SLS) has a significant relationship

to quality of life. Putting importance to the nurses’ SLS  can help them alleviate job stress

and be given psycho-social support.

Working in the hospital will expose you to various people, as it is inevitable to

collaborate with different professionals in the health field. Having people to receive social

support from can be a way for nurses and other medical staff to improve their coping skills.

This can be due to conducted educational and training programs curated for coping

mechanisms for these professionals (Fathi & Simamora, 2018). 

The results of a study by Bruno (2017) showed that individuals with stronger Mobility

and Accessibility presence had more positive evaluations in the majority of their subscales, as

well as more positive opinions of their health, quality of life, and social support. The results

demonstrate that there is a wide range of preferences among the participants. In the majority

of the domains covered, there are considerable differences. The results show that mobility

xii
and accessibility significantly affect quality of life, social support, and health, and that these

factors should be given precedence in transportation plans.

Socio-demographic profile

In order to define people in a specific group or population, a combination of social

and demographic factors is required. In this study the socio-demographic profile includes the

age, gender, religion, marital status, year level, no. of units enrolled, and residence. To

precisely ascertain whether it has a direct impact on the respondent's Quality of Life, several

factors are used. Age is a significant determinant of physical performance and fitness, which

is a key aspect of quality of life. In light of this, growing older can negatively influence a

person's physical condition, which may ultimately have an impact on their range of talents

and abilities (Puciatio, Borysiuk, & Rozpara, 2017). Along with age, the progression of the

major courses in the nursing program should also be considered as a factor which results in

the students feeling overwhelmed, as these courses are implemented much later in their

curriculum (Cruz et al., 2018). Gender is a discussed factor in various fields of work.

Although the health-field is a female-dominated profession, there is still a prominent increase

of men’s involvement in the field. With that in mind, gender differences in this line of work

is still a factor that has a relation to Quality of Life, which is yet to be discussed in a separate

study. 

Women score poorer on the Quality of Life scale than men do in the time

management, physical health, and psychological areas, according to a study by Kobayasi et

al. (2017). This can be due to women having greater levels of anxiety and sadness brought by

gender disparities. According to Chaar et al. (2018), religion is linked to Quality of Life as

evidenced by the study's findings, which show that someone's Quality of Life is positively

correlated with their level of purpose, tranquility, and faith. Relational spirituality is

xiii
perceived to be beneficial in terms of a spiritual coping model to assist the patients through

their healing process. That being said, relational spirituality can be a prominent factor to

nursing students who practice and apply their faith through their learning process. A nursing

student’s unit per semester is determined by the curriculum that the university implemented.

An individual’s work load is weighed and listed to what their current level needs to expand

their knowledge on. Increased workload and increasing topic difficulty have a detrimental

effect on students' motivation in mental, physical, social, and academic areas (Cruz et al,

2018). Residence is also a contributing factor in an individual’s Quality of Life. In contrast to

the results of individuals in underdeveloped countries, certain countries had relatively good

ratings on overall level of well-being, according to a study that focused on the Quality of Life

of nursing students in 9 different countries (Cruz et al, 2018). This could be due to varying

cost of living and lifestyle status of the countries. 

Blended Learning

His definition of online blended learning includes instructional media, techniques, and

a mix of in-person and online training. Moskal, Dzinban, and Hartmen defined blended

learning as changes in higher education institutions as a result of combining old and new

methods (as cited in Malik, G., Fatima, A., Hussain, & Sarwar, 2017), but they suggested that

a better definition is required so that institutions of higher education can align their goals in

order to successfully implement blended learning. In this way, blended learning has been

shown to help both individuals and businesses make more effective use of their time and

resources.

Blended learning combines traditional face-to-face instruction with online learning

strategies to give students access to a range of media (Dziuban, Graham, Moskal, Norberg, &

Sicilia, 2018; Wright, 2017). According to previous studies, 35 percent of the eyes of

xiv
university lecturers use design blended learning, and 12 percent of the 12.2 million elements

of online teaching is introduced into the blended course (Dziuban et al., 2018 ). The illness

known as Covid-2019 first surfaced on December 31, 2019, in Wuhan, China, before

spreading to other parts of the world. It is anticipated that the epidemic's continuous growth,

stringent isolation policies, and delays in the start of schools, colleges, and universities across

the nation would have an influence on students' mental health (Pragholapati, 2020).

Recent years have seen a surge in research into the new educational norm. Others

focused on each student's unique learning experiences throughout the epidemic, while others

focused on national policies, professional development, and curriculum. Copeland et al.

(2021) and Fawaz et al. investigated how COVID-19 affected the mental health and coping

strategies of college students (2021). According to Copeland et al. (2021), isolation,

health/economic effects, and uncertainty negatively impacted students' behavioral and

emotional functioning, specifically their ability to pay attention and cope with stress (i.e.,

mood and wellness behavior). In the study by Fawaz et al., pupils also raised concerns about

the methods used for teaching and evaluating them, a task load that was too heavy, technical

difficulties, and confinement (2021). Students sought support from educators and family

members as well as engaging in recreation activities to deal with these challenges.

They discovered that the lockdown significantly disrupted students' ability to learn.

Additionally, students spoke about certain challenges they had when enrolled in online

courses. Students who are marginalized and from remote locations are more likely to

experience anxiety, sadness, poor Internet connectivity, and a toxic home learning

environment. Contrary to Kapasia et al(2020) .'s findings, Gonzales et al. (2020) found that

isolating students during the pandemic had a significant positive impact on their performance.

These results were associated with students' regular application of learning techniques, which

increased the effectiveness of their learning.

xv
 

Synthesis

Determining an individual’s quality of life was not that easy as it is highly subjective.

However, it is important to determine the level of an individuals’ quality of life to identify

interventions or if there are changes that need to be obtained to improve or maintain quality

of life. Having the ability to assess and be aware of their quality of life promotes a healthy

lifestyle which prevents acquiring psychological distress. 

The students' quality of life may be affected by various factors such as age, gender,

religion, year level, no. of units enrolled, and residence. An increase in age was thought to

have an indirect association with Quality of Life. In line with the age, the nursing program's

curriculum contributes to the students' overwhelming feelings that affect their quality of life.

Thus, the increased effort and difficulty of the subjects caused by the increased number of

nursing units every semester has a detrimental effect on the students' quality of life.

Gender differences in this field are also considered a factor in affecting students'

Quality of Life, which explains why women have lower Quality of Life scores than men due

to different factors such as anxiety and sadness due to gender disparities. 

There are various factors that can affect the quality of life. Sensory stimulation from

the  environment such as lightning, noise, and temperature, as well as the physical presence

of other people can have a substantial impact on students' learning and performance since

they can generate attentional distraction and impair concentration.   Many studies,

particularly experimental studies, have discovered strong evidence that exposure to nature

can have a major impact on your psychological health, particularly in terms of reducing

increased stress levels. It is also reported that students are more anxious in this time of

pandemic due to limited interaction, abrupt lifestyle changes, restriction, and social isolation,

all of which impact their life satisfaction. A person's total function can be significantly

xvi
impacted by physical pain in general. With this in mind, health concerns have a strong link to

the job of healthcare professionals and their overall quality of life. They also learned that

practicing compassion and self-care have a beneficial effect on their quality of life, which

directly affects the care they provide.

The physical environment has a major influence on how well students learn. 

Exposure to natural light, a stable temperature and fresh air flow, a quiet environment, and

other physical environmental elements help students to be more productive and improve their

academic performance. In addition, Body positivity and confidence have been shown to

improve a person's quality of life. Negative body image is associated with poorer wellness

habits, negative outcomes, poor quality of life, and functional impairment. The vast majority

of students spend their time in school, which prevents them from engaging in recreational

activities. A study found that leisure time positively impacts both the physical and

psychological aspects of young adults' quality of life. Females who engaged in more physical

exercise in their spare time had a greater quality of life. This proves that participating in

leisure activities promotes better quality of life. 

In relation to this, The quality and duration of students' sleep may have an effect on

their daily lives. Weeknight sleep deprivation has been associated with worse perceived

academic performance, higher Epworth exhaustion scale scores, dozing off while driving,

burnout or depression symptoms, and reduced quality of life satisfaction. Also, the measure

of sex life satisfaction (SLS) is linked to quality of life. Putting a priority on the SLS of

nurses can help them cope with job stress and receive psychosocial support. 

According to the findings, mobility and accessibility have a significant impact on

quality of life, social support, and health, and transportation plans should focus on these

areas. This shows that individual’s with better mobility had a more favorable opinion on their

health and quality of life.

xvii
To determine an individual's present overall state, it is necessary to determine how

frequently they have a challenging time. It has been discovered that burnout, exhaustion, and

compassion satisfaction all have a substantial impact on health care providers' quality of life.

This could be as a result of the hardships that the nursing profession brings.

Students' who have higher meaning, peace, and faith have a positive relation to their

Quality of Life. It is beneficial in terms of a spiritual coping model to assist the patients

throughout their healing process which explains the relationship of religion to the Quality of

Life of the student. Moreover, students' residence contributes to the factor affecting their

quality of life because some countries showed high scores on overall well-being compared to

those in developing countries.

Pandemic causes drastic changes in providing education. It affects how nurses learn

since nurses need to practice and hone their skills well. It changes into online or blended

learning from traditional classes. Instructional media, techniques, and online training are all

components of online blended learning. It assists individuals in gaining adaptation in their

learning and making more efficient use of time and resources. Blended learning consists of

Remote synchronous learning and remote asynchronous learning modalities. Blended

learning aims to provide flexible learning to students. It allows them to study in their phase

when they do not have or cannot provide access to the Internet due to slow Internet

connection and cannot afford to provide Internet. On the other hand, students use various ICT

learning technologies such as Zoom Cloud Meeting, Microsoft Teams, and VLE to conduct

synchronous learning. 

Theoretical Framework

xviii
In this study, the researchers made use of Abraham Maslow's (1962) theory of quality

of life, which is still regarded as a reliable explanation of quality of life today, along with his

book Towards a Psychology of Being. The idea of human needs serves as the foundation for

Maslow's theory of progression toward happiness and true being. He described his method as

an existentialist psychology of self-actualization focused on personal progress.According to

this notion, people who take more ownership of their lives and actively use all of their best

qualities would feel more liberated, powerful, joyful, and healthy. Maslow's idea of self-

actualization also seems to hold a lot of promise for contemporary medicine. Because most

chronic illnesses persist despite the best biological treatments, it's feasible that understanding

and pursuing the noble path of human development will truly change our patients' experience

for the better. The secret potential for enhancing life resides in assisting the patient in

realizing that his or her thirst for life, wants, and desire to contribute are all one and the same

thing deep down in human existence.However, you won't learn this hidden meaning of life

until you have thoroughly examined your own existence and life to learn who you really are.

