Final Manuscript

ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER PRESENCE, STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT, AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN A BLENDED

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
____________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of the School of Teacher Education
Biliran Province State University
Naval, Biliran
___________
In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in Social Studies
Shada Marie M. Marcos

Venson Ray F. Olaguer
Edhen Rose B. Pelaez
Roanne A. Solayao
July 2023
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled, ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER

PRESENC, STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN
A BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT prepared and submitted by
SHADA MARIE M. MARCOS, VENSON RAY F. OLAGUER, EDHEN ROSE
B. PELAEZ, AND ROANNE A. SOLAYAO in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree, Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Social
Studies, has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and
approval for oral examination.
Date Approved: ____________ KEVIN T. LAGAT, MSc

Adviser
Date: ____________
THE THESIS COMMITTEE
Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of _________.
ERNIL D. SUMAYAO, EdD

Chairperson
Date:____________
ROBERT P. JORDAN, MAEd VINCENT JUSTINE L. REALINO, MSc

Member Member
Date: ____________ Date: ____________
RALPH ARVIC T. ARCENAL, MMS MARK CHRISTIAN R. ALMAZAN, LPT
Member Member
Date: ____________ Date: ____________
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree, Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Social Studies.
Recommending Approval: Approved:
GRACE L. CONCEPCION, EdD MARIBEL N. ZIPAGAN, PhD

Chairperson, BSED Department Dean, School of Teacher Education
Date: ____________ Date: ____________
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was made successful through the aid of significant persons
who guided and helped the Researchers throughout the completion of this
study. Their utmost gratitude is given to the following individuals who helped
broaden their perspectives as they went through this study:
Dr. Maribel N. Zipagan, Dean of School of Teacher Education and Dr.
Grace L. Concepcion, Chairperson of Bachelor of Secondary Education for
their heartfelt and precious support extended all throughout the conduct of the
survey.
Their Research Adviser, Mr. Kevin T. Lagat, for his patience, motivation,
immense knowledge, and expertise for supervising them in writing this
research paper.
Their Panel of Examiners, for their encouragement, insightful comments,
and suggestions for the best outcome of this research paper.
The respondents of this study for their cooperation in the conduct of the
survey.
Their family and loved ones, who patiently supported them financially,
morally, and spiritually from the time they started conducting the study until its
completion. Those support boosted their morale and spirit in finishing what
they started. They would also like to commend them for the endless
understanding and tireless motivation.
To their friends, who have been there to keep them determined and
resolved in making their way for cheering and encouraging them up every
time they felt worn out.
iii
And foremost, to the Almighty God, for the guidance and strength he
bestowed on them all the way as they accomplish this research paper.
SHADA MARIE M. MARCOS
VENSON RAY F. OLAGUER
EDHEN ROSE B. PELAEZ
ROANNE A. SOLAYAO
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE ….……………………… i
APPROVAL SHEET............................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF APPENDICES.................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study ….……………………… 1
Objectives of the Study ….……………………… 4
Framework of the Study ….……………………… 6
Theoretical Framework ….……………………… 6
Conceptual Framework ….……………………… 8
Significance of the Study ….………………………. 9
Scope and Delimitation of the Study ….………………………. 11
Definition of Terms ….………………………. 11
Review of Literature ….………………………. 14
CHAPTER II – METHODOLOGY
Research Design ….………………………. 21
Research Locale ….………………………. 21
Research Respondents ….………………………. 22
Research Instrument ….………………………. 23
Data Gathering Procedure ….………………………. 24
v
Data Scoring ….………………………. 24
Data Analysis ….………………………. 24

25
Ethical Consideration ….……………………….
CHAPTER III - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents ….……………. 26
Level of Teaching Presence ….………………………. 27
Level of Student Engagement ….………………………. 33
Level of Student Satisfaction ….………………………. 39
Relationship of Variables ….………………………. 48

50
Intervention Plan ….……………………….
CHAPTER IV - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion ….………………………. 52
Recommendations ….………………………. 52
LITERATURE CITED ….………………………. 54
APPENDICES ….………………………. 65
CURRICULUM VITAE ….………………………. 87

LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Respondents and Sample Size 22
2.0 Respondents’ Age 26
2.1 Respondents’ Gender and Program of 26

Specialization 3.0 Level of Instructional Design and
Organization 28
3.1 Level of Facilitating Discourse 29
vi
3.2 Level of Direct Instruction 30
3.3 Level of Teacher Presence in Blended Learning 31
4.0 Level of Behavioral Engagement 33
4.1 Level of Cognitive Engagement 34
4.2 Level of Emotional Engagement 36
4.3 37
Level of Student Engagement in Blended Learning
5.0 Level of Interaction-Related Factor 39
5.1 Level of Instruction-Related Factor 41
5.2 Level of Instructor-Related Factor 42
5.3 Level of Course Management-Related Factor 44
5.4 Level of Technology-Related Factor 45
5.5 Level of Student Satisfaction in Blended Learning 46
6 Relationship of Variables 48
7 Intervention Plan Matrix 50

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 8
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title Page
A Letter of Approval to Conduct the Study 66

B Letter to the Respondents 67
C Letter to the Expert 68
D Survey Instrument Validation Rating Scale 71
E Informed Consent 73
F Research Instrument 75
viii
ABSTRACT
SHADA MARIE M. MARCOS, VENSON RAY F. OLAGUER, EDHEN

ROSE B. PELAEZ, AND ROANNE A. SOLAYAO, Biliran Province State
University- School of Teacher Education, Naval, Biliran, Philippines.
ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER PRESENCE, STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT, AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN A BLENDED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Adviser: MR. KEVIN T. LAGAT
The sudden shift from traditional in-person modality to blended learning
was the compelling reason in measuring its effectiveness through student
satisfaction. The study aimed to determine the level of teacher presence,
student engagement, and student satisfaction of undergraduate students of
teacher education programs in a state university, analyze the relationships
among these variables in a blended learning environment. A quantitative
research design utilizing a descriptive-correlational approach was employed.
Data collection was conducted among 419 respondents, using three
standardized questionnaires. The responses of the respondents were
processed and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics such as
mean, standard deviation, and Pearson r correlation. Results revealed that the
variables of the study have strong positive correlation from each other which
signifies that they are associated and have influence among each other. In
general, this paper validated earlier claims that student satisfaction plays an
important role in the effectiveness of blended learning, and that teacher
presence and student engagement are significant contributors to the quality of
education in the blended learning.
Keywords: teacher presence, student engagement, student satisfaction,
ix
blended learning modality
x
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably caused so many changes in
various aspect of society and the educational aspect was not an exception. In
fact, it shifted from traditional to blended learning. Allen & Seaman (2010),
mentioned that blended learning (BL) is popularly defined as a learning
system combining online and face-to-face delivery. The Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) also referred it as a type of flexible learning that
incorporates online and offline modes (CHED, 2020; Magsambol, 2022),
which is technically categorized as a type of e-learning as well (Panes, 2019).
BL is widely adopted across higher education and referred to as the “new
normal” in course delivery (Norberg et al., 2011). However, compared to other
countries and universities, BL modality is considered new in the Philippines,
especially at Biliran Province State University (BIPSU). Thus, there is a need
to conduct studies that would provide benchmark data on the effectiveness of
BL as a teaching-learning modality.
Students’ satisfaction played a crucial role in measuring the quality and
effectiveness of blended learning which is also affected by various factors
(Naaj et al., 2012; Chen & Yao, 2016). Rahman et al. (2015) discussed that it
is influenced by students’ perceived ease of use, perceived value, learning
climate, and student-instructor interaction. Panes (2019) also mentioned that a
number of social and technical factors affect e-learning effectiveness, and
these factors include learner’s perspective, instructor attitudes, content quality,
system quality, service quality, and other supporting issues. Small et al.
2
(2012) also revealed that self-motivation, peer interaction, course structure,
instructor feedback, and facilitation influenced students’ satisfaction.
Moreover, Naaj et al. (2012) provided that interaction, instruction, instructor
facilitation, course management, and technology significantly affect students’
satisfaction in the blended learning environment.
Moreover, previous studies analyzed the relationship between teaching
presence with student satisfaction (Mohd & Quick, 2016), and student
engagement with student satisfaction (Gray & DiLoreto, 2016) however, these
studies were purely conducted in an online learning environment and not in a
blended learning environment. Also, Martin et al. (2022) found out that teacher
presence has a strong correlation with student satisfaction, however, student
satisfaction in the previous study was only measured with several questions
and not with other dimensions. In comparison, the present study will measure
student satisfaction utilizing the factors identified by Naaj et al (2012). As
stated above, these factors include interaction, instruction, instructor
facilitation, course management, and technology. Naaj et al (2012) found out
that these factors have a strong confidence interval for blended learning
satisfaction which rated 95% and the mean of each factor ranges from 3.14 to
3.45 which is higher than the accepted average mean for student satisfaction
which is 2.5. Moreover, this model is designed for blended learning relevant to
the kind of blended learning context of the study which is a blend of in-person
and online modes of learning. Therefore, utilizing the model will be essential
for comprehensive bench marking of data about student satisfaction.
In this context, the present study aimed to determine the level of
student satisfaction, teaching presence, and student engagement and analyze

3
the relationship of these variables in the teacher education department of a
state university in an eastern province of the Philippines. This study is
essential for the university to gain better understanding and increase
adaptability about the current trend in educational system because it is
relevant for the improvement of the course design, course management,
teaching delivery, and instruction.