With the students’ quality of life as a variable, Maslow’s theory is relevant to this study as it

talks about the quality of life of the nursing students at National University-Manila.

Conceptual Framework

Most of us have experienced different methods where technology is the new mode of

teaching and learning. The most famous difference between synchronous and asynchronous

delivery. Education has often used a blend of these methods of delivery for homework,

supporting references, and projects tend to be asynchronous, while the classroom discussion

tends to be synchronous (Yu, 2020).

xix
 

Figure 1 

In order to conceptualize the study, researchers used the input, process, and output

(IPO) paradigm. The input  presents the blended learning. The process displays the

respondents' sociodemographic profile, which includes their age, gender, religion, year of

birth, number of enrolled units, and place of residence. The output presents the final result of

the study which is the improved Quality of Life of respondents during Blended Learning in

terms of their social, emotional, psychological, physical, and environmental well-being.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS 

The following are defined as used in this study:

Definition of terms  

Blended Learning - This is a combination of asynchronous and synchronous learning

modality which is adapted by the National University-Manila through a flexible learning

approach. This is a flexible learning approach of National University which utilizes mainly

Remote Asynchronous Learning and Remote Synchronous Learning.

xx
Quality of Life -  This is the degree of the respondent’s emotional, mental, and

physical state in relation to blended learning. 

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS

The study was intended to verify the subsequent hypotheses:

1. There is significant difference on respondents' Quality of Life and perceived

implementation of Blended Learning according to their socio-demographic profile variable.

2. There is significant relationship on respondents’ Quality of Life and perceived

implementation of Blended Learning according to their socio-demographic profile variable.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted to determine the Quality of life among Bachelor of Science

in Nursing students at National University, Manila on blended learning. This chapter

describes the research design, setting, sample and sampling design, data collection procedure,

survey instrument used and how survey data was analyzed. 

Research Design 

A quantitative technique was used in this study's descriptive and correlational

research design to gather data that was useful for drawing findings and practical insights.

The  researchers used the descriptive type of research for the study that aims to gather,

analyze, and present collected data that described the characteristics of the variables of the

xxi
study. This assesses and describes the socio-demographic profile and quality of life among

the respondents on a blended learning approach.

Additionally, the correlational research design approach is used by the researchers to

ascertain the link between an independent variable and a dependent variable, which is one of

the study's variables.It was effectively examine the relationship of the quality of life of the

enrolled students in Bachelor of Science in Nursing to their socio-demographic profile in a

blended learning approach.

In this study, quality of life–related variables and blended learning modalities was

described and correlated to the socio-demographic profile of the respondents. The students'

quality of life was not altered by manipulation in a mixed learning setting. Instead, when

blended learning became more widespread, the Bachelor of Science in Nursing students'

personal experiences were evaluated. 

A self-efficacy questionnaire measures a person's confidence in their ability to

develop a sense of personal strength and used it in their daily life (Riopel, 2021) — for online

learning was utilized in this study in which participants from level I to IV of the Bachelor of

Science in Nursing of National University-Manila were chosen depending on their immediate

availability. 

Setting of the Study

The study was conducted in National University-Manila to Bachelor of Science in

Nursing students from Level I to IV, which is located at 551 M.F Jhocson Sampaloc, Manila

1008. The data was collected through an online survey questionnaire utilizing the Google

forms. 

Sample Scheme

xxii
The samples was selected from a population of Bachelor of Science in Nursing

students of National University-Manila based on the following criteria.

a. Inclusion Criteria

1. Respondents must be bonafide students of National University-Manila.

2. Respondents must be officially enrolled in the academic year 2021-2022.

3. Respondents must be taking up Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program regardless of

year level (level 1 to level 4).

4. Those who had consented for the study.

5. Those who have completed answering the survey and submitted on the prescribed

date.

        b. Exclusion Criteria

1. Those who did not consented to the study. 

2. Those with incomplete answer to the questionnaire

3. Those who failed to submit on the prescribed date.

Sampling Design

To find the respondents, the researchers used probability sampling which in

particular, the stratified random sampling where in the respondents of the study were divided

into subgroups based on their academic level to ensure that every stratum is adequately

represented (Taherdoost, 2016). In this study, the researchers gathered data from the enrolled

students of Bachelor of Science in Nursing at National University-Manila.

Sample Size

xxiii
As of October 2021, the total number of enrolled students in the Bachelor of Science

in Nursing program is shown in Table 1. This is the population data where samples were

conducted.

Table 1. Summary of population of Bachelor of Science in Nursing students 

Bachelor of Science in Nursing Students

Year Level Population

Level I 334

Level II 170

Level III 105

Level IV 51

Total Population 660

The researchers used Yamane's Simplified Formula for Proportions to calculate the

sample size needed with a target population of 660 from Bachelor of Science in Nursing

Students. A 98% confidence level is assumed. To get the sample size, researchers used the

simplified formula below:

where, n = number of required samples; N = total population; e = margin of error

(0.05)

Bachelor of Science in Nursing Students

Year Level Population Sample Size

Level I 334 126

xxiv
Level II 170 64

Level III 105 40

Level IV 51 19

Total Population 660 249

Table 2. Utilizing the simplified formula, the required number of samples to be included in

this study is 126 respondents from level I; 64 respondents from level II; 40 respondents from

level III; and 19 respondents from level IV with a total of 249 respondents.

INSTRUMENTATION

The research instrument used in the study is an online questionnaire survey via

Google Forms to gather the needed data from the respondents to determine if each problem

statement is answered. The survey form consists of three parts. The sociodemographic profile

of the respondents is included in the first section. The Quality of Life questionnaire is

included in the second section. The final section then includes information or queries about

blended learning. 

The first part consists of the respondent’s socio-demographic profile including student

number, age, sex, religion, year level, number of units enrolled, and residence. On the other

hand, the outline of the questionnaire on the second part was based on the Quality of Life

(WHOQOL) instrument as a tool of collecting data designed by the World Health

Organization (WHO), which encompasses a variety of subjective quality of life factors. One

of the most well-known tools for comparing quality of life across cultures is the WHOQOL-

BREF, which is accessible in more than 40 languages. The survey questionnaire's questions

are modified by the researchers to ensure that each one was relevant and accurate in order to

address the research aim and objectives. The questionnaire is changed by the researchers into

a 26-item one with four domains: physical health (6 items), psychological health (8 items),

xxv
social relationships (2 items), environmental health (8 items), as well as questions about

quality of life and general health (2 items). Every question on the WHOQOL-BREF is scored

using a response scale with a five-point ordinal scale that runs from 1 to 5. The scores are

then linearly translated to a 10–100 scale. Each ordinal value was given a percentage by the

researchers in order to more accurately assess data and distinguish the differences and

severity of the answer. Additionally, the area of physical health include mobility, daily

activities, functional capacity, energy, discomfort, and sleep. Among the psychological

domain examinations are self-image, negative thoughts, positive attitudes, self-esteem,

mentality, learning ability, memory focus, religion, and mental status. The category of social

interactions includes sex life, social support, and personal relationships. The environmental

health domain includes the following topics: financial resources, safety, health and social

services, living physical environment, opportunities to learn new skills and information,

recreation, general environment (noise, air pollution, etc.), and transportation.

A similar study in Saudi Arabia was conducted wherein the quality of life of their

medical students was measured using WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. The study validated

the tool because it found no relationship between academic year and gender and quality of

life for students. Additionally, the study found that students who performed better had worse

psychological health and social interaction scores (Malibary et. al., 2019). 

For the third part of the online questionnaire, a constructed blended learning student

survey by Long Island University was adapted and utilized for the study. This is a 36-item

survey form that gathers the respondents’ thoughts regarding their experiences in a blended

learning set up. To verify that each item is accurate and pertinent to the research aim and

objectives, the researchers additionally modify the questionnaire into a 26-item one. The

subjective items are disregarded when the questionnaire is revised to provide precise data that

can be measured. Each question in the survey is assessed using a response scale with a five-

xxvi
point ordinal scale that runs from 1 to 5. After that, the scores are linearly scaled to a range of

10 to 100. The researchers assigned a percentage to each ordinal value in order to more

precisely examine the data and identify the variations and severity of the response. It asks

questions about factors students should think about before enrolling in a blended learning

environment, the amount of interaction between professors and students, the quality of

education they will receive despite being confined to an online environment, and personal

growth and realizations while participating in a blended learning environment. 

A study conducted in 2019 utilized The Blended Learning Student Survey by Long

Island University. With 234 responses from the students, they were able to determine the

feedback of students regarding their online summer courses. The survey showed that the

students were very satisfied with their online learning experiences. They were also able to

find out how the students were more flexible in terms of finishing requirements. It also

showed how many opportunities there are in achieving their goals in their academic

programs, which also resulted in having more time to explore other additional courses to

expand their knowledge on (Office of Assessment Santa Clara University, 2019). 

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

A request letter to carry out the study is written. A questionnaire checklist was

modified by the researcher, approved by the subject-matter professor, and then distributed.

Because of the benefits of the survey approach, the researcher from National University of

Manila used an online survey to carry out the study. The respondent's value to the study was

explained by the researchers to the respondents. The researchers explained certain

terminologies to the respondents so that they can complete the questionnaire fully aware of

their role as the study's subject. The responders were asked to respond with all honesty To

guarantee that each stratum is fairly represented, the researcher employs stratified random

xxvii
sampling, a sort of probability sampling in which the participants are separated into

subgroups according to their academic standing (Taherdoost, 2016).

In this study, since the researcher's goal is to determine the Quality of life among

Bachelor of Science in Nursing Students at National University-Manila, the researcher

believes that this method is the most appropriate in choosing the sample for the research.

Following the completion of the questionnaire by the respondents, the researchers

immediately tallied the data collected for this study and computed the results for

interpretation in accordance with the items selected by the respondents.

ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY DATA

After determining the completeness of the survey, data were encoded using Microsoft

Excel and was verified. The researchers utilized a descriptive type of data analysis to analyze

complete data. This thoroughly describes the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics

and Quality of Life (QoL). The respondents’ socio-demographic profiles are listed along with

the respective number of students per profile (age, gender, religion, year level, no. of units

enrolled, and residence).  A multivariate regression analysis was utilized as well as to assess

and describe the relation of socio-demographic profile to the respondents’ Quality of Life. All

tests were preset at p<0.05 level of significance.

In order to find the desired results of the data gathered, the researchers tend to use the

different statistical formulas to tabulate and calculate the gathered data in this study including

frequency and percentage formula, weighted mean, standard deviation, and spearman’s rho.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data to be gathered in this study was subjected to the following statistical treatment:

I. Frequency Count

xxviii
The frequency count is used to identify or determine the total number of respondents

in terms of their socio-demographic profile and to summarize the survey data gathered. To

turn a raw frequency of the respondents’ socio-demographic profile into relative frequency

the percentage formula is used.

II. Percentage Formula

The responses to the questionnaire were systematically analyzed by tallying the

answers. The socio-demographic profile of nursing students at National University-Manila is

calculated using a percentage calculation, taking into account their age, gender, religion, year

of study, number of enrolled units, and place of residence. To show the size of each answer as

compared to the population, the percentage was taken. The formula for percentage is: 

III. Weighted Mean

To calculate the average of the collected data, the researchers utilized a weighted

mean formula. According to guidelines set by the World Health Organization, the

respondent's Quality of Life is calculated by using weighted mean. The formula for weighted

mean is:

Where, ▁x = mean of the respondents’ Quality of Life based on WHO standards; x =

measurement or value; w = weight of the respondents’ socio-demographic profile in blended

learning

xxix
IV. Standard Deviation

The dispersion of the data set in relation to its mean was quantified by the researchers

using standard deviation. When the standard deviation is low, it means that the data points

typically fall relatively close to the mean; when it's high, it means that the data points are

dispersed across a wide range of values. The formula for Standard Deviation is:

where, x_i^  is each value in the data set; ▁x is the mean; n is the number of values in

the data set

V. Chi-square Test

To ascertain whether there is a correlation between the respondents' perceived

implementation of blended learning to their socio-demographic profile and quality of life, the

researchers conducted the Chi-square Test. The formula for Chi-square Test is:

where, x^2 = chi squared; Oi = observed value; Ei = expected value

VI. Two-way Anova Test

To determine whether there is a significant difference between the two independent

factors on a dependent variable, the researchers utilized two-way ANOVA to evaluate the

data collected. This statistical analysis is done to see if the respondent's quality of life differs

from how they perceive blended learning to be applied to their socio-demographic profile.

xxx
Chapter IV

Presentation and Analysis of Findings

The results of the data gathered from the study's survey and discussion on the Quality

of Life among the Bachelor of Science in Nursing Students on Blended Learning at National

University-Manila will be shown in the following chapter. The study included 304

respondents, and upon data cleaning, all the 304 data are valid.

Socio-Demographic Profile of Respondents (SINGLE SPACING AND DAPAT BUO

YUNG TABLE)

Table No. 1 Frequency & Percentage Distribution of Respondents Demographic Profile


According to Their Age
Age Frequency Percent

18 years old up to 20 years 191 62.8%


old
21 years old up to 23 years 109 35.9%
old
24 years old up to 27 years 4 1.3%
old
Total 304 100.0%

As per the data gathered, the majority of the respondents were ages 18 to 20 years old

with a total number of 191 or 62.8%. Respondents aging 21 to 23 years old had a total

number of 109 or 35.9%, and respondents aging 24 to 27 years old were only 4 or 1.3% from

xxxi
the total number of respondents. The majority of responders with ages 18 to 20 years old is

largely due to the ratio of the remaining seniors to the increasing number of freshmen and

sophomores a year in the Nursing Department of National University-Manila. In addition, it

is well recognized that younger individuals are more inclined to engage than older individuals

(Sandberg, F., 2016).

Table No. 2 Frequency & Percentage Distribution of Respondents Demographic Profile


According to Their Gender
Gender Frequency Percent

Male 59 19.4%
Female 245 80.6%
Total 304 100.0%

Based on the table, it shows the frequency distribution of the respondents’ gender.

The total number of respondents were 304 with the female showing a greater number

amounting to 245 or 80.6%, while the male had a total number of 59 or 19.4%. The Nursing

department is known to have more women in the field rather than men. With the increasing

number of nursing students enrolling per year, the number of men enrolled increases yet the

population of women still dominate the nursing department. According to a study, women are

known to engage in answering and participating in research studies rather than men (Bethony,

J., Diemert, D., Gazzinelli, M., Grahek, L., Lobato, L., & Per5eira, F., 2014)

Table No. 3 Frequency & Percentage Distribution of Respondents Demographic Profile


According to Their Religion

xxxii
Religion Frequency Percent

Roman Catholic 230 75.7%


Christian 32 10.5%
Iglesia ni Cristo 11 3.6%
Other Religion 30 9.9%
No Religion 1 0.3%

Total 304 100.0%

The frequency distribution of the respondents' religion is displayed in the table above.

It shows that the majority of respondents—230 in all, or 75.7%—were Roman Catholics. 32

respondents, or 10.5%, identified as Christians. There were 11 or 3.6% of Iglesia ni Cristo

responses. Moreover, there were 30 respondents, or 9.9%, who have other religion. One of

the responders answered no religion with 0.3% . In total, the researchers gathered 304

responses. According to a study, Philippines is heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic

Church, which holds a dominant position in terms of both the number and percentage of

adherents in the country's religious structure. More than 80% of Filipinos continuously

declared their devotion to the Catholic branch of Christianity throughout the decade of 2010

(Balabeykina, 2020). Given this, Roman Catholics represented the majority of the

respondents who were nursing students at National University-Manila.

Table No. 4 Frequency & Percentage Distribution of Respondents Demographic Profile


According to Their Marital Status
Marital Status Frequency Percent

Single 303 99.7%


Married 1 .3%
Total 304 100.0%

xxxiii
As presented above, it shows the frequency distribution of the respondents’ marital

status. The majority of the respondents are single with a total number of 303 or 99.7% and

there is only 1 married among all the respondents. The researchers obtained a total of 303

responses for this table. According to a study, only seven percent of all undergraduates are

married, which explains why the number of single students is higher compared to those who

are married. (NO CITATION)

Table No. 5 Frequency & Percentage Distribution of Respondents Demographic Profile


According to Their Year Level

Year Level Frequency Percent

1st Year 154 50.7%

2nd Year 82 27.0%

3rd Year 52 17.1%

4th Year 16 5.3%

Total 304 100.0%

The data from the above table displays the frequency distribution of the respondent's

Year Level. It was determined that 154 respondents, or 50.7%, were first-year students, who

made up the majority of the respondents. There were 82 or 27.0% second-year students.

There were 52 respondents, or 17.1%, third-year students. Additionally, 16 or 5.3% of

students are fourth-year students. The researchers obtained a total of 304 responses for this

table. At the Nursing Department of National University-Manila, the ratio of seniors to the

xxxiv
increasing number of freshmen and sophomores is the primary reflection of the significant

number of responses in first year, followed by the second year, third year, and fourth year

students. The researchers calculated a sample size based on the population of nursing students

at National University-Manila, which is the foundation for the number of respondents

required for the study. The sample size is primarily set to have a significant number of

responses in the first year.

Table No. 6 Frequency & Percentage Distribution of Respondents Demographic Profile

According to Their No. of Units Enrolled

No. Of Units Enrolled Frequency Percent

10 up to 15 units 23 7.6%

16 up to 20 units 255 83.9%

21 up to 26 units 26 8.6%

Total 304 100.0%

As presented in the table, it shows the frequency distribution of the respondents’ no.

of units enrolled. The majority of the respondents were taking 16 up to 20 units with a total

number of 255 or 83.9%. Respondents taking 21 up to 26 units had a total number of 26 or

8.6%, and respondents taking 10 up to 15 units were 23 or 7.6% from the total number of

respondents. A “unit” or “credit” in college represents the amount of academic work

necessary to graduate (Lucier, 2019). One explanation that students detest online learning and

may have reduced their overall number of units by enrolling in only the most important

courses that they needed and postponing others.

xxxv
Table No. 7 Frequency & Percentage Distribution of Respondents Demographic Profile

According to Their Residence

Residence Frequency Percent

City 268 88.2%

Province 36 11.8%

Total 304 100.0%

The table above indicate the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents

according to their residence. The majority of the respondents are from urban area (city) with

the total frequency number of 268 or 88.2%, while the respondents from rural area (province)

are 36 or with a total of 11.8%. According to the article of Arellano, D. (2017) majority of the

parents of the students intended to enroll their children to a school near at their homes in

order to save time and money commuting, and to assure that the students are safe and secure.

In addition, long commutes are exhausting, especially with the horrendous traffic in Manila.

Level of the Respondent’s Quality of Life

Table No. 8 Respondents Quality of Life According to Their Physical Health

Verbal
Physical Health Level Mean SD
Interpretation

1.) Physical pain prevents me from doing 3.03 1.13 Moderately Healthy
what I need to do.

2.) I take certain medications/medicine to 1.87 1.04 Slightly Healthy


function.

3.) I have enough energy for everyday life. 3.10 0.87 Moderately Healthy

4.) I am able to get around to places I need 3.24 1.02 Moderately Healthy
to.

xxxvi
5.) I am satisfied with my sleep. 2.20 1.03 Slightly Healthy

6.) I accept my bodily appearance 2.94 1.16 Moderately Healthy

Over-all Physical Health 2.73 0.52 Moderately Healthy

1.00-1.79 Not Yet Healthy


1.80-2.59 Slightly Healthy
2.60-3.39 Moderately Healthy
3.40-4.19 Healthy
4.20-5.00 Extremely Healthy

The table above shows the mean perception distribution of the respondents towards

the level of quality of life according to their physical health. The overall mean obtained

(2.73), which is interpreted as moderately healthy. According to Cruz (2018), the heavy

workload in school may limit students to engage in exercise on a regular basis. Being

physically healthy among students holds importance in improving the quality of life, being

healthy without a presence of disease is one of the factors in determining the quality of life of

an individual. Quality of life of students can also be affected by lower practice of physical

activity (Azzi D, Melo J, Neto A, Castelo P, Andrade E & Pereira L, 2022).