4
Objective of the Study
The present study generally sought to analyze the relationship of teacher
presence and student engagement with students’ satisfaction in BiPSU’s
blended learning environment particularly in the School of Teacher Education,
Main Campus. Specifically, it sought to achieve the following:
1. Determine the demographic profile of the students in terms of:
1.1 Age; 1.2 Gender; and
1.3 Program.
2. Determine the level of teacher presence in terms of:
2.1 Instructional Design and Organization,
2.2 Facilitating Discourse, and
2.3 Direct Instruction.
3. Determine the level of student engagement in terms of:
3.1 Behavioral Engagement,
3.2 Cognitive Engagement, and
3.3 Emotional Engagement.
4. Determine the level of student satisfaction in terms of:
4.1 Interaction,
4.2 Instruction,
4.3 Instructor,
4.4 Course Management, and 4.5. Technology.
4
5
5. Analyze the relationship of student satisfaction, teaching presence, and
student engagement in a blended learning environment.
6. Craft an intervention plan for improved blended learning
implementation.
6
Framework of the Study
Theoretical Framework
The present study is supported by the theoretical model of Community of
Inquiry (COI) proposed by Garrison et al. (2000). This model was primarily
designed to describe the educational experience in computer-mediated
communication (CMC), but many studies have adopted this model to describe
(explore), predict (explain) outcomes, and serves as a guide in developing
(designing) blended learning environments (Picciano et al., 2021). The model
is composed of three key components—cognitive presence, social presence,
and teacher presence—that interact to create learning inside the community. It
is focused on the teacher and the students which are the key participants in
the educational process. Its relevance to the study boils out due to the
involvement of teacher presence and social presence that explains how
important these are in developing educationally worthwhile learning
environment which then leads to increase student satisfaction. Teacher
presence is considered the binding element in creating a community of inquiry
for educational purposes (Garrison et al. 2000), which therefore, played a
crucial role in fostering social presence. Social presence pertains to the ability
of the students to engage socially and affectively in the classroom community
which directly emphasizes student engagement (Garrison et al., 2000).
Moreover, COI explains that the harmonious integration of social, cognitive
and teacher presence in a way that it supports critical discourse and reflection,
will result to student satisfaction and attainment of more learning outcome. In

7
summary, COI provide a useful lens for understanding the relationship
between teacher presence, student engagement, and student satisfaction.

8
Conceptual Framework
The present study undergone Input-Process-Output (IPO) model. In the
input part, includes the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of
age, gender, and program. In the next part, the process, the study determined
the level of teacher presence in terms of instructional design and organization,
facilitating discourse, and direct instruction; student engagement in terms of
behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement;
and student satisfaction in terms of interaction, instruction, instructor, course
management, and technology. Then, analyzed the relationship of these
variables. Lastly, the data and inferences being drawn from the research is
crucial for the output formulation for it will serve as basis for intervention
program. Intervention program which includes activities, workshop, and
training in the part of the teachers and students will be imperative in order to
increase understanding and adaptability towards the blended mode of
learning.
Students ’ Proposed
Demographics: Teacher Presence interventions for
a. Age; improved blended
Student Engagement
b. Gender; learning
Student Satisfaction
c. Program. implementation
Blended Learning Environment
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

9
Significance of the Study
The researchers believe that the findings of this study are significant to
the following:
Students. Since the research will focus on the experiences in view of the
students, it will benefit them in return because the data and
intervention to be provided will serve valuable in
understanding more about the blended learning and most
especially in improving the quality of teaching. In the long
run, students will eventually acquire the benefit of an
improved process of teaching and learning in the blended
learning environment.
Teachers. With the data and intervention being provided, they would
also gain better understanding to the mode of learning most
appropriately to their role on the development of the students
and help them adjust and develop new and alternative
strategies in teaching especially in facilitating learning to the
students in the blended learning.
Administrators. The findings will serve as a guide and basis for
administrative policy and decision-making, especially on the
proper implementation of blended learning.
Curriculum developers. The findings of the study will serve as a basis
that is essential for the enhancement of the curriculum
design and further improve the teaching and learning
process.
10
Parents. This will enable parents to understand deeply about blended
learning, and as well, understand their roles as parents in
supporting their children as to what adjustment do they need
to develop in the blended learning modality.
Future Researchers. The findings of this study are essential in enriching
the body of knowledge pertaining to the blended learning
environment, specifically in identifying the factors of
satisfaction toward the blended learning environment. Thus,
it will serve as a reference for the future researcher that
wishes to conduct a similar study with other variables not
identified in this research. Therefore, this will give substantial
evidence to support their study.

11
10
Scope and Delimitation of the study
The researcher’s content was focused on analyzing the relationship of
teacher presence and student engagement with students’ satisfaction in the
blended learning environment. The study determined the level of teaching
presence, student engagement, and student satisfaction. The level of student
satisfaction was evaluated according to the factors identified by Naaj et al.
(2012), in terms of interaction, instruction, instructor facilitation, course
management, and technology. This was conducted at Biliran Province State
University, Main Campus, Philippines, among the students across all
programs in the School of Teacher Education (STED) only. The research was
conducted in the second semester of the school year 2022-2023, which is
about 5 months.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined in this study.
Demographic Profile. It refers to the specific personal information of the
respondents that are needed to categorize the population
according to the purpose of the study.
Age. Refers to how old the respondents are at the time they have
responded the study.
Gender. Refers to the identity of the respondents as to how they define
themselves.
Program. It refers to the course of specialization offered by the School of
Teacher Education in BiPSU which was taken by the
respondents.
12
11
Blended Learning. Defined as a course offering a combination of online
and face-to-face delivery (Allen & Seaman, 2010). CHED also
referred it as a type of flexible learning that incorporates online
and offline modes (CHED, 2020; Magsambol, 2022), which is
technically categorized as a type of E-learning as well (Panes,
2019). Operationally, blended learning is a modality combining
in-person and online classes.
Student Satisfaction. It refers to students’ attitudes resulting from an
assessment of students’ educational experience, services, and
facilities provided by the institution (Kanwaar & Sanjeeva, 2022).
Operationally, it pertains to the affective aspect of the students
indicating positive feeling and attitudes towards the quality of
learning and the learning environment.
Teaching Presence. Is a necessary factor influencing social and cognitive
processes that enable meaningful and
educationally worthwhile learning results, which primarily
consist of three roles which are design, facilitation, and
direction(Anderson et al., 2001).Operationally, it refers to the
instructor’s capacity to foster and stimulate learning and active
learning environment through facilitation and
engagement with students, both in person and
online.
Student Engagement. It refers to the attitude particularly the energy and

13
participation that students exhibited in learning instruction
(Burop et al., 2020). Operationally, it pertains to the level of
12
active involvement interaction shown by students in both
inperson and online learning.

14
13
Review of Literature
This section presents the review of literature, related readings, and
related studies relevant to the current conduct of the study.
Blended Learning
Picciano et al. (2021)mentioned three fundamental terms in understanding
BL which are media, method, and modality, also known as the 3M’s. Media
pertains to the Physical tools or technology used in delivering and mediating
instruction which includes digital - computers, mobile devices, the learning
management system (LMS), software, etc.; and non-digital tools -- books,
paper, pencils, whiteboards, etc. The method encompasses the teaching
strategies and practices utilized by the teacher in delivering instruction which
includes general -- case studies, class discussion, simulations, lectures, group
work, etc.; and specific methods -- writer’s workshop, primary source,
documentary creation, scientific inquiry, etc. Lastly, modality entails a physical
instructional setting or environment and this includes an online environment,
an in-person classroom environment, and a mix or blend of online and
inperson learning (Picciano et al., 2021). Overall, BL entails a “blend” or “mix”
of various theories, pedagogies, and technologies with the aim of improving
the quality of teaching (Panes, 2019).
BL is widely adopted across higher education and referred to as the “new
normal” in course delivery (Norberg et al., 2011). As such, Dziuban et al.
(2018) mentioned that BL modality has been examined pervasively in
research as to how it is impacting the teaching and learning environment. In
the context of this study, the nature of blended learning is a mix of in-person
15
and online classes. Also, BL in this university is novel, thus evaluating its
effectiveness is imperative and crucial in order to increase adaptability
towards the BL modality.
Student Satisfaction
Students’ satisfaction played a crucial role in measuring the quality and
effectiveness of blended learning (Naaj et al., 2012; Chen & Yao, 2016). Naaj
et al. (2012) concluded that student satisfaction in BL is important because it
can impact motivation, and eventually, student success and completion rates.
It is also valuable for the institution because it can be employed to evaluate
courses and programs to a certain degree and to predict student attrition rates
(Naaj et al., 2012).
Wu et al. (2010) described student satisfaction as the degree to which
students feel positive about all of the benefits of blended learning
environments. It refers to students’ attitudes resulting from an assessment of
students’ educational experience, services, and facilities provided by the
institution (Kanwaar & Sanjeeva, 2022). However, Taghizadeh et al. (2020)
stated that student satisfaction is affected by various factors. In their research,
they found out that students’ attitudes, interaction patterns, and quality of
teaching positively correlate to student satisfaction, but the quality of teaching
was seen to be the most contributor to BL learning (Taghizadeh &
Hajhosseini, 2020). Rahman et al. (2015) discussed that it is influenced by
students’ perceived ease of use, perceived value, learning climate, and
studentinstructor interaction, wherein the perceived value is found to be the
highest contributor to learner satisfaction in BL. This implies that the value of
learning satisfaction increases when students perceived that learning is