Table No. 9 Respondents Quality of Life According to Their Psychological Health

Verbal
Psychological Health Mean SD
Interpretation
1.) I enjoy my life. 3.23 1.04 Moderately Stable
2.) My life is meaningful. 3.41 1.06 Stable
3.) I am able to concentrate well. 2.75 0.94 Moderately Stable
4.) I am satisfied with my capacity to study. 2.68 1.04 Moderately Stable
5.) I am satisfied with myself. 3.06 1.01 Moderately Stable
6.) I experience hopelessness 2.82 0.96 Moderately Stable
7.) I experience anxiety 3.15 1.07 Moderately Stable
8.) I experience sadness. 3.17 0.96 Moderately Stable
Over-all Psychological Health 3.03 0.52 Moderately Stable

xxxvii
1.00-1.79 Not Yet Stable
1.80-2.59 Slightly Stable
2.60-3.39 Moderately Stable
3.40-4.19 Stable
4.20-5.00 Extremely Stable

The table displays the mean perceived distribution of the respondents’ quality of life

in relation to the level of quality of life according to their psychological health. The over-all

psychological health obtained a mean of (3.03), which is interpreted as moderately stable.

Psychological health is a known major contributor to one’s Quality of Life. According to

Cruz (2018), The wellbeing of nursing students is influenced by their psychological health,

which is in turn influenced by how they perceive stress. Therefore, psychological health is the

most significant QOL indicator in the research.

Table No. 10 Respondents Quality of Life According to Their Social Relationships

Verbal
Social Relationships Mean SD
Interpretation
1.) I am satisfied with my personal 3.59 0.83 Satisfied
relationships.
2.) I am satisfied with the support I get 3.80 0.98 Satisfied
from my friends.
Over-all Social Relationships 3.69 0.79 Satisfied
1.00-1.79 Not Yet Satisfied
1.80-2.59 Slightly Satisfied
2.60-3.39 Moderately Satisfied
3.40-4.19 Satisfied
4.20-5.00 Extremely Satisfied

The table shows the mean perceived distribution of the respondents’ quality of life in

regards to their social relationships. The overall social relationships under their quality of life

were determined to have a mean of (3.69), meaning that the respondents’ reported having

satisfied social relationships. Peers and support groups shows great contribution to an

individual’s Quality of Life through protecting one another’s mental health. A known social

xxxviii
determinant of health is their relationship and social interaction with others (Bergeron, G.,

Lundy De La Cruz, N., Gould, L.H. et al., 2020). As the table showed that the respondents

have a satisfied social relationship, their quality of life can be perceived better through this.

The groups they socialize with creates a psychological and emotional impact to their overall

health and eventually improves their quality of life (Fu J, Cheng Z, Liu S, Hu Z, Zhong Z,

Luo Y, 2021).

Table No. 11 Respondents Quality of Life According to Environment

Verbal
Environment Mean SD
Interpretation
1.) I feel safe daily. 3.13 0.97 Moderately Satisfied
2.) My physical environment is healthy 3.17 0.93 Moderately Satisfied
3.) I have enough resources to meet my 3.34 0.96 Moderately Satisfied
needs.
4.) Information needed in my day-to-day 3.40 0.89 Satisfied
life is available.
5.) I have the opportunity for leisure 3.07 0.90 Moderately Satisfied
activities.
6.) I am satisfied with the conditions of my 3.41 1.03 Satisfied
current living place.
7.) I am satisfied with my access to health 3.23 0.99 Moderately Satisfied
services
8.) I am satisfied with my mode of 2.90 1.12 Moderately Satisfied
transportation.
Over-all Environment 3.21 0.71 Moderately Satisfied
1.00-1.79 Not Yet Satisfied
1.80-2.59 Slightly Satisfied
2.60-3.39 Moderately Satisfied
3.40-4.19 Satisfied
4.20-5.00 Extremely Satisfied

The Quality of Life of the respondents under the Environmental domain shows a

mean score of (3.21) or Moderately Satisfied. This finding shows that an individual’s Quality

xxxix
of Life may be affected through environmental factors such as the feeling of safety and

security, resources available, accessibility to certain facilities, transportation, and etc. The

respondents' everyday activities are affected by the presence or absence of these elements.

Regarding that, their quality of life may also be significantly influenced due to environmental

factors that support and aid them in meeting their basic needs, which in return affects their

general wellbeing. (Ramli, A., Zain, R.M., Zain, M.Z.M., Rahman, A.A.A., 2021).

Table No. 12 Respondents Quality of Life According to Their Quality of Life and General

Health

Quality of Life and General Health Mean SD Verbal Interpretation


1.) How would you rate your quality of 3.56 0.77 Good
life?
2.) I am satisfied with my health. 3.34 0.93 Average
Over-all Quality of Life and General 3.45 0.77 Good
Health
1.00-1.79 Very poor
1.80-2.59 Poor
2.60-3.39 Average
3.40-4.19 Good
4.20-5.00 Very good

As indicated above, the overall Quality of Life and General Health of the respondents

results to a score of (3.45). The tool reveals that the respondents have a Good Quality of Life

and General Health when looking at the set of values used to analyze the data. The different

domains under the tool used to evaluate their Quality of Life is a determinant of their overall

general health and as well as their Quality of Life. The Physical, Psychological, Social

Relationship, and Environment domains were all factors to be evaluated before respondents

are able to accurately and appropriately evaluate their perception of their Quality of Life. At

certain domains they showed excellence and most were just average which resulted to the

respondents’ reporting a Good Over-all Quality of Life and General Health.

xl
Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

Table No. 13 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Importance of Implementation of

Blended Learning

Verbal
Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning Mean SD
Interpretation
1.) Not coming to campus often is convenient for
3.06 0.91 Moderately important
me.
2.) I have the flexibility to do my assignments in
3.38 0.97 Moderately important
my own time at any place.
3.) My schedule works with the program I took. 3.39 0.90 Moderately important
4.) I chose the University, not the course modality. 2.53 0.99 Slightly important
5.) Household duties make it difficult for me to
2.69 1.11 Moderately important
attend face-to-face classes.
Over-all Perceived Importance of
3.01 0.97 Moderately important
Implementation of Blended Learning
100-1.79 Not at all important
1.80-2.59 Slightly important
2.60-3.39 Moderately important
3.40-4.19 Very important
4.20-5.00 Extremely important

The table above shows the mean perception distribution towards the level of the

respondents’ perceived importance of implementation of Blended learning. It indicates that

the over-all perceived importance of implementation of Blended learning obtained a mean of

(3.01), which is interpreted as Moderately important. It was evident that the respondents do

recognize the value of this learning modality through the advantages it provides. As most of

the questions asked are determined to be moderately important, the respondents’ perception

may be influenced by the adjustment period and rapid transition from traditional classroom

setting to blended learning. Moreover, the online learning modality was able to show the

impact of blended learning not only for their academics but also to their life outside the

xli
course, which in return may influence and improve the quality of their skills and performance

(Lee, C. & Ma, L., 2021).

Table No. 14 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

(according to the amount of interaction)

Verbal
Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning Mean SD
Interpretation
1.) Other students in this blended course. 2.91 0.77 Maintained
2.) The instructor in this blended course. 3.26 0.75 Maintained
Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
Learning according to the amount of interaction 3.09 0.76 Maintained
100-1.79 Much decreased
1.80-2.59 Somewhat decreased
2.60-3.39 Maintained
3.40-4.19 Somewhat increased
4.20-5.00 Much increased

The table above shows the mean distribution towards the level of the respondents’

perceived implementation of blended learning according to the amount of interaction of

instructors and students. The over-all perceived implementation of blended learning

according to amount of interaction obtained a mean of (3.09), which is interpreted as

maintained. Transitioning from traditional online settings to blended learning, the students’

participation and means of communication were affected through various ways.

Communicating lectures, announcements, feedback, and simple or deep conversations

between student and instructor may be elements that are affected which could eventually

have an impact to their over-all academic performance. Aside from the expected connection

errors and miscommunication through online, the flexibility of the schedule provided by the

instructors to the students made a positive impact to how students manage their time as it is

accessible and relevant to their current conditions (Hajhosseini, F. & Taghizadeh, M., 2021).

xlii
Through this, the data shown above determined that the interaction between students and

instructors are maintained at a level that is still efficient for both ends. (PACHECK KUNG

NAG MAMAKE SENSE HAHA)

Table No. 15 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

according to the quality of interaction

Perceived Implementation of Blended Verbal


Mean SD
Learning Interpretation
1.) Other students in this blended course. 3.02 0.72 Maintained
2.) The instructor in this blended course.
3.13 0.75 Maintained
Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
Learning according to the quality of
3.08 0.73 Maintained
interaction
100-1.79 Much worse
1.80-2.59 Somewhat worse
2.60-3.39 Maintained
3.40-4.19 Somewhat better
4.20-5.00Much better

The table displays the mean perceived implementation of blended learning according

to the quality of interaction of instructors and students. The over-all perceived

implementation of blended learning obtained a mean of (3.08) which is interpreted as

maintained. Blended Learning provides students with access to online information and

resources according to their interests and expertise levels. It improves lecturers' and students’

time management skills and helps the classroom environment by providing possibilities for

professional cooperation (Guillén-Gámez et al. 2020; Owston et al. 2019). Through that the

quality of interaction between the instructors and students are determined to have minimal to

no changes compared to the quality of interaction during the traditional face-to-face setting.

Table No. 16 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

(modality in general?) (NOT SURE KUNG ANO PINAKA TOPIC NITO)

xliii
Perceived Implementation of Blended Verbal
Mean SD
Learning Interpretation
1.) The university provides sufficient resources
3.03 0.87 Average
for this specific blended course.
2.) The course provides extensive information
(e.g., links) about technical support for online 3.33 1.89 Average
learning.
3.) The course syllabus identifies and clearly
delineates the role of online environment will 3.41 0.82 Moderately agree
play in the total course.
4.) Overall, I am satisfied with this blended
3.06 0.87 Average
course.
5.) I am looking forward to taking other blended
2.96 1.00 Average
courses at the same university in the future.
6.) A Blended course format helps me to manage
3.09 0.92 Average
my time better.
7.) The online components of this course
effectively reinforced what I was learning in the 3.09 0.85 Average
face-to-face sessions of this course.
8.) The face-to-face session of this course
effectively reinforced what I was learning via the 3.42 0.86 Moderately agree
online components of this course.
Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended 3.18 1.01 Average
Learning (modality in general?)
100-1.79 Strongly disagree
1.80-2.59 Moderately disagree
2.60-3.39 Average
3.40-4.19 Moderately agree
4.20-5.00 Strongly agree

As indicated above, it shows the perceived implementation of blended learning. The

over-all perceived implementation of blended learning obtained a mean of (3.18), which is

interpreted as average. As technology has been easier to use over the past several years,

blended learning has changed how classrooms look. Since the evidence shows that they have

xliv
the potential to maximize student engagement, blended learning (BL) environments—which

integrate synchronous and asynchronous activities and are located on a continuum between

face-to-face and online teaching and learning—are of special interest (Graham, 2019). The

current situation demands what is the best methodology for teaching and which ones may suit

best depending on the needs of the students.

Table No. 17 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

compared to traditional face-to-face setting

Perceived Implementation of Blended Mean SD Verbal


Learning Interpretation
1.) The workload in this course is lighter or
heavier compared to traditional face to face 3.45 0.86 Somewhat heavier
courses.
2.) The course is more difficult during traditional
face to face classes. 3.07 0.97 Average
Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
Learning compared to traditional face-to-face 3.26 0.91 Average
setting

100-1.79 Much lighter


1.80-2.59 Somewhat lighter
2.60-3.39 Average
3.40-4.19 Somewhat heavier
4.20-5.00 Much heavier

The table presents the perceived implementation of blended learning. The over-all

perceived implementation of blended learning compared to traditional face-to-face setting

was determined to have a mean of (3.26), which indicates average. The degree and amount of

workload of the students during traditional and face to face classes and the comparison of the

traditional and blended learning in terms of level of difficulty contributed to the outcome of

this data. Blended learning was a potential method in undergraduate medical to teach the

xlv
medical students and it was as effective as traditional learning for teaching medical students

(Sitthiphong, et al. 2021). As a result, the respondents viewed that the course whether

blended learning or traditional face-to-face had minimal differences in terms of quality and

effectivity as both were relevant to the course.

Table No. 18 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

resources and components

Perceived Implementation of Blended Verbal


Mean SD
Learning Interpretation
1.) The provided class syllabus is helpful to
3.30 0.88 Moderately helpful
me.
2.) The materials (e.g., PowerPoint
presentation, video presentation) provided in 3.56 0.92 Very helpful
class helps me to understand the lesson.
3.) Online interaction (e.g., discussion board,
3.37 0.92 Moderately helpful
chats, e-mails) benefits me.
4.) In-class quizzes and tests benefit me. 3.37 0.86 Moderately helpful
5.) I benefit from taking exams and quizzes
3.35 0.93 Moderately helpful
online.
6.) The textbooks are useful to my online class. 3.58 0.99 Very helpful
7.) Online reading materials are helpful to my
studies. 3.64 0.99 Very helpful
Over-all Perceived Implementation of
Blended Learning resources and 3.45 0.93 Very Helpful
components
100-1.79 Not at all helpful
1.80-2.59 Slightly helpful
2.60-3.39 Moderately helpful
3.40-4.19 Very helpful
4.20-5.00 Extremely helpful

xlvi
The table presents the perceived implementation of blended learning. The over-all

perceived implementation of blended learning was determined to have a mean of (3.45),

which indicates very helpful. Factors such as dissemination of class materials like

PowerPoint presentation and video presentation, textbooks, and online reading materials are

considered to be very helpful for the respondents. On the other hand, the dissemination of

syllabus, online interaction, in-class quizzes, and exams are considered as moderately helpful.

When attempting to create an online course that is more beneficial and useful for students

studying, understanding the elements that influence how students perceive the usefulness of

blended learning may be of substantial use. If the course material and activities are well

prepared and easy to use, students feel comfortable and have greater motivation to study

(Damijana et. al, 2019)

Table No. 19 Summary of the over-all perceived implementation of blended learning

Verbal
Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning Mean SD
Interpretation
1.) Over-all Perceived Importance of
3.01 0.97 Moderately important
Implementation of Blended Learning
2.) Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
3.07 0.97 Maintained
Learning according to the amount of interaction
3.) Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
3.13 0.75 Maintained
Learning according to the quality of interaction
4.) Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
3.18 1.01 Average
Learning (modality in general?)
5.) Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
3.26 0.91 Average
Learning compared to traditional face-to-face setting
6.) Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended
3.45 0.93 Very Helpful
Learning resources and components
The table above shows the summary of the elements under Blended learning as perceived by

the respondents. Through the data gathered, Blended learning is perceived to be moderately

important as the amount and quality of interaction between the students and instructors were

xlvii
both maintained whether it was traditional or not. Their over-all understanding of the

implementation of blended learning is found to be average as well as the perception they have

as they compared it to the traditional face-to-face setting. Under the blended learning

modality, the resources and components it provided the students is found to be very helpful to

their course due to its availability, accessibility, flexibility, and relevance to their current

conditions. (PACHECK PO KUNG NAGMAMAKE SENSE)

(SOP4)

Table No. 19 Comparison Among Respondents Over-all Quality of Life and Blended

Learning Experience When Grouped According to Their Age Profile

Type
III Sum Mean Probabilit Decision Verbal
Source df F
of Square y Value Rule Interpretation
Squares
Correcte
4.826a 9 .536 2.098 .030
d Model
Intercept 71.778 1 71.778 280.828 .000
Over-All
Accept Not Yet
Quality 1.157 2 .579 2.264 .106
Ho Significant
of Life
Blended Accept Not Yet
1.014 3 .338 1.322 .267
Learning Ho Significant
Over-All
Quality
Accept Not Yet
of Life * 1.216 4 .304 1.189 .316
Ho Significant
Blended
Learning
Error 75.144 294 .256
Total 663.000 304
Correcte
79.970 303
d Total
a. R Squared = .060 (Adjusted R Squared = .032)
The hypothesis was tested as shown in table (19), where the (F) value regarding the

over-all quality of life reached (2.264) with a probability value of (.106), which indicates that

the result of statistical analysis accepts the null hypothesis and confirms that there is no

significant difference among the respondents’ over-all quality of life when they are grouped

according to their age profile. Additionally, the probability value obtained for the blended

xlviii
learning experience by the respondents is (.267), which also indicate that the result accepts

the null hypothesis and confirms that there is no significant difference among the

respondents’ blended learning experience when they are grouped according to their age

profile. Furthermore, the (F) value regarding the over-all quality of life and blended learning

obtained (1.189) with probability value of (.316), which is found to be not yet significant.

Therefore, the result accepts the null hypothesis and further concludes that there is no

significant difference among the respondents’ over-all quality of life and blended learning

experience when they are grouped according to their age profile.

Table No. 20 Comparison Among Respondents Over-all Quality of Life and Blended

Learning Experience When Grouped According to The No. Of Enrollees

Type III
Mean Probabilit Decision Verbal
Source Sum of df F
Square y Value Rule Interpretation
Squares
Correcte
2.293a 9 .255 1.604 .113
d Model
Intercept 137.397 1 137.397 865.396 .000
Over-All
Accept Not Yet
Quality .803 2 .402 2.529 .081
Ho Significant
of Life
Blended Accept Not Yet
1.178 3 .393 2.474 .062
Learning Ho Significant
Over-All
Quality
Accept Not Yet
of Life * 1.388 4 .347 2.185 .071
Ho Significant
Blended
Learning
Error 46.678 294 .159
Total 1277.000 304
Correcte
48.970 303
d Total
a. R Squared = .047 (Adjusted R Squared = .018)

The table above shows the comparison among respondents’ over-all quality of life

and blended learning experience when grouped according to the no. of enrollees. It reveals
xlix
that the (F) value regarding the over-all quality of life reached (2.259) with a probability

value of (.081), which indicates that the result of statistical analysis accepts the null

hypothesis and confirms that there is no significant difference among the respondents’

over-all quality of life when they are grouped according to the no. of enrollees.

Additionally, the probability value obtained for the blended learning experience by the

respondents is (.062), which also indicate that the result accepts the null hypothesis and

confirms that there is no significant difference among the respondents’ blended learning

experience when they are grouped according to the no. of enrollees. Furthermore, the (F)

value regarding the over-all quality of life and blended learning obtained (2.185) with

probability value of (.071), which is found to be not yet significant. Therefore, the result

accepts the null hypothesis and further concludes that there is no significant difference

among the respondents’ over-all quality of life and blended learning experience when they

are grouped according to the no. of enrollees.

Table No. 21 Comparison Among Respondents Over-all Quality of Life and Blended
Learning Experience When Grouped According to Their Gender
Probability
Null Hypothesis Test Decision
Value
Independent-
The distribution of Blended
Samples Reject the null
1 Learning is the same across .016
Mann-Whitney hypothesis.
categories of Sex.
U Test
Independent-
The distribution of Over-all
Samples Reject the null
2 Quality of Life is the same .015
Mann-Whitney hypothesis.
across categories of Sex.
U Test
Asymptomatic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.

l
The table above shows the comparison among respondents’ Blended learning and over-all

Quality of Life when grouped according to their gender profile. It can be claimed that non-

Parametrical test under Mann-Whitney U Test were employed to compare Blended Learning

as over-all Quality of Life based on respondents’ gender profile. Moreover, the probability

value is less than 5% which is 0.01, wherein it was found to be significant. Evidently the

researchers have enough claims to reject the null hypothesis. This further concludes that there

was a significant difference among respondents’ Blended Learning experience when they are

grouped according to their gender profile. The influence varies depending on gender even

though the resources and courses supplied are fairly distributed to each student. Their gender

profile also affects how well and motivated they are while using various blended learning

modalities. (Alqahtani, M., Elumalai, K., Sankar, J., & R., K., 2022). Additionally, the score

obtained for the over-all quality of life of the respondents is also less than the significant level

which results to a decision of rejecting the null hypothesis meaning that Quality of Life has a

significant difference to their gender profile. This may be due to the genders’ certain

emotional and psychological capacities. The impact of their emotions and psychological

health greatly affects their over-all quality of life (Chaar et al., 2018). Through these findings,

the respondents’ gender is a reliable determinant for their perception on blended learning and

over-all quality of life as it depicts their condition appropriately.

Table No. 22 Comparison Among Respondents Over-all Quality of Life and Blended

Learning Experience When Grouped According to Their Religion

Probability
Null Hypothesis Test Decision
Value
Independent-
The distribution of Blended
Samples Retain the null
1 Learning is the same across .348
Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis.
categories of Religion.
Test
2 The distribution of Over-all Independent- .044 Reject the null

li
Samples
Quality of Life is the same
Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis.
across categories of Religion.
Test
Asymptomatic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.