16
relevant, interesting, and enjoyable, thus making blended learning more useful
(Rahman et al., 2015).
Small et al. (2012) also revealed that self-motivation, peer interaction,
course structure, instructor feedback, and facilitation influenced students’
satisfaction. The findings indicate that students place greater value on and are
more satisfied with tools that allow instructors and students to communicate
with one another than they do with tools that allow students to interact with
one another (Small et al., 2012).
Panes (2019), added that a number of social and technical factors affect
e-learning effectiveness and these factors include learner’s perspective,
instructor attitudes, content quality, system quality, service quality, and other
supporting issues. Moreover, the study revealed that all the socio-technical
dimensions mentioned were highly significant and implied that students were
highly satisfied with blended learning as an alternative mode of instruction.
However, the study also concluded that BL does not follow a “one-size-fits-all,
thus, higher education institutions are suggested to redesign their learning
environments according to the various prevailing factors therein (Panes,
2019).
Lastly, Naaj et al. (2012) developed a comprehensive instrument out of
the factors affecting student satisfaction in blended learning which will be
utilized in this study. These are interaction, instruction, instructor facilitation,
course management, and technology. Interaction-related factor refers to the
communication that occurs between and among students, teachers, and
content. Instruction-related factor means that student satisfaction is positively
related to students’ performance and positively associated with program

17
completion rates and grade achievement. Instructor Facilitation-related factor
means that student satisfaction is highly correlated with the performance of
the instructor, particularly with his or her availability and response time.
Course Management related factor refers to an educational approach that
combines place-based classroom techniques with online educational
resources and opportunities for interaction. Technology-related factor refers
to students being able to access technology effortlessly, having familiarity
with various technology and resources, and adequate technical support to
students (Naaj et al., 2012). Moreover, this model is designed for blended
learning relevant to the context of the study which is a blend of in-person and
online modes of learning.
Student Engagement and Student Satisfaction
Student engagement refers to the attitude particularly the energy and
participation that students exhibited in learning instruction which was divided
into three dimensions which are student behavioral engagement (SBE),
student emotional engagement (SEE), and student cognitive engagement
(SCE) (Burop et al., 2020). SBE pertains to the physical engagement of the
students in the course or subject, SEE is about the emotional development of
students (such as optimism, interest, confidence, and enjoyment), and SCE
encompasses the cognitive efforts of the students enabled by mastering
complex knowledge in the course (Burop et al., 2020). de Brito Lima et al.
(2021) revealed that students showed a high level of engagement in blended
learning. Meanwhile, SE is influenced by various factors. Chiu (2021)
discussed that SCE and SBE is positively influenced if students have strong
digital support, but not SEE. To improve SE, Serrano et al. (2019) suggested
18
incorporating an audience response system, self- and peer-assessment, and
lecture recordings as it enhances teaching quality, and eventually SE.
Heilporn et al. (2021) suggested presenting a clear, continuous, and unified
course structure, designing interactive teaching and learning activities, and
explaining course organization, objectives, and expectations to the students is
important. Moreover, SE has affected if students are involved in (Su et al.,
2023), yet, students’ perceived importance of the activity increases SE
(Manwaring et al., 2017).
Teacher Presence and Student Satisfaction
Teacher presence (TP) is one of the three dimensions – along with the
social presence and cognitive presence - of the theoretical model of
Community of Inquiry proposed by Garrison et al. (2000). TP is a necessary
factor influencing social and cognitive processes that enable meaningful and
educationally worthwhile learning results, which primarily consist of three roles
which are design, facilitation, and direction (Anderson et al., 2001). The
design suggests that teachers must know the importance of up-front course
design in online learning. Facilitation indicates the importance of feedback and
monitoring of instructors to students as it can foster their interest, motivation,
and engagement. Direction means that teachers share their subject area
knowledge with students and provide intellectual and scholarly leadership
(Anderson et al., 2001).
Su et al. (2023) discussed in their paper the existing studies pertaining to
TP and revealed that TP is crucial to online learning and teaching sessions
and students had different attitudes toward TP in online and blended learning.
Meanwhile, Gregory & Salmon (2012) indicated that students felt disengaged,
19
self-taught, and dissatisfied when instructors are unprepared to teach
webbased courses or employ technology in new ways. Ondrey (2017) stated
that teaching presence needs to be demonstrated by deliberate action. It is
crucial to have a firm understanding of the factors that influence student
satisfaction with online learning. Such information can give professors crucial
knowledge on how to prepare for and teach in an online environment while
making the greatest use of their time and resources (Ondrey, 2017).
Teacher Presence, Student Engagement, and Student Satisfaction
As shown in the literature, several studies have investigated the
relationship between TP and student satisfaction, SE and student satisfaction,
and TP, SE, and student satisfaction. Relatively, the studies of Ondrey (2017;
Mohd et al., 2016; Ladyshewsky, 2013) investigated the relationship between
TP and student satisfaction, however, these were conducted on a purely
online learning modality and not in a blended one. The same with the study by
Gray and DiLoreto (2016) pertaining to the relationship between SE and
student satisfaction was also conducted in online learning. Similarly, Park et
al. (2020) studied the perception of instructor presence and its effect on
students’ learning experience specifically on student engagement and
satisfaction in online learning.
However, Nortvig et al. (2018) conducted a literature review on the factors
influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcomes,
student satisfaction, and engagement, and found out that educator presence
has a significant influence on student learning in professional programs
offered through blended or online formats. Martin et al. (2022) also discovered
that teacher presence has a strong correlation with student satisfaction in

20
blended learning. Further, student satisfaction from the previous studies were
measured not on dimensions but through several questions. In comparison,
student satisfaction in the present study will be measured using the
comprehensive model developed by Naaj et al. (2012), which was developed
for student satisfaction in the blended learning environment.

21
CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This quantitative research utilized a descriptive-correlational research
design. The descriptive approach was used to summarize the level of teacher
presence and student engagement and students’ satisfaction in the blended
learning environment. On one hand, the correlational approach analyzes the
relationships among the said variables. The research design was useful in
describing how one variable is related to another, where the researcher has
no control over the independent variables, the variables that are believed to
cause or influence the dependent variable (Lappe, 2000).
Research Locale
This study was conducted at Biliran Province State University (BiPSU)
particularly in the School of Teacher Education (STED), located in the
municipality of Naval, Biliran, Philippines. BIPSU’s STED–Naval Campus is
committed in providing a high-quality education for future educators who will
be capable of promoting quality education in the country. The school offers
program in various fields such as Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED),
Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED), Bachelor of Early Childhood
Education (BECED), Bachelor of Special Needs Education (BSNED), and
Bachelor of Physical Education (BPED).
Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the university has adopted the blended
learning system and has been implementing it as part of its teaching and
learning strategies. The university’s BL environment comprises of two (2)

22
weeks face-to-face and two (2) weeks online synchronous and asynchronous
classes, enabling students to learn through a combination of traditional
classroom instruction and online learning activities. The university’s blended
learning environment provides an ideal setting for the study of teacher
presence and student engagement’s relationship with student satisfaction.
Research Respondents and Sampling
The targeted respondents of this study were 419 bonafide students
from the School of Teacher Education (STED) of BiPSU- Naval Campus, with
a 95% confidence interval and a 0.35% margin of error. Stratified random
sampling technique was used to determine the sample size and utilized
fishbowl method determine the respondents. This probability sampling
technique allowed everyone from the target population to have equal chances
to be selected in the study, and thus increase the applicability of the study’s
findings to other population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Table 1. Respondents and Sample Size

Program Sample Size
Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) 55
Bachelor of Early Childhood Education (BECED) 33
Bachelor of Special Needs Education (BSNED) 32
Bachelor of Physical Education (BPED) 51
Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education (BTLED) 25
Bachelor of Secondary Education-English (BSED - English) 53
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Math (BSED - Math) 40
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Filipino (BSED - Filipino) 41
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Science (BSED - Science) 50
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Social Studies (BSED - SOC.
39
STUD.)
TOTAL 419
Research Instrument
The study adopted three(3) research questionnaires to gather the data
needed on teacher presence, student engagement and student satisfaction.

23
These adopted questionnaires were consulted to three experts for content
validation. Pilot testing was also conducted to determine the level of reliability
of the instruments. The teacher presence questionnaire contained 17 items to
assess instructional design and organization (6 items), facilitation of discourse
(6 items), and direct instruction (5 items) which was developed by (Shea, Li,
Swan, & Pickett, 2019). The 17 items were evaluated using a five-point Likert
scale with 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 =
strongly disagree. The reliability coefficients of the teaching presence scale
and its components was 0.87, respectively showing that the instrument is
highly reliable.
A 25-Likert scale items (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 =
disagree, 1 = strongly disagree) is being used to get the students engagement
developed by Elmaadaway (2017) and was divided into three sections
pertaining to behavioral (10 items), cognitive (7 items), and emotional
engagement (8 items). The validity of the student engagement questionnaire
shows the Cronbach’s alpha values for all items exceeded 1.04, indicating
their reliability.
The questionnaire on student satisfaction consisted of 35 items and
was classified into five parts: interaction (9 items), instruction (12 items),
instructor (5 items), technology (6 items), and course management (3 items)
and was developed by Naaj et al. (2012). The questionnaire is a five-point
Likert Scale which ranged from 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2
=and, 1 = strongly disagree. The alpha reliability coefficient of the satisfaction
scale is 0.07, indicating that the instrument is highly reliable.