A non-Parametrical test under the Kruskal-Wallis's test was utilized to know the significant

difference among respondents’ quality of life and perceived implementation of blended

learning when grouped according to their religion. The table shows the comparison among

respondents’ Blended learning and overall Quality of Life when grouped according to their

religion. Moreover, the probability value obtained for the blended learning is .348, which is

greater than the significance level of .05 by that, the researchers have enough claim to retain

the null hypothesis, meaning, that there is no significant difference in respondents’ quality of

life and perceived implementation of blended learning according to their religion. Although

the principles and vision of an individual can be a factor on how they make decisions and

mold the path they make, it is still not enough to be a determining factor to their motivation

in the blended learning and impact on the over-all quality of life. Furthermore, the probability

value obtained for the overall quality of life is .044, which is less than the significance level

of .05, with that, there being a significant difference in the respondents' quality of life and

perceived implementation of blended learning according to their religion, the researchers

have adequate evidence to reject the null hypothesis. According to Chaar et al. (2018), the

study's findings, which reveal that a person's Quality of Life is positively correlated with their

level of purpose, serenity, and faith, support the notion that religion and Quality of Life are

related. Regarding a spiritual coping paradigm to help the patients through their healing

process, relational spirituality is thought to be advantageous. Having said that, relational

spirituality can play a significant role for nursing students who live out and use their faith in

their educational journey.

lii
Table No. 23 Comparison Among Respondents Over-all Quality of Life and Blended
Learning Experience When Grouped According to Their Marital Status

Probability
Null Hypothesis Test Decision
Value
Independent-
The distribution of Blended
Samples Retain the null
1 Learning is the same across .7891
Mann-Whitney hypothesis.
categories of Marital Status.
U Test
The distribution of Over-all Independent-
Quality of Life is the same Samples Retain the null
2 .0991
across categories of Marital Mann-Whitney hypothesis.
Status. U Test
Asymptomatic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
1
Exact significance is displayed for this test

The comparison between respondents’ Blended learning and over-all Quality of Life when
classified according to their marital status was presented in this table. A non-Parametrical test
under the Mann-Whitney U test were utilized to determine the significant difference between
blended learning and over-all quality of life based on respondents’ marital status. Moreover,
the probability value obtained for the blended learning is .789, which is greater than the
significance level of .05. This gives the researchers adequate evidence to support the null
hypothesis, which claims that there is no significant difference in respondents’ quality of life
and perceived implementation of blended learning when classified to their marital status.
Moreover, the probability value obtained for the over-all quality of life is 0.99, which is
greater than the significance level of .05, the researchers have enough claim to retain the null
hypothesis, meaning that there is no significant difference in respondents’ over-all quality of
life and perceived implementation of blended learning according to their marital status.

Table No. 24 Comparison Among Respondents Over-all Quality of Life and Blended
Learning Experience When Grouped According to Their Year Level

Probability
Null Hypothesis Test Decision
Value
Independent-
The distribution of Blended
Samples Retain the null
1 Learning is the same across .093
Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis.
categories of Year Level.
Test
Independent-
The distribution of Over-all
Samples Retain the null
2 Quality of Life is the same across .138
Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis.
categories of Year Level.
Test
Asymptomatic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.

A non-Parametrical test under the Kruskal-Wallis Test was utilized to know the significant
difference among respondents’ quality of life and perceived implementation of blended
learning when classified into their year level. The table above presents the comparison

liii
between respondents’ quality of life and perceived implementation of blended learning when
grouped into their year level. Moreover, the probability obtained for the blended learning
is .093, which is greater than the significant level of .05. This provides the researchers with
sufficient data to support the null hypothesis, which states that there is no discernible
difference between the respondents' perceptions of the quality of their lives and the
implementation of blended learning according to their year level. Furthermore, the
probability value obtained for the over-all quality of life is 0.138, which is greater than the
significance level of .05, the researchers have enough claim to retain the null hypothesis,
meaning that there is no significant difference in respondents’ over-all quality of life and
perceived implementation of blended learning according to their year level.

Table No. 25 Comparison Among Respondents Over-all Quality of Life and Blended
Learning Experience When Grouped According to Their Residence

Probability
Null Hypothesis Test Decision
Value
Independent-
The distribution of Blended Samples
1 Retain the null
Learning is the same across .918
Mann-Whitney hypothesis.
categories of Residence
U Test
Independent-
The distribution of Over-all Samples
2 Retain the null
Quality of Life is the same across .567
Mann-Whitney hypothesis.
categories of Residence
U Test
Asymptomatic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
The probability value of the respondents' residence's link to blended learning and quality of

life is calculated using the Mann-Whitney U Test. Given that the probability value (.918) of

blended learning and respondents' residency is higher than the significance level (.05), the

null hypothesis was chosen to be retained. Same goes with the correlation of respondents’

residence to the over-all quality of life, the null hypothesis was retained as the probability

value (.567) was greater than the significance level (.05).

(SOP5)

liv
Table No. 25 Significant is the correlation exist among respondents’ Quality of Life to

their socio-demographic variable.

Over-all Verbal
Chi-square Probability Decision
Quality of df Interpretatio
Value Value Rule
Life n
Very
Age 10.658a 4 .031 Accept H1
Significant
Very
Gender 10.330a 2 .006 Accept H1
Significant
Not Yet
Religion 12.155a 6 .059 Accept H0
Significant
Marital Very
9.163a 2 .010 Accept H1
Status Significant
Not Yet
Year Level 5.727a 6 .454 Accept H0
Significant
Number of Not Yet
7.120a 4 .130 Accept H0
Enrollees Significant
Not Yet
Residence .325a 2 .850 Accept H0
Significant

The table above shows the significant correlation between the respondents’ quality of life to

their socio-demographic profiles: Age, Gender, Religion, Marital Status, Year level, No. of

Enrollees, and Residence.

The connection between age and quality of life is highly significant with a probability value

of (.031), which is below the significant threshold of (.05). As a result, the alternative

hypothesis is accepted. Fitness level and performance, which are important components of

quality of life, are significantly influenced by age. Given this, growing old can have a

negative effect on a person's physical health, which may then have an effect on their variety

of skills and capabilities (Puciatio, Borysiuk, & Rozpara, 2017).

Just like age, the respondents’ gender is also determined to have a very significant correlation

with quality of life due to having a probability value of (.006), meaning that the alternative

hypothesis is accepted. According to  Kobayasi et al. (2017), in many professional domains,

lv
gender is a discussion point. Despite the fact that women still outnumber men in the health

area, there has been a noticeable rise in male involvement. In light of this, gender disparities

in this field of work continue to be a problem that affects quality of life. Students studying

nursing at National University-Manila were the evidence of the statement about the

proportion of men and women in the healthcare profession.

Chaar et al. (2018) found a favorable correlation between purpose, tranquility, and faith and

Quality of Life. Relational spirituality is seen as a spiritual coping paradigm to help patients

heal. Nursing students who practice and apply their faith in their learning can benefit from

relational spirituality. But, in this study unlike the first two sociodemographic factors,

religion was found out to have a probability value of (.059) that is greater than the significant

value, resulting to accepting the null hypothesis and determining that religion and quality of

life does not have a significant relationship yet.

The marital status of the respondents was able to get a probability value of (.010), which is

less than the significance threshold of (.05). The alternative hypothesis was accepted, and a

very significant association between married status and quality of life was found. The marital

status of the respondents was able to get a probability value of (.010), which is less than the

significance threshold of (.05). (RRL)

Although the year level of the respondents varies, it was found to not have a significant

correlation to quality of life due to a probability value of (.454) that is greater than the

significance level of (.05).

lvi
The number of enrollees were also determined to not have a significant correlation to quality

of life as it acquired a probability value of (.130) which is greater than the significance level,

resulting in the acceptance of the null hypothesis

Residence acquired a probability value of (.850) which means no significance correlation to

quality of life of the respondents, due to the value being greater than the significance level

(.05).

(SOP6)

Blended Verbal
Chi-square Probability Decision
Learning df Interpretatio
Value Value Rule
Experience n
Not Yet
Age 4.019a 6 .674 Accept H0
Significant
Very
Gender 15.842a 3 .001 Accept H1
Significant
Not Yet
Religion 10.113a 9 .341 Accept H0
Significant
Marital Not Yet
.449a 3 .930 Accept H0
Status Significant
Not Yet
Year Level 7.304a 9 .606 Accept H0
Significant
Number of Not Yet
5.444a 6 .488 Accept H0
Enrollees Significant
Not Yet
Residence .325a 2 .850 Accept H0
Significant

The table above shows the significant correlation between the respondents’ perceived

implementation of blended learning to their socio-demographic profiles shown in the table.

The correlation between the respondents’ age and their perceived implementation of blended

learning is not significant with a probability value of (0.674), which is above the significant

threshold of (0.05). As a result, the null hypothesis is accepted.

lvii
The respondents’ gender is determined to have a very significant correlation with the

respondents’ perceived implementation of blended learning due to having a probability value

of (0.001), meaning that the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Religion was found out to have a probability value of (.341) that is greater than the

significant level, which accepts the null hypothesis and determining that religion and the

perceived implementation of blended learning among respondents does not have a significant

relationship yet. (RRL)

The marital status of the respondents obtained a probability value of (.930), which is greater

than the significance threshold of.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted, and

confirms that there is no significant correlation between the respondents’ marital status and

perceived implementation of blended learning.

The respondents’ year level was found to not have a significant correlation to the

respondents’ perceived implementation of blended learning due to a probability value of

(.606) that is greater than the significance level of (.05).

The number of enrollees were also determined to not have a significant correlation to the

respondents’ perceived implementation of blended learning as it obtained a probability value

of (.488) which is greater than the significance level, resulting in the acceptance of the null

hypothesis.

lviii
Residence acquired a probability value of (.850) which means there is no significance

correlation between the respondents’ residency and their perceived implementation of

blended learning.

Chapter V

Summary, Conclusion, Recommendations

This chapter aims to present the summary of the findings, conclusions and

recommendations based on the data analyzed on the previous chapter.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (PER SOP)

The primary findings of the study are as follow:

lix
1. The study shows the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1. Age

Majority of the respondents are 18-20 years old. Wherein 62.8% of the respondents

are 18-20 years old, 35.9% are 21-23 years old, and the remaining 1.3% ages 24-27 years old.

The ratio of the remaining seniors to the growing number of freshmen and sophomores each

year in the Nursing Department at National University-Manila is partially responsible for the

majority of respondents being between the ages of 18 and 20.

1.2. Gender

There were 304 total responses; 245 of them were women, or 80.6% of the total; the

remaining 59 were men, or 19.4% of the total. It is well known that there are more women

than males serving in the nursing department. Despite a rise in the number of males entering

each year as nursing students, women continue to outnumber men in the nursing department.

1.3. Religion

Majority of respondents—230 in all, or 75.7%—were Roman Catholics. 32

respondents, or 10.5%, identified as Christians. There were 11 or 3.6% of Iglesia Ni Cristo

responses. Moreover, there were 31 respondents, or 10.2%, who have other religion. In total

the researchers gathered 304 responses. The Roman Catholic Church, which dominates both

the number and proportion of believers in the nation's religious structure, has a major impact

lx
on the Philippines. As a result, the majority of responders who were National University-

Manila nursing students were Roman Catholics.

1.4. Marital Status

The majority of the respondents are single with a total number of 303 or 99.7% and

there is only 1 married among all the respondents. The researchers obtained a total of 303

responses for this table. Study findings suggest that just 7% of undergraduates are married,

which accounts for why there are more single students than married students.

1.5. Year Level

It was determined that 154 respondents, or 50.7%, were first-year students, who made

up the majority of the respondents. There were 82 or 27.0% second-year students. There were

52 respondents, or 17.1%, third-year students. Additionally, 16 or 5.3% of students are

fourth-year students. The researchers obtained a total of 304 responses for this table. The

ratio of seniors to the rising numbers of freshmen and sophomores at National University-

Manila's nursing program is the main indicator of the significant number of responses in the

first year, followed by the second year, third year, and fourth year students. The number of

respondents needed for the study was determined by the researchers based on the population

of nursing students at National University-Manila. In the first year, a large number of answers

is expected from the sample size.

lxi
1.6. No. Of Units Enrolled

The majority of the respondents were taking 16 up to 20 units with a total number of

255 or 83.9%. Respondents taking 21 up to 26 units had a total number of 26 or 8.6%, and

respondents taking 10 up to 15 units were 23 or 7.6% from the total number of respondents.

The quantity of academic work required to graduate from college is measured in "units" or

"credits". Students may have lowered their overall number of units by enrolling in only the

most necessary courses and delaying others because they dislike online learning, which is one

possible explanation.

1.7. Residence

The majority of the respondents are residing at an urban community (city), with the

total frequency number of 268 or 88.2% while, the respondents residing in rural area

(province) are 36 or with a total of 11.8%. In order to save time and money on transportation

and to ensure the students' safety and security, the majority of the parents of the students

intended to enroll their children in a school close to where they lived. Long trips are often

stressful, especially in Manila with its terrible traffic.

2. The study shows the respondents’ level of Quality of life in terms of:

2.1 Physical Health

The over-all psychological health obtained a mean of 3.03 which is interpreted as

moderately stable. Psychological health is a known major contributor to one’s Quality of

lxii
Life. According to Cruz (2018), The wellbeing of nursing students is influenced by their

psychological health, which is in turn influenced by how they perceive stress. Therefore,

psychological health is the most significant QOL indicator in the research.

2.2 Psychological

The over-all psychological health obtained a mean of 3.03 which is interpreted as

moderately stable. Psychological health is a known major contributor to one’s Quality of

Life. According to Cruz (2018), The wellbeing of nursing students is influenced by their

psychological health, which is in turn influenced by how they perceive stress. Therefore,

psychological health is the most significant QOL indicator in the research.

2.3 Social Relationships

The overall social relationships under their quality of life were determined to have a

mean of 3.69, meaning that the respondents’ reported having satisfied social relationships.

Peers and support groups shows great contribution to an individual’s Quality of Life through

protecting one another’s mental health. A known social determinant of health is their

relationship and social interaction with others (Bergeron, G., Lundy De La Cruz, N., Gould,

L.H. et al., 2020). As the table showed that the respondents' have a satisfied social

relationship, their quality of life can be perceived better through this. The groups they

socialize with creates a psychological and emotional impact to their overall health and

eventually improves their quality of life (Fu J, Cheng Z, Liu S, Hu Z, Zhong Z, Luo Y, 2021).

2.4 Environment

lxiii
The Quality of Life of the respondents under the Environmental domain showed a

mean score of 3.21 or Moderately Satisfied. This finding shows that an individual’s Quality

of Life may be affected through environmental factors such as the feeling of safety and

security, resources available, accessibility to certain facilities, transportation, and etc. The

respondents' everyday activities are impacted by the presence or absence of these elements.

Regarding that, their quality of life may also be significantly impacted because some of these

environmental factors support and aid them in meeting their basic needs, which in turn affects

their general wellbeing. (Ramli, A., Zain, R.M., Zain, M.Z.M., Rahman, A.A.A., 2021).

2.5 Over-all Quality of life and General Health

The Over-all Quality of Life and General Health of the respondents resulted to a score

of 3.45. The tool revealed that the respondents have a Good Quality of Life and General

Health when looking at the set of values used to analyze the data. The different domains

under the tool used to evaluate their Quality of Life is a determinant of their overall general

health and as well as their Quality of Life. The Physical, Psychological, Social Relationship,

and Environment domains were all factors to be evaluated before respondents are able to

accurately and appropriately evaluate their perception of their Quality of Life. At certain

domains they showed excellence and most were just average which resulted to the

respondents’ reporting a Good Over-all Quality of Life and General Health.

3. The study shows the respondents’ perceived implementation of Blended learning

3.1 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Importance of Implementing Blended Learning

lxiv
It shows that the mean score for the perceived value of implementing blended

learning was 3.01, which is considered to be of moderate importance. Through the benefits it

offers, it is clear that the respondents do value this learning medium. The perception of the

respondents may be affected by the adjustment period and quick switch from traditional

classroom settings to blended learning, as most of the questions are deemed to be of modest

importance. Additionally, the online learning mode demonstrated the benefits of blended

learning for their academics as well as their personal lives, which may have an impact and

raise the caliber of their abilities and performance (Lee, C. & Ma, L., 2021).

3.2 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

According to the Amount of Interaction

A mean score of (3.09) was achieved for the overall perception of blended learning

implementation in terms of the level of interaction, which is considered to be maintained. The

students' engagement and methods of communication were influenced in a variety of ways

when they made the switch from traditional online settings to blended learning. The ability to

communicate lectures, announcements, comments, and basic or in-depth conversations

between students and instructors may be affected, which might eventually have an effect on

their overall academic performance. Aside from the typical internet connection issues and

misunderstandings, the flexibility of the timetable offered by the instructors to the students

had a positive effect on how they managed their time since it was available and appropriate to

their circumstances. This led to the conclusion drawn from the data shown above that

interaction between students and teachers is kept at a level that is still beneficial to both sides.

3.3 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

According to the Quality of Interaction

lxv
The over-all perceived implementation of blended learning according to the quality of

interaction obtained a mean of 3.08, which is interpreted as maintained. Meaning the

instructor and students’ quality of interaction reveals to have no total difference compared to

the quality of interaction during traditional face-to-face setting.

3.4 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

According to its Modalities

The over-all perceived implementation of blended learning obtained a mean of (3.18),

which is interpreted as average. As technology has been easier to use over the past several

years, blended learning has changed how classrooms look. Since the evidence shows that

they have the potential to maximize student engagement, blended learning (BL) environments

—which integrate synchronous and asynchronous activities and are located on a continuum

between face-to-face and online teaching and learning—are of special interest (Graham,

2019). The current situation demands what is the best methodology for teaching and which

ones may suit best depending on the needs of the students.

3.5 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

Compared to Traditional Face-to-face Setting

The over-all perceived implementation of blended learning compared to traditional face-

to-face setting was determined to have a mean of (3.26), which indicates average. The degree

and amount of workload of the students during traditional and face to face classes and the

comparison of the traditional and blended learning in terms of level of difficulty contributed

to the outcome of this data. Blended learning was a potential method in undergraduate

medical to teach the medical students and it was as effective as traditional learning for

teaching medical students (Sitthiphong, et al. 2021). As a result, the respondents viewed that

lxvi
the course whether blended learning or traditional face-to-face had minimal differences in

terms of quality and effectivity as both were relevant to the course.

3.5 Level of Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

According to its Resources and Components

The over-all perceived implementation of blended learning was determined to have a

mean of (3.45), which indicates very helpful. Factors such as dissemination of class materials

like PowerPoint presentation and video presentation, textbooks, and online reading materials

are considered to be very helpful for the respondents. On the other hand, the dissemination of

syllabus, online interaction, in-class quizzes, and exams are considered as moderately helpful.

When attempting to create an online course that is more beneficial and useful for students

studying, understanding the elements that influence how students perceive the usefulness of

blended learning may be of substantial use. If the course material and activities are well

prepared and easy to use, students feel comfortable and have greater motivation to study

(Damijana et. al, 2019).

3.6 Over-all Perceived Implementation of Blended Learning

The amount and quality of contact between students and instructors were maintained whether it was

conventional or not, making blended learning appear to be of moderately important. Their general

understanding of how blended learning is implemented and their perspective of it as compared to the

conventional face-to-face setting are both determined to be average. Due to availability, accessibility,

flexibility, and relevance to the students' present circumstances, the materials and components offered

through the blended learning modality are deemed to be very helpful to the students' courses.

lxvii
4. Significant difference among respondents’ Quality of Life and perceived

implementation of Blended learning according to Socio-demographic variable.

4.1 Age

The statistical analysis's conclusion accepts the null hypothesis and confirms that there

is no discernible difference between the respondents' overall quality of life when they are

grouped according to their age profile, as shown in table (19), where the hypothesis was

tested. The (F) value regarding the over-all quality of life reached (2.264) with a probability

value of (.106). Additionally, the respondents' probability value for their experience with

blended learning was (.267), indicating that the result accepts the null hypothesis and

confirms that there is no significant difference in the respondents' blended learning

experiences when they are grouped according to their age profile. Additionally, the (F) value

for overall life quality and integrated learning was (1.189) with a probability value of (.316),

which is still not considered to be significant. As a result, the finding supports the null

hypothesis and leads to the additional conclusion that when respondents are classified

according to their age profile, there is no discernible difference in their overall quality of life

or their experience with blended learning.

4.2 No. Of Enrollees

There is no statistically significant difference between the respondents' overall quality

of life when they are grouped according to the number of enrollees, as shown by the fact that

the (F) value for the over-all quality of life reached (2.259) with a probability value of (.081).