24
Data Gathering Procedure
In gathering the data, the researchers had presented their research
proposal to the panel for approval of the study. After being approved, the
researchers crafted a letter through a direct contact with school administrators
asking for consent to carry out the study. After getting the consent being
approved, the researchers then distributed the survey questionnaires through
Google forms and printed materials. The respondents were guaranteed on the
anonymity and confidentiality of the data provided which will be used for
academic purposes. This involved gathering information collected from the
respondents and was collected after the respondents had finished answering
the survey questions.
Data Scoring
To determine the level of teaching presence, student engagement, and
student satisfaction in blended learning, the following data scoring was used.
Point Values Statistical Limit Descriptive Interpretation

5 4.20 - 5.00 Very High 4 3.40 - 4.19 High
3 2.60 - 3.39 Moderate
2 1.80 - 2.59 Low
1 1.00 - 1.79 Very Low
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics was used to organize and summarize data (Kaur et al.,
2018) which is essential for describing the demographic data being collected.
Descriptive statistical tools to be used includes the measure of mean,
frequency and percentage, and measures of variability particularly the range
and standard deviation. Moreover, inferential statistics describe the many

25
ways in which statistics derived from observations on samples from study
populations can be used to deduce whether or not those populations are truly
different (Hill, 2006) which is helpful in analyzing the relationship of the
variables of the study. Pearson correlation coefficient will be used in
examining the relationships of the variables. Correlation designs is a powerful
tool for examining the relationship between variables.
Ethical Consideration
The researchers considered ethical aspect of all respondents involved
in the conduct of the study. Consents, approval, integrity and confidentiality
were the most common consideration in making this research. Anent to the
Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act is a law
that seeks to protect all forms of information, be it private, personal, or
sensitive. It is meant to cover both natural and juridical persons involved in the
processing of personal information. With this, the researchers made sure that
the identities of the respondents were protected by not disclosing them to
other persons. Consent and approval from the respondents were considered
prior to the conduct of survey. The researchers also explained to the
respondents the process and purpose of the said survey and made sure that
the survey were participated voluntarily by the said respondents.
CHAPTER III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the analysis and findings of the study conducted.
The results of the study are presented based on the objectives. The data are
shown in tabular format, followed by the results’ analysis, interpretation, and
implication.
26
Socio - Demographic Profile of the Respondents
The following tables shows the socio-demographic profile of the
respondents. Table 2.0 pertains to the age of the respondents while table 2.1
pertains to the gender and program of specialization of the respondents.
Table 2.0. Respondents’ Age

Variable N Mean
Age 419 21.0
Table 2.1. Respondents’ Gender and Program of
Speci alization
Variables f %
Gender
Female 315 75.17
Male 93 22.20
Others 11 2.63
Total 419 100
Program BEED
55 13.13
BCED 33 7.88
BSNED 32 7.64
BPED 51 12.17
BTLED 25 5.97
BSED- English 53 12.65
BSED- Math 40 9.55
BSED- Filipino 41 9.78
BSED-Science 50 11.93
BSED-Social Studies 39 9.30
Total 419 100
Table 2.0 shows the results of the socio-demographic profile of the
respondents in terms of age. As regards to the age of the respondents, out of
the 419 respondents it had a mean of 21.0. This means that the most frequent
age that responded ages 21 years old.

27
Table 2.1 shows the results of the socio-demographic profile of the
respondents in terms of gender and program of specialization. As to the
gender of the respondents, it can be seen that the majority, of the respondents
were females (f=315, 75.17%), followed by males (f=93, 22.20%), and lastly
other gender (11, 2.63%). This implies that the study is dominated by female
respondents.
As to the program taken by the respondents, it can be gleaned that BEED
(f=55, 13.13 %) is the highest represented program of the study, followed
closely by BSED-English (f=53, 12.65), BPED (f=51, 12.17%), and
BSEDScience (f=50, 11.93%). Meanwhile, BTLED (25, 5.97%) program has
the least number of respondents. This implies that BEED outnumbered the
rest of the programs.
Level of Teacher Presence in a blended learning
The following tables shows the level of teacher presence in a blended
learning as well as its sub-factors. Tables 3.0 to 3.2 illustrates the level of
each indicators per sub-factor: instructional design and organization,
facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. While, table 3.3 shows the overall
level of teacher presence in a blended learning.
Table 3.0. Level of Instructional Design and Organization

Indicators Mean SD Interpretation
1. The instructor clearly communicated
4.14 0.738 High
important course topics.
4.14 0.699 High
important course goals.
3. The instructor provided clear
instructions on how to participate 4.18 0.749 High
learning activities.
important due dates and time frames 4.13 0.738 High
28
for learning activities.

5. The instructor helped me take
advantage of the online environment 3.97 0.803 High
in a way that assisted my learning.
6. The instructor helped students
understand and practice the kinds of
4.08 0.785 High
behaviors acceptable in online
learning environment.
As a whole 4.11 0.619 High
Table 3.0 shows the level of instructional design and organization
demonstrated by teachers in the blended learning. As seen, there is a high
level of instructional design and organization (M=4.11, SD=0.619) in the
blended learning and all indicators had attained high mean ranging from 3.97
to 4.18. The statement “The instructor provided clear instructions on how to
participate learning activities” (M=4.18, SD=0.749), obtained the highest
mean. While the indicator, “The instructor helped me take advantage of the
online environment in a way that assisted my learning” (M=3.97, SD=0.803)
has the least mean. The data can be inferred that teachers in the blended
learning were fulfilling their role as primary course designer and administrator
of students’ learning experience despite the sudden shift in the learning
modality. In the study of Su et al. (2023) have also found high level of
instructional design and organization particularly on how to effectively give
proper instructions for the learning activities.. Zhao and Sullivan (2017)
discussed that instructors need to have a course preparation in order to
become competent teachers.
Table 3.1. Level of Facilitating Discourse

7. The instructor was helpful in identifying
areas of agreement and disagreement
4.02 0.764 High
on course topics that helped me to
learn.
29
8. The instructor was helpful in guiding the

class towards understanding course
4.12 0.734 High
topics in a way that helped me clarify
my thinking.
9. The instructor helped to keep course
participants engaged and participating 4.04 0.731 High
in productive dialog.
10. The instructor helped keep course
participants on task in a way that 4.10 0.759 High
helped me to learn.
11. The instructor encouraged course
4.16 0.781 High
participants to explore new concepts.
12. Instructor actions reinforced
the development of a sense of 4.04 0.718 High
community among course participants.
Table 3.1 presents the level of facilitating discourse demonstrated by
teachers in the blended learning. As shown, the level of facilitating discourse
(M=4.08, SD=0.640) is high and all indicators obtained high mean as well,
ranging from 4.02 to 4.16. Among all indicators, the statement “The instructor
encouraged course participants to explore new concepts” (M=4.16, SD=0.781)
obtained the highest mean, while the statement “The instructor was helpful in
identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped
me to learn” (M=4.02, SD=0.764) has the least mean. With the data being
drawn, it can be implied that instructors had essentially promote positive
learning community in the blended learning wherein students can actively
participate in productive discourse in the class. Zhao and Sullivan (2017:
Anderson et al., 2001) explained that facilitating is the use of effective
discourse such as providing clear explanation and proper guidance to the
students through giving assignments, sharing authentic experiences,
identifying agreements or disagreements, encouraging students to contribute,
promoting discussions. Su et al.(2023) highlight the the importance of

30
facilitation in the blended learning as it can effectively create positive learning
community.
Table 3.2. Level of Direct Instruction

13. The instructor provided useful
illustrations that helped make the
4.12 0.760 High
course content more understandable
to me.
14. The instructor presented helpful
examples that allowed me to better 4.18 0.758 High
understand the content of the course.
15. The instructor provided explanations
or demonstrations to help me better 4.23 0.736 Very High
understand the content of the course.
16. The instructor provided feedback to
the class during the discussions or 4.13 0.792 High
other activities that helped us learn.
17. The instructor asked for feedback on
4.02 0.837 High
how a subject could be improved.
Table 3.2 reveals the level of direct instruction demonstrated by
teachers in the blended learning. It indicates that the level of direct instruction
(M=4.14, SD=0.641) is high. Also, it can be seen that most of the indicators
achieved a relatively high mean except for one indicator, which states that
“The instructor provided explanations or demonstrations to help me better
understand the content of the course” (M=4.23, SD=0.736), wherein it
obtained a very high mean. On the other hand, the indicator, “The instructor
asked for feedback on how a subject could be improved” (M=4.02, SD=0.837),
has the least mean.
With such data, it can be inferred that teachers demonstrated intellectual
and scholarly leadership and shared their subject matter with mastery of
knowledge with the students. These results relate to the findings of Su et al.
(2023), wherein students feel disengaged when the discussion forum is

31
unorganized. With this, they highlight the importance of checking students’
posts, organization of content, asking personalized feedback from the
students (Su et al., 2023). This was proved by Karaoglan Yilmaz and Yilmaz
(2022) who revealed that students who received feedback had a higher
engagement in class than who did not especially in online setting.
Table 3.3. Level of Teacher Presence in Blended Learning
Factors Mean SD Interpretation

Instructional Design and Organization 4.11 0.619 High
Facilitating Discourse 4.08 0.640 High
Direct Instruction 4.14 0.641 High
Table 3.4 presents the overall level of teacher presence in the blended
mode of learning. Based on the result, the level of teacher presence (M=4.09,
SD=0.600) in the blended learning is high, as well as across all the subfactors.
It can also be noted that among the three dimensions, direct instruction
(M=4.14, SD=0.641) obtained the highest mean, and is closely followed by
instructional design and organization (M=4.11, SD=0.619), and facilitating
discourse (M=4.08, SD=0.640).
The data means that despite the shift in the educational mode of learning
to the blended mode of learning, students still had meaningful and
educationally worthwhile learning experience brought by their teachers.
The same result is relative to the study of Su et al. (2023), wherein direct
instruction also holds the highest mean (M=4.31), followed by facilitating
discourse (M=4.28), and instructional design and organization (M=4.22).
However, the mean obtained by the study was very high than the current
32
study. With direct instruction being the highest, it can be inferred that teachers
demonstrate intellectual and scholarly leadership and share their subject
matter with mastery of knowledge with the students. The responsibilities of the
teacher as course designer and organizer, technology facilitator, and
discussion facilitator were evaluated as having the most value by students in
online and blended learning environments (Hung and Chou, 2015). Su et al.
(2023), provides that students perceived high level of TP also indicating that
teachers have successfully assisted students by communicating clearly and
effectively providing them with instructions for activities which then improve
student engagement. Moreover, TP is very important in various learning
modality both online and face-to-face modes, which then suggests that
teachers must consider all the aspect in teacher presence - facilitating
discourse, instructional design and organization, and direct instruction (Su et
al. 2023; Anderson et al., 2001).
Level of Student Engagement in a blended learning
The following tables shows the level of student engagement in a
blended learning as well as its sub-factors. Tables 4.0 to 4.2 illustrates the
level of each indicators per sub-factor: behavioral engagement, emotional
engagement, and cognitive engagement. While, table 4.3 indicates the overall
level of student engagement in blended learning.
Table 4.0. Level of Behavioral Engagement

1. I listen carefully to everything that is said
4.08 0.701 High
in class.
2. I ask questions about what I do not
3.86 0.747 High
know.
3. I interact with my peers during class. 4.02 0.782 High
4. I strive to understand lessons during 4.17 0.714 High
33
class.
5. I am alert during class. 3.84 0.788 High
6. I always participate in discussions with
3.79 0.761 High
my teacher.
7. I am always eager to attend class. 4.15 0.836 High
8. I always complete my assignments. 4.07 0.854 High
9. I prefer to complete activities and
assignments during class with my 3.87 1.01 High
instructor and peers.
10. Enough time is provided during class for
3.88 0.854 High
practice activities and discussions.
Table 4.0 presents the level of behavioral engagement of students in
the blended learning. As depicted, the level of behavioral engagement (M=3.7,
SD=0.564) is high in a blended learning. Similar level was obtained across all
indicators of behavioral engagement ranging from 3.79 to 4.17. Among the
indicators, the statement “I strive to understand lessons during class” (M=4.17,
SD=0.714) achieved the highest mean, followed closely by the statement “I
am always eager to attend class” (M=4.15, SD=0.836). Meanwhile, the
statement “I always participate in discussions with my teacher” (M=3.79,
SD=0.761) has the least mean.
These results being shown implied that students in the blended learning
have displayed physical engagement, energy, and behavior which is
associated with accomplishing the course and learning activities. In similar
studies, students in higher education institutions exhibit significant levels of
behavioral engagement in blended learning activities(Adams, et. al,
(2020).Relatively, Janosz (2012) argued that individuals must deliberately
mobilize and invest some of their physical energy to develop new abilities and
gain new knowledge.

34
Table 4.1. Level of Cognitive Engagement

11. I always ask the instructor
3.80 0.821 High
about difficult content.
12. I attempt to apply things that I learned
3.98 0.702 High
during class.
13. I relate to my peers and discuss with
3.84 0.778 High
them what I learned at home.
14. I strive to acquire new
4.12 0.698 High
knowledge about the course.
15. Being familiar with the content prior to
attending class motivates me and 4.15 0.732 High
increases my engagement.
16. Preparing for lessons enables me to
communicate better with my peers and 4.07 0.643 High
the instructor.
17. Familiarizing myself with content prior
to attending a lecture enables me to
4.01 0.742 High
share what I learned with others
during class.
Table 4.1 provides the level of cognitive engagement of students in the
blended learning. It can be noted that all indicators of cognitive engagement
obtained high scores ranging from 3.80 to 4.15. In turn, cognitive engagement
(M=4.00, SD=0.559) attained high score as a whole. The indicator with the
highest mean is the statement, “Being familiar with the content prior to
attending class motivates me and increases my engagement”
(M=4.15,SD=0.732), which had nearly the same mean with the statement, “I
strive to acquire new knowledge about the course.” (M=4.12,SD=0.698). On
the other hand, the indicator with the least mean among others is the
statement, “I always ask the instructor about difficult content.”
(M=3.80,SD=0.821). This could mean that students might be hesitant in
asking questions to the instructor due to instructor-factor reasons or some

35
other reasons. Either way, students might have comprehended the lessons or
difficult content which in turn does not need clarifications from the instructors.
Despite that, it can still be implied, based from the result, that students
exerted cognitive efforts that enables acquisition and mastery of content and
complex knowledge. In a study of Su et al. (2023), there is also a significant
high level of cognitive engagement in the blended learning but relatively lower
than those in online learning. In relation to the result, self-regulation which
includes discipline, self-direction, and the ability to stay motivated correlates
with cognitive engagement in order to attain knowledge (Meyer, 2014).
Additionally, Halverson, et al. (2019: Esteban-Millat et al., (2014), blended
learning itself has the potential to increase cognitive engagement because it
can diversify learning pathways such that it increases flexibility and
individualization, which in turn encourage curiosity, absorption, and attention.
Table 4.2. Level of Emotional Engagement

18. I enjoy class. 4.02 0.772 High
19. The teaching method practiced by the
3.90 0.803 High
instructor is enjoyable
20. I enjoy the practice activities conducted
3.99 0.766 High
during class
21. I enjoy studying content at home. 3.88 0.847 High
22. I like it when the instructor asks me
3.68 0.906 High
questions.
23. I am optimistic when I go to class with
4.01 0.709 High
an understanding of the content
24. Participating in class discussions boosts
4.05 0.787 High
my confidence.
25. Solving and sharing problems during
3.93 0.814 High
class in enjoyable
Table 4.2 pertains to the level of emotional engagement of students in
the blended learning. The level of emotional engagement (M=3.93,SD=0.593),

36
as seen in the table is high, and all the indicators were also high ranging from
3.68 to 4.05. The statement “Participating in class discussions boosts my
confidence.” (M=4.05,SD=0.787) has the highest mean, while the statement “I
like it when the instructor asks me questions.” (M=3.68, SD=0.906) has the
opposite. It can be noticed that though students like to participate in class for it
can boost their confidence however, student engagement when it comes to
instructor asking questions, seem contradicting. This can be implied that
participating in class indeed can boost confidence but only when the content is
fully acquired or comprehended or if the student displayed enough confidence.
But since least indicator indicates that students don’t want to get ask by
instructor implied that students could have deficiency of knowledge that might
hamper confidence, or on the other hand, they still have a sense of hesitation
or lack of confidence.
But all in all, based from the result, it is considered to implicate that
students exhibited emotional energy such as optimism, confidence, enjoyment
or interest in the blended learning. Based on the result of the study of Su et al.
(2023) there is also a high level of emotional engagement in blended learning.
Yet, in their study, they discussed that blended learning allow students to
experience self-paced learning and provide flexibility in learning, which
improves emotional engagement. Moreover, El-Sayad et al. (2021) mentioned
that emotional engagement was influenced by self-efficacy or personal belief
towards one’s capacity to execute behaviors needed to develop particular
performance attainments.
Pekrun (2011), on the other hand, argued that emotions influence “a broad
variety of cognitive processes that contribute to learning, such as perception,

37
attention, memory, decision making, and cognitive problem solving.”, and
Skinner and Pitzer (2012) mentioned that emotion serves as the fuel towards
behavioral and cognitive engagement that bring about quality learning.
Human–computer interaction research on cognitive-affective states (D’Mello &
Graesser, 2014) further acknowledges the intertwining of mental and
emotional energy.
Table 4.3. Level of Student Engagement in Blended Learning

Behavioral Engagement 3.97 0.564 High
Cognitive Engagement 4.00 0.559 High
Emotional Engagement 3.93 0.593 High
The data in Table 4.3 indicates the level of student engagement in the
blended mode of learning. The result shows that the level of student
engagement in the blended learning as a whole is high (M=3.97, SD=0.524).
It also shows, that among the three dimensions cognitive engagement
(M=4.00, SD=0.559) is the highest, followed by behavioral engagement
(M=3.97, SD=0.564), and emotional engagement (M=3.93, SD=0.593).
The result implies that students exhibit considerable attitude particularly
energy and participation during the teaching and learning experience on a
blended learning modality. Similarly, de Brito Lima et al. (2021), revealed the
same finding where students usually showed high level of student
engagement in the blended learning context.
Almost the same mean and result was achieved in the study conducted by
38
Su et al. (2023) wherein cognitive engagement revealed the highest level
(M=4.00), followed by emotional engagement (M=3.91), and lastly behavioral
engagement (M=3.81). With cognitive engagement being the highest
manifests that students in blended learning exhibit cognitive efforts which then
enabled mastery of complex knowledge. However, Chiu (2021), reported
higher behavioral engagement and cognitive engagement but lower emotional
engagement in blended learning environment when there is high digital
support. Researchers may infer internal processes from external behaviors,
and while those behaviors are not trivial, they still can be recognized as the
outward displays of the mental and emotional energies that fuel learning
(Kizilcec et al., 2013).

Level of Student Satisfaction in a blended learning
The following tables presents the level of student satisfaction in a
blended learning as well as its sub-factors. Tables 5.0 to 5.4 illustrates the
level of each indicators per sub-factor: interaction, instruction, instructor,
course management, and technology. While, table 5.5 shows the overall level
of student satisfaction in blended learning.
Table 5.0. Level of Interaction-Related Factor

1. A blended learning session keeps me
3.55 0.869 High
always alert and focused.
2. Interaction is adequately maintained
with the lecturer when he/she is on the
3.71 0.740 High
other side of the blended learning
classroom.
3. Having students from the opposite
gender on the other side of the
blended learning classroom listening 3.35 0.987 Moderate
to what I say might restrict my
participation.
4. A blended learning course makes it 3.72 0.746 High
39
more important for students to visit the

lecturer during office-hours.
5. I cannot interrupt the lecturer to ask a
question when he/she is on the other 3.69 0.838 High
side of the blended learning classroom
6. I am satisfied with the quality interaction
between all involved parties. 3.70 0.831 High
7. I am dissatisfied with the process of

collaboration activities during the 3.33 0.994 Moderate
course.
8. I am satisfied with the way I interact with
3.90 0.759 High
other student.
9. I am satisfied with my participation in the
3.81 0.784 High
class.
Table 5.0 shows the level of student satisfaction in terms of
interactionrelated factor in the blended learning. As observed, interaction-
related factor (M=3.64, SD=0.591) is high and most of the indicators have high
scores as well, but some are in moderate level. The indicator having the
highest mean was the statement “I am satisfied with the way I interact with
other student.”(M=3.90, SD=0.759). The statements “Having students from the
opposite gender on the other side of the blended learning classroom listening
to what I say might restrict my participation.” (M=3.35, SD=0.987) and “I am
dissatisfied with the process of collaboration activities during the course.”
(M=3.33, SD=0.994) are the two indicators having moderate level. However,
its level is somehow comforting because the way the statements were
constructed have negative connotations in it.
On the first one, based on the result, it could mean that gender moderately
affect student participation in class, but for what reason is not mentioned.
Results on disparities between genders in online learning outcomes are
sometimes contradictory and inconsistent. Online female students exhibit

40
greater determination and engagement than male students (Richardson and
Woodley, 2010), although males are more likely to have consistent favorable
opinions regarding online learning. The findings could have counteracted
gender preferences in online education, which might explain why there were
no significant gender disparities in the outcomes of online education (Yu,
2021).
On the latter, it implies that students are moderately satisfied on the
process of collaboration activities in the course. This maybe due to the lack of
collaboration activities or students don’t find interest on the collaboration
activities prepared by teachers in the blended learning. To collaborate
effectively, the students need particular and extensive teaching, practice, and
growth both with and without blended learning (Monteiro and Morrison, 2015).
All in all, with the result being shown, it can still be noted that students are
satisfied with the processes of interaction in the blended learning.
Table 5.1. Level of Instruction-Related Factor

10. The use of blended learning
technology in this course encourages 3.93 0.774 High
me to learn independently.
11. My understanding is improved
compared to similar courses I studied 3.80 0.821 High
before.
12. My performance in exam is improved
compared to similar courses I studied 3.71 0.827 High
before.
13. I am satisfied with the level of effort this
3.86 0.778 High
course required.
14. I am dissatisfied with my performance in
3.21 1.01 Moderate
this course
15. I believe I will be satisfied with my final
3.73 0.782 High
grade in the course
16. I am satisfied with how I am able to
apply what I have learned in this 3.90 0.733 High
41
course.
17. If I had known this was going to be a
blended learning class, I would not 2.89 1.13 Moderate
have taken it.
18. I am willing to take another course
using the blended learning delivery 3.23 1.04 Moderate
mode.
19. I am satisfied enough with this course to
3.76 0.827 High
recommend it to others.
20. Compared to face-to-face course
settings, I am less satisfied with this 3.61 0.912 High
learning experience.
21. I enjoy working on
3.84 0.837 High
assignments by myself.
Table 5.1 presents the level of student satisfaction in terms of
instruction-related factor in the blended learning. Based from the table, the
level of student satisfaction in terms of instruction-related factor (M=3.62,
SD=0.561) is high, but there were some areas that students were moderately
satisfied. When asked if “I am dissatisfied with my performance in this course”
the level is moderate at 3.21 (SD=1.01). When asked if “I am willing to take
another course using the blended learning delivery mode.” the level is
moderate at 3.23 (SD=1.04) and when asked “If I had known this was going to
be a blended learning class, I would not have taken it.” the level is moderate
at 2.89 (SD=1.13). However, when students were asked “I am satisfied
enough with this course to recommend it to others.” showed high level at 3.76
(SD=0.827), same goes when asked “Compared to face-to-face course
settings, I am less satisfied with this learning experience.” (M=3.61,
SD=0.912).
Taken from these results, students’ response were not consistent as to
how willing and eager they are to the kind of instruction in a blended learning.
42
But with the overall level, it can still be considered that students were highly
satisfied to the kind of instruction in a blended learning. A study by Awamleh
(2020) the level to which students satisfaction in the blended learning was
highly influenced by the lecture quality, which included factors like lecture’s
expertise and the instructional tactics he or she utilized to encourage the
students learning.
43
Table Level of
5.2. Instructor-Related Factor
22. The instructor makes me feel that I am
3.93 0.791 High
a true member of the class.
23. I am dissatisfied with the accessibility
3.24 1.03 Moderate
and availability of the instructor.
24. The instructor uses blended learning
3.90 0.772 High
technology appropriately
25. Class assignments were clearly
3.85 0.715 High
communicated to me.
26. Feedback on evaluation of tests and
other assignments was given in a 3.82 0.769 High
timely manner.
instructor-related factor in the blended learning. As seen, students were highly
satisfied with instructors (M=3.75, SD=0.561) in the blended learning in
general. Except for one indicator, which was “I am dissatisfied with the
accessibility and availability of the instructor.” (M=3.24, SD=1.03). This means
that students were moderately satisfied with the accessibility and availability of
the instructor beyond class hours wherein students can’t connect to them for
clarification or other queries. However, it can still be noted that students where
satisfied with their instructors in the blended learning. The performance of the
teacher, particularly in terms of availability and reaction time, is closely
connected to student satisfaction Lazibat et al.(2014). The teacher not only
develops into both a learning facilitator and a student motivator. Most of the
input comes from the teacher. Feedbacks on assignments must be offered
promptly to keep students engaged and motivated.

44
Table Level of
5.3. Course Management-Related Factor
27. Discipline is highly observed when the
lecturer is on the other side of the 4.01 0.748 High
blended learning classroom.
28. The lecturer, supervisor always takes
4.03 0.765 High
attendance.
29. I attend videoconferencing classes the
same way I attend face-to- 3.90 0.831 High
face classes.
Table 5.3 presents the level of student satisfaction in terms of course
management-related factor in the blended learning. In general, as shown from
the table, students were highly satisfied with the course management (M=3.98,
SD=0.625) in the blended learning. The indicator with highest mean is the
statement “The lecturer, supervisor always takes attendance.” (M=4.03,
SD=0.765). While the one with the least is the statement “I attend
videoconferencing classes the same way I attend face-to-face classes.”
(M=3.90, SD=0.81). Students who were engaged and motivated in the blended
learning course were more likely to show positive attitudes and greater
satisfaction with the course (Svanum and Aigner, 2011).
5.4. Technology-Related Factor

30. The instructor’s voice is audible. 3.89 0.774 High
31. Course content shown or displayed on
3.89 0.706 High
the smart board is clear.
32. The microphone is in good working
3.84 0.772 High
condition.
33. The video image is clear and
comprehensive when the lecturer is 3.82 0.809 High
on the other side of the blended
45
Table Level of
learning classroom.
34. Technical problems are not frequent
and they do not adversely affect my 3.58 0.971 High
understanding of the course.
35. The technology used for blended
3.90 0.790 High
teaching is reliable.
technology-related factor in the blended learning. As revealed, there is a high
level of satisfaction in term of technology (M=.82, SD=0.662) in the blended
learning. The highest indicator is the statement “The technology used for
blended teaching is reliable.” (M=3.90, SD=0.790) and the least one is the
statement “Technical problems are not frequent and they do not adversely
affect my understanding of the course.” (M=3.58, SD=0.971). Although high, it
can never be overlooked because the result is nearly moderate which in turn
requires improvement in order to and secure students understanding of the
course, ans as well, student satisfaction. The learning experience may be
improved by using technologies in online and blended learning circumstances,
which can go beyond what is possible with face-to-face instruction or other
methods. Students need to have accessibility to reliable tools and students

46
with restricted access have a significant disadvantage compared to students
who have unlimited access Dziuban et al (2018).
Table 5.5. Level of Student Satisfaction in Blended Learning

Interaction 3.64 0.591 High
Instruction 3.62 0.561 High
Instructor 3.75 0.561 High
Course Management 3.98 0.625 High
Technology 3.82 0.662 High
Table 5.5 depicts the level of student satisfaction in the blended mode
of learning. As manifested, the level of student satisfaction on the blended
mode of learning as a whole is high (M=3.76, SD=0.512). It can also be noted
that the course management factor (M=3.98, SD=0.625) obtained the highest
result, while instruction (M=3.62, SD=0.561) has the lowest result.
This can be inferred that students in a blended learning environment feel
positive and exhibit positive attitude about the interactivity in the learning
environment, students’ performance, completion rate, and grade achievement,
the performance and way of facilitation of the instructor, how the course and
the class being managed, and the convenience and efficiency in accessing
technology. These findings are in line with those of Kintu and Zhu (2016) and
Kintu et al. (2017) who found that learners’ positive attitudes to blended
learning could create a high level of satisfaction. However, negative attitudes
to blended learning caused by slow internet connectivity, lack of instructors’
feedback to students’ emails, and lack of face-to-face interaction affect

47
satisfaction (Ja’ashan, 2015). A study by Awamleh (2019) showed that
students satisfaction with online learning environment and blended program;
83.4% of respondents reported excellent levels of satisfaction. Additionally,
the quality of the teaching received the highest satisfaction lever where
interaction significantly affected self-study.
In the study conducted by Naaj et al. (2012), exposed the same findings
wherein students find satisfaction in the blended learning environment with a
total mean of M=3.44. In contrast, it is the instructor-related factor (M=3.80,
SD=1.18) that gained the highest level, while instruction (M=3.0, SD=1.23)
was the lowest. With the course management being the highest, signify that
students were satisfied of the educational approach being demonstrated as it
provide opportunities for interaction, learning, and discipline.
Though the results of both studies found out that students find satisfaction
in the blended learning environment, however, it is still not high enough which
probably denotes that there are other factors affecting it.
Relationship of Variables
Table 6 reveals the relationship of teacher presence, student engagement,
and student satisfaction in the blended learning environment. Based on the
preliminary results of the data the Kurtosis and Skweness value ranged (4.38,
5.32, 3.42 and -1.31, -1.12, -0.654) which implies that all measures have
relatively normal distribution, thus, the researchers used parametric tests.
Table 6. Relationship of of teacher presence, student engagement, and

student satisfaction
2 3
1 1.Teaching
48
Presence -
-
-
2.Student 0.610*** -
Engagement 417 -
< .001 -
3.Student 0.675*** 0.787*** -

Satisfaction 417 417 -
< .001 < .001 -
Skewness -1.31 -1.12 -0.654

Kurtosis 4.38 5.32 3.42
Note: *p < 0.5, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Table 6, revealed the relationships of teacher presence, student
engagement, and student satisfaction in the blended mode of learning using
the Pearson correlation coefficient. Particularly, teaching presence to student
engagement (r=.610, p<.001), teaching presence to student satisfaction
(r=.675, p<.001), and student engagement to student satisfaction (r=.787,
p<.001), in which all significantly shows strong positive correlation between
each other. In the Pearson correlation coefficient explains that when the
Pearson’s r value is between 0 and 1 implies a positive correlation which
means that when one variable changes, the other variable changes in the
same direction (Turney, 2022). In addition, when the r value is greater than
0.5 it is strongly positive (Turney, 2022), hence the degree of correlation
between variables. Moreover, these results suggest that all study measures
had relatively normal distribution. Hair et al. (2010) and Bryne (2010) argued
that data is normal if skewness is between -2 to +2 and kurtosis is between -7
to +7.
49
Given these findings, it can be inferred that each variables are associated
with each other. In the study conducted by Halverson et al.(2019) learner
engagement correlates with fundamental learning outcomes which includes
academic achievement and satisfaction. Similarly, Martin et al.(2022)provided
that teacher presence has a strong correlation with student satisfaction in
blended learning. Su et al. (2023) also found out that students were highly
engaged while there perceived a strong teacher presence.
These findings also supports the findings revealed by Gray and DiLoreto
(2016), wherein teacher presence and student engagement impacted student
satisfaction. They also added that high level of instructor presence
significantly lead to students’ high engagement and finally improving their
perceived learning and satisfaction. Yang et al. (2022; Heilporn et al., 2021;
Su et al., 2023), concluded that teaching presence influences student
engagement which further affects students’ learning achievement, and as well
satisfaction.
However, high teacher presence does not guarantee high student
engagement because student engagement needs combined effort and
complex interconnectedness among all dimensions of student engagement,
as well as with the learning activities and learning environments (Cho & Cho,
2014). Zhao and Sullivan (2017) also added that high level of teacher
presence reduced student engagement because it would decrease student
independence, autonomy and active participation. Su et al. (2023) suggest
that teachers need to balance self-paced learning with the instruction. This in
50
turn impose in depth and to look on other factors that affect and influence
students engagement and most importantly, student satisfaction.
Intervention Plan
Table 7 is about the suggested intervention plan drawn out from the
findings of the study which can be essential in developing quality education
utilizing the blended learning modality. Table 7: Intervention Plan Matrix
Responsible
Intervention Description Timeline
Party
Develop and deliver training
sessions, seminars and
Training,
workshops to equip teachers Educational 2
seminars, and
with effective strategies for Institutions months
workshop
blended learning course
management.
Review and revise the
curriculum to align with
Curriculum blended learning, focusing on Curriculum
5
design and creating instructional Development
months
adaptation materials and resources team
suitable for both online and
offline components.
Multimedia Provide guidelines and Educational Ongoing

integration resources for integrating Institutions
multimedia elements into the
curriculum, enhancing student
engagement.
Interactive Support teachers in creating Professional 5
activities interactive activities that development months
development leverage online and face- team
toface learning promoting active
student participation.
Assist teachers in designing
assessments that align with
Professional
Assessments the blended learning 5
development
Alignment environment, utilizing both months
team
online and offline assessment
methods.
Continuous Offer ongoing training Educational Ongoing
51
Professional programs to support teachers Institutions

development in developing their digital
pedagogical skills and staying
updated on blended learning
strategies and technologies.
Research and Conduct research Research 10
Evaluation studies to explore Team months
additional factors or more
affecting student
satisfaction and
overallteaching in
blended learning
environments. Conduct
a triangulation
process, specifically an
interview to implore
with the experiences of both
teachers and
students.
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
This chapter presents the conclusion being drawn from the findings of
the study and recommendations to offer.
Conclusion
The current study sought to analyze the relationship of teacher
presence and student engagement with student satisfaction in the blended
learning environment. The findings revealed that there is a strong positive
correlation among variables which means that when one variable changes the
other does as well in the same direction. As such, when the level of teacher
presence increases, the level of student engagement and student satisfaction
will increase respectively. It is noteworthy that all variables, namely teacher
presence, student engagement, and student satisfaction, exhibited high levels

52
within the blended learning environment. This highlights their significance and
importance in the context of blended learning. In conclusion, teacher presence
and student engagement significantly play a vital role in student satisfaction in
the blended learning environment, which therefore, serves as significant
contributors to providing quality education while implementing the blended
learning modality.
Recommendation
In light of the findings and conclusions drawn from the study, several
recommendations can be suggested to enhance teacher presence, student
engagement, and student satisfaction in a blended learning environment.
Firstly, educational institutions should develop interventions such as training,
seminars, or workshops to equip teachers with the necessary teaching
strategies and approaches required to effectively carry out instruction and
manage courses in a blended learning setting. This intervention can also be
extended to other faculty, staff, and stakeholders as student satisfaction relies
on multifaceted support from the entire school community.
Secondly, curriculum design and adaptation should be considered to align
with blended learning. The development or adaptation of the curriculum
should focus on creating instructional materials and resources specifically
tailored for both online and offline components. Incorporating multimedia
elements, interactive activities, and assessments that leverage the
advantages of both online and face-to-face learning can enhance student
engagement and learning outcomes.

53
Furthermore, continuous professional development opportunities should
be provided to support teachers in developing their digital pedagogical skills.
Ongoing training on effective blended learning strategies, technology
integration, and online facilitation techniques will help teachers become
wellprepared and confident in creating a positive learning environment for
their students.
Lastly, conducting further research is crucial to explore additional factors
that may impact student satisfaction and the overall quality of teaching and
instruction in blended learning environments. This research can also delve
into other aspects of blended learning implementation to improve the overall
teaching and learning experience.
REFERENCES
Adams, D., Joo, M. T., Sumintono, B., & Pei, O. S. (2020). Blended learning
engagement in higher education institutions: A differential item
functioning analysis of students’ backgrounds. Malaysian Journal of
Learning and Instruction (MJLI) Vol. 17, No.1 Jan. 2020, 17(Number 1),
133–158. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.1.6
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Classroom Differences: Online Education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529952.pdf
Anderson, L., Liam, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing
teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. JALN.

54
https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/725/assess?seq
uence=1
Awamleh, A. A. (2020). Students Satisfaction on Blended Learning in the
School of Sport Science. Annal of Applied Sport Science.
doi:10.29252/aassjournal.803
Burop, J., Graham, C. R., West, R. E., Archambault, L., & Spring, K. J. (2020).
Academic communities of engagement: An expansive lens for
examining support structures in blended and online learning.
Educational Technology Research and Development.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09744-x
Commission on Higher Education (CHED). (2020). CMO, NO.4, S. 2020.
ched.gov.ph. https://ched.gov.ph/2022-ched-memorandum-orders/
Chen, W., & Yao, A. (2016). An empirical evaluation of critical factors
influencing learner satisfaction in blended learning: A pilot study.
Universal Journal College of Educational Research.
http://www.sciepub.com/reference/303578
Chiu, T. K. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning
based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
Cho, M. -H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and
students' academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of
perceived online class goal and structures. The Internet and Higher
Education, https://doi.org/10/1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008
55
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publication.
https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/1/
creswell.pdf de Brito Lima, F., Lautert, S. L., & Gomes, A. S. (2021).
Contrasting levels of student engagement in blended and non-blended
learning scenarios.
Computers and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104241
D’Mello, S. K., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can
be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., & Moskal, P. D. (2018). Blended Learning: The
New Normal and Emerging Technologies.
International Journal Education Technology High Education.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239017-0087-5
Elisa Monteiro, Keith Morrison. (2015). The study found that the students
needed specific and intensive instruction, practice, and development in
how to collaborate, both with and without blended learning. Taylor
and Francis Online.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.997126
El-Sayad, G., Saad, N.H.M., & Thurasamy, R. (2021). How higher education
students in Egypt perceived online learning engagement and
satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computers in
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00191-y
56
Elmaadaway, M. A. (2017). The Effects of a Flipped Classroom Approach on
Class Engagement and Skill Performance in a Blackboard Course.
British Journal of Educational Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12553
Esteban-Millat, I. et. al, (2014). Modelling students' flow experiences in an
onlinelearning environment. Computers and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.2012
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a
textbased environment: Computer conferencing in higher education.
The
Internet and Higher
Education.https://doi.org/10.1016/S10967516(00)00016-6
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016, May 1). The effects of student engagement,
student satisfaction, and perceived learning in
online learning environment. Eric.ed.gov.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103654.pdf
Gregory, J., & Salmon , G. (2012, October 31). Professional Development for
Online University teaching. Taylor & Francis.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01587919.2013.835771
Halverson, L.R., & Graham, C.R. (2019). Learner engagment in blended
learningenvironments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning. 23(2),
145-178. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481
57
Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., & Belisle, M. (2021). An examination of Teacher's
strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher
education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3
Hill, S. A. (2006). Inferential Statistics. Science Direct.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-anddentistry/
inferentialstatistics#:~:text=Inferential%20statistics%20describe%20the
%20many, those%20populations%20are%20truly%20different.
Hung, M.-L., & Chou, C. (2015). Students’ perceptions of instructors’ roles in
blended and online learning environments: A
comparative
study. Computers & Education, 81, 315–
325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.022
Ja’ashan, N. H. (2015). Perceptions and attitudes towards blended learning
for english courses: A case study of students at university of
Bisha. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 40–50.

Janosz, M. (2012)Part IV commentary:Outcomes of engagement and
engagemnt as an outcome: Some concensus, divergences, and
unanswered questions. In S.L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
John T. E. Richardson, Alan Woodley. (2010). nother Look at the Role of Age,
Gender and Subject as Predictors of Academic Attainment in Higher
Education. Taylor and Francis Online.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122305
58
Kanwaar, A., & Sanjeeva, M. (2022). Student Satisfaction survey: A key for
Quality improvement in the Higher Education Institution. J Innov Entrep.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6
Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. & Yilmaz, R. (2022b). Learning analytics intervention
improves students' engagement in online learning. Technology,
Knowledge, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09547-
Kaur, P., Stoltzfus, J., & Yellapu, V. (2018). Descriptive Statistics. Intenational
Journal of Academic Medicine. doi:10.4103/IJAM_7_18
Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes
in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan
University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 181–195.
Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness:
The relationship between student characteristics, design features and
outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 14(7), 1–20.

Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing
disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open
online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference
on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170–179). Leuven, Belgium:
ACM.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2013). Instructor Presence in online courses and student
satisfaction. Digital Commons @ Georgia
Southern.https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113
59
Lappe, J. M. (2000). Taking the Mystery out of Research: Descriptive
correlational design. Orthopedic
Nursing.https://hdl.handle.net/10504/72007
Magsambol, M. (2022, July 22). Fast Facts: CHED’s flexible learning.
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak.iq/things-to-know-ched-
flexiblelearning/
Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R.
(2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings
using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The
Internet and Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002
Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022, February 28). A meta-analysis on
the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online
and blended learning environments. Online
Learning.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1340511
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning:What works and
why. ASHE Higher Education Report.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018
Mohd, K. N., & Quick, D. (2016, February 24). Teaching presence influencing
online students' course satisfaction at an institution of Higher Education.
International Education Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n3p62
Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012, January 1). Evaluating student
satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment.

60
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. Naaj, M. A.,
Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012, January 1). Evaluating student
satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-
segreghttps://www.learntechlib.org/p/111500/
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011, August 16). A time‐based
blended learning model. On the Horizon. Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D.,
& Moskal, P. D. (201https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913
Nortvig, A. M., Peterson, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018, February 1). A literature
review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in
relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning. https://academic-
publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1855
Ondrey, Z. L. (2017, April 13). The Relationship between Teaching Presence
and Student Satisfaction in Online Learning. Wilkes
University
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/fb912f278ff7ec14cd5c7f7daceb38
97/1?cbl=18750&pq-origsite=gscholar
Panes, L. L. (2019). DIMENSIONS OF LEARNERS’ SATISFACTION IN THE
DELIVERY OF INSTRUCTION IN BLENDED LEARNING PROGRAM
IN TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS.
https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.43.865881
61
Park, C., & Kim, D. (2020). Perception of intructor presence and its effects on
learning experience in online classes. Journal of
Information
Technology Education: Research. https://doi.org/10.28945/4611
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development.
In R. A. Calvo & S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and
learning technologies (pp. 23–39). New York, NY: Springer. Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419- 9625-1_3
Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., Graham, C., & Moskal, P. (2021, February
29). Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 3. Taylor &
Francis.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003037736/blen
ded-learning-anthony-picciano-charles-dziuban-charles-graham-
patsymoskal
Rahman, N. A., Hussein, N., & Aluwi, A. H. (2015, November 25). Satisfaction
on Blended Learning in a Public Higher Education Institution: What
factors Matter? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.107
Serrano, D. R., Dea-Ayuela, M. A., Gonzalez-Burgos, E., Serrano-Gil, A., &
Lalatsa, A. (2019). Technology-enhanced learning in higher education:
How to enhance student engagement through blended learning.
European Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12330
Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2019). Developing learning
community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of

62
teaching presence. Online learning.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i4.1779
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student
engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A.
L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Springer.
Small, F., Dowell, D., & Simmons, P. (2012). Teacher communication
preferred over peer interaction:Student satisfaction with different tools
in a virtual learning environment. Journal of International Education in
Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/18363261211281735
Su, F., Zou, D., & Wang, L. (2023, March 2). Student engagement and
teaching presence in blended learning and emergency remote teaching.
Journal on Computer and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692023-00263-1
Svanum S, Aigner C. (2011). The influences of course effort, mastery and
performance goals, grade. Br J Educ Psychol. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8279.2010.02011.x pmid: 22050312

Taghizadeh, M., & Hajhosseini, F. (2020, August 26). Investigagting a blended
learning environment: Contribution of Attitude, interaction, and quality
of teaching to satisfaction of gradute students of TEFL. The Asie-
Pacific Education researcher - Springerlink.
https://link.springer.com/article//10.1007/s40299-020-00531-z
Tonći Lazibat, Ines Duzevic, Tomislav Bakovic. (2014). How perceived service
quality influences students' satisfaction? Teachers' and

63
students' perspectives. Research Gate.
doi:10.1080/14783363.2014.916036
Turney, S. (2022, May 13 ). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r)/ Guide and
Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/pearson-
correlation-coefficient/
Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010, August). A study of student
satisfaction in a blended e-learning system enviornment. Science
Direct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
Yang, Y., Liu, K., Li, M., & Li, S. (2022). Students’ affective engagement,
parental involvement, and teacher support in emergency remote
teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a
crosssectional survey in China. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 54(sup1), S148–
S164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1922104
Yu, Z. (2021). The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on
online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Springer .
doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00252-3
Zhao, H., & Sullivan, K.P. (2017). Teaching presence in computer
conferencing learning environments: Effects on interaction, cognition
and learning uptake. British journal of Educational Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12383
64
APPENDICES
65
Appendix A Letter of Approval to

Conduct the Study
66
Appendix B Letter to the

Respondents
Appendix C Letter
to the Expert
67
68
69
Republic of the Philippines 71
ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED
Appendix D
SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION RATING SCALE
Adapted from: Oducado (2020)
Directions: Please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement on the statements

provided below by encircling the number which corresponds to your best of your judgment.S
Rating: 5 - Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 - Good 2 - Fair 1Poor

Are Criteria Rating
a
1 The items in the instrument are relevant to answer the objectives of the
study.
2 The items in the instrument can obtain depth to construct being measured.
3
The instrument has an appropriate sample of items for the construct being
measured.
4
The items in their alternatives are neither too narrow nor limited in its
content.
5 The items in the instrument are stated clearly.
6 The items on the instrument can elicit responses which are stable, definite,
consistent and not conflicting.
7 The terms adapted in the scale are culturally appropriate.
8 The layout or format of the instrument is technically sound.
9 The responses on the scale show a reasonable range of variation.
10 The instrument is not too short or long enough that the participants will be
able to answer it within a given time.
Second Floor Administration Building, Main Campus, P. Inocentes St., P.I. Garcia, Naval, Biliran Province, Philippines 6560 Tel. (053) 507
0076 SUC Level III-A (Per DBM-CHED Joint Circular #B dated June 21, 2007) Website: www.bipsu.edu.ph ‫ן‬Email: sted@bipsu.edu.ph ‫ן‬
Facebook: School of Teacher Education – the Victorious Bulletin
11 The instrument is interesting such that participants will be induced to

respond to it and accomplish it fully.
12 The instrument as a whole could answer the basic purpose for which it is
designed.
13 The instrument is culturally acceptable when administered in the local

setting.
Total
Mean
Comments:
Signature of the Juror/Validator

Appendix E
Informed Consent TITLE OF STUDY:
Analyzing the Relationship of Teacher Presence, Student Engagement, and

Student Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment
PRINCIPAL RESEARCHERS:
Name:
Marcos, Shada Marie M.
Olaguer, Venson Ray F.
Pelaez, Edhen Rose B.
Solayao, Roanne A.
Department: School of Teacher Education - Bachelor of Secondary Education

Present Address: P. Innocentes St., P.I. Garcia, Naval, Biliran
Contact Number: 09058345629
Email: vensonrayolaguer@gmail.com
PURPOSE OF STUDY:
The study generally aims to analyze the relationship of teacher presence, student
engagement, and student satisfaction in a blended learning environment of Biliran
Province State University particularly in the School of Teacher Education, Main
Campus.
STUDY PROCEDURES:
1. The data collection for the study will commence after you and your parents
agree to this consent.
2. Demographic information will be collected from you through a google form
survey questionnaires divided into 4 parts, Part I is on demographics, Part II
is the Teacher presence Questionnaire, Part III is the Student Engagement
Questionnaire, and Part IV is the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire.
3. Three (3) Survey Questionnaires will be disseminated and recovered once
permit is signed.
4. The researchers assure you that the data collected from the surveys shall
solely be used for the purpose of the study.
RISKS:
5. The researcher will collect your personal information specially, your
demographic data which will be presented to the panelist.
6. You might be able to divulge sensitive information during the data collection
but rest assured that your identity will be kept confidential.
You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your
involvement at any time if you choose.
BENEFITS:
There will be no direct benefit to you for your response in this study.
However, we hope that the information obtained from this study may contribute to
decision formulation, and intervention formulation that is hinged on research-based
evidence, particularly in the context of teacher presence, student engagement, and
student satisfaction in the blended learning environment.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
Your responses to the survey will be anonymous. Please do not write any
identifying information in the questionnaire or mention your name during the survey
process. Moreover, for the purposes of this research study, your answers will not be
anonymous. Every effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your
confidentiality including the following:
1. Assigning code names/numbers for respondents that will be used on all

research notes and documents
2. Keeping Survey Questionnaires and any other identifying respondents’
information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the
researcher.
3. Respondents’ data will be kept