This indicates that the statistical analysis accepted the null hypothesis. Additionally, the

respondents' probability value for their blended learning experience was (.062), indicating

that the result accepts the null hypothesis and that there isn't a significant difference between

lxviii
the respondents' blended learning experiences when they are grouped according to the

number of enrollees. Additionally, a probability value of (.071) was used to calculate the (F)

value for overall quality of life and blended learning, which was achieved at (2.185), and is

now not significant. As a result, the finding supports the null hypothesis and leads to the

additional conclusion that when respondents are categorized according to the number of

enrollees, there is no discernible difference in their overall quality of life or their experience

with blended learning.

4.3 Gender

It was determined that the probability value, which is less than 5% and equals 0.01, is

significant. Evidently, there are enough assertions for the researchers to reject the null

hypothesis. When respondents are categorized according to their gender profiles, it is further

concluded that there was a considerable disparity in the respondents' experiences with

blended learning. Even if the resources and courses offered are equally allocated to each

student, the effect varies based on gender. How well and motivated they are when using

different blended learning modalities depends on their gender profile as well. Additionally,

because the respondents' overall quality of life score fell below the threshold for significance,

the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that there is a significant relationship between

quality of life and gender profile. This can be as a result of the emotional and psychological

differences between the genders. Their overall quality of life is significantly impacted by the

influence of their emotions and psychological health. According to these results, the gender

of the respondents is a trustworthy indicator of how they feel about blended learning and their

overall quality of life since it accurately portrays their situation.

4.4 Religion

lxix
The researchers have enough evidence to support the null hypothesis, which states that

there is no significant difference in respondents' quality of life and perceived implementation

of blended learning according to their religion, since the probability value obtained for the

blended learning is (.348), which is greater than the significance level of (.05). Although an

individual's values and goals might influence their decision-making and direction, they are

insufficient to account for their motivation in blended learning and impact on their overall

quality of life. With a significant difference in the respondents' quality of life and perceived

implementation of blended learning according to their religion, as well as the probability

value obtained for the overall quality of life being (.044), which is less than the significance

level of (.05), the researchers have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The idea

that religion and Quality of Life are connected is supported by the positive correlation

between a person's sense of purpose, tranquility, and faith. Relational spirituality is

considered to be helpful in providing patients with a spiritual coping paradigm to support

them during their recovery journey. However, for nursing students who practice and use their

religion in their academic endeavors, relational spirituality may have a substantial impact.

4.5 Marital Status

The researchers have sufficient evidence to support the null hypothesis, which states that

there is no significant difference in respondents' quality of life and perceived implementation

of blended learning based on marital status, since the probability value obtained for blended

learning is (.789), which is greater than the significance level of.05. Furthermore, because the

probability value obtained for overall quality of life is 0.99, which is greater than the

significance level of.05, the researchers have enough evidence to maintain the null

hypothesis, implying that there is no significant difference in respondents' overall quality of

life and perceived implementation of blended learning based on marital status.

lxx
4.6 Year Level

The researchers have enough evidence to back up the null hypothesis, which states that there

is no substantial difference in respondents' quality of life and perceived implementation of

blended learning based on year level, since the probability value obtained for blended

learning is (.093), which is greater than the significance level of 05. Additionally, because the

probability value for overall quality of life obtained is 0.138, which is greater than the

significance level of.05, the researchers have sufficient evidence to support the null

hypothesis, implying that there is no significant difference in respondents' overall quality of

life and perceived implementation of blended learning based on year level.

4.7 Residence

The researchers have enough evidence to support the null hypothesis, which states that there

is no significant difference in respondents' quality of life and perceived implementation of

blended learning based on residence, since the probability value obtained for blended

learning is (.918), which is greater than the significance level of 05. Further to that, because

the probability value obtained for overall quality of life is 0.138, which is greater than the

significance level of.05, the researchers have enough data to back up the null hypothesis,

implying that there is no significant difference in respondents' overall quality of life and

perceived implementation of blended learning based on year level.

5. Significant Difference Among Respondents’ Quality of Life to Their Socio-

demographic Variable

The connection between age and quality of life is highly significant with a probability value

of (.031), which is below the significant threshold of (.05). Just like age, the respondents`

lxxi
gender is also determined to have a very significant correlation with quality of life due to

having a probability value of (.006), meaning that the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Moreover, religion was found out to have a probability value of (.059) that is greater than the

significant value, resulting to accepting the null hypothesis and determining that religion and

quality of life does not have a significant relationship. The marital status of the respondents

was able to get a probability value of (.010), which is less than the significance threshold of

(.05). Although the year level of the respondents varies, it was found to not have a significant

correlation to quality of life due to a probability value of (.454) that is greater than the

significance level of (.05). The number of enrollees were also determined to not have a

significant correlation to quality of life as it acquired a probability value of (.130) which is

greater than the significance level, resulting in the acceptance of the null hypothesis.

Residents acquired a probability value of (.850) which means no significance correlation to

quality of life of the respondents.

6. Significant Correlation Between the Respondents’ Perceived Implementation of

Blended Learning to Their Socio-demographic Profiles

The correlation between the respondents` age and their perceived implementation of

blended learning is not significant with a probability value of (0.674), which is above the

significant threshold of (0.05). The respondents` gender is determined to have a very

significant correlation with the respondents` perceived implementation of blended learning

due to having a probability value of (0.001), meaning that the alternative hypothesis is

accepted. Religion was found to have a probability value of (.341) that is greater than the

significant level, which accepts the null hypothesis and determining that religion and the

perceived implementation of blended learning among respondents does not have a significant

relationship yet. The respondents` year level was found to not have a significant correlation

lxxii
to the respondents` perceived implementation of blended learning due to a probability value

of (.606) that is greater than the significance level of (.05). The number of enrollees were also

determined to not have a significant correlation to the respondents` perceived implementation

of blended learning as it obtained a probability value of (.488) which is greater than the

significance level, resulting in the acceptance of the null hypothesis.

CONCLUSION (PARAGRAPH FORM)

RECOMMENDATION

Upon conducting this study, the researchers come up with the following recommendations:

1. To gain a more comprehensive and diverse understanding of this topic, the

researchers advise to expand the sample size of this study.

2. To gain a greater understanding of the quality of life of students enrolled in blended

learning, it is advised to expand this study by including non-nursing students.

3. The researchers recommend that this study be applied to nursing students at other

educational institutions as well. The researchers want to consider nursing students

from other universities because their perspectives on the effects of blended learning

may differ.

lxxiii
4. The researcher suggested that respondents be interviewed via video call platforms

such as MS Teams and Google Meet. This may provide a more in-depth

understanding of their own perception of blended learning.

5. The researchers recommend to the Academic Institution to consider creating

intervention plans or strategies among nursing students to balance quality of life and

academic requirements that will not affect the day-to-day living of the nursing

students in terms of quality of life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arellano, D. (2017, January 5). 10 reasons living near a school is a smart choice. ZipMatch.

Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://www.zipmatch.com/blog/living-near-school-

smart-modern-dwellings/

Azzi D., Melo J., Neto A., Castelo P., Andrade E., & Pereira L.(2022). Quality of life,

physical activity and burnout syndrome during online learning period in Brazilian

university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cluster analysis, Psychology,

Health & Medicine, 27:2, 466-480. Retrieved October 5, 2022 from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13548506.2021.1944656?

scroll=top&needAccess=true

Balabeykina O., Kuznetsova J. (2020). The religion impact on social and economic aspects of

the life (on example of the Roman Catholic church of the Philippines). Pskov Journal

lxxiv
of Regional Studies (43), pp.58-72. Retrieved October 1, 2022 from https://ras.jes.

su/index.php?

dispatch=products.print_publication&product_id=12637&format=pdf&version_id=91

79

Bethony, J., Diemert, D., Gazzinelli, M., Grahek, L., Lobato, L., & Pereira, F. (2014) Impact

of gender on the decision to participate in a clinical trial: a cross-sectional study.

Research Article. BMC Public Health. Retrieved October 1, 2022 from

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1156

Campus Explorer. (2022, January 13). Married college students - campus explorer. Campus

Explorer -. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from

https://www.campusexplorer.com/student-resources/married-college-students/

Chaar, E., Haliit, S., Hajj, A., Aaraj, R., Kattan, J., Jabbour, H., & Khabbas, L. (2018)

Evaluating the impact of spirituality on the quality of life, anxiety, and depression

among patients with cancer: an observational transversal study. Retrieved from

October 22, 2021, from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00520-018-4089-1

Graham. (2018, December 7). Current research in blended learning: 15: V4: Handbook of

Distance. Taylor &amp; Francis. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315296135-15/current-

research-blended-learning-charles-graham

lxxv
Guillén-Gámez, F. D. (2018, August 21). A study on the actual use of digital competence in

the Practicum of Education Degree - Technology, knowledge and learning.

SpringerLink. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10758-018-9390-z

Hajhosseini, F. & Taghizadeh, M. (2021) Investigating a Blended Learning Environment:

Contribution of Attitude, Interaction, and Quality of Teaching to Satisfaction of

Graduate Students of TEFL. Retrieved October 13, 2022 from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40299-020-00531-z

Keržič, D., Tomaževič, N., Aristovnik, A., & Umek, L. (2019, November 21). Exploring

critical factors of the perceived usefulness of blended learning for higher education

students. PLOS ONE. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223767

Lee, C. & Ma, L. (2021) Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning using the ARCS

model. Retrieved 13, 2022 from

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcal.12579

Lucier. (2019). Why are some classes worth more "units" than others? ThoughtCo. Retrieved

October 5, 2022, from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-college-unit-793232

M. Cuadrado-García, M. E. Ruiz-Molina, and J. D. Montoro-Pons, “Are there gender

differences in elearning use and assessment? Evidence from an interuniversity online

project in Europe,” in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010, pp. 367–371.

lxxvi
Owston, R., York, D. N., & Malhotra, T. (2019). Blended learning in large enrolment

courses: Student perceptions across four different instructional models. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4310

qahtani, M., Elumalai, K., Sankar, J., & R., K., (2022) Effective Blended Learning in Higher

Education During COVID-19. Retrieved October 7, 2020 from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fd07/dba6ded47b8d98006e26588186429682eb3d.pdf

Sandberg, F. (2016) How age affects survey interaction-the case of Intelligence studies.

Halmstad University. Retrieved October 1, 2022 from

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1064181/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Suwannaphisit, Anusitviwat, Tuntarattanapong, & Chuaychoosakoon. (2021, November 18).

Comparing the effectiveness of blended learning and traditional learning in an orthopedics

course - ScienceDirect. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2049080121009870

lxxvii

You might also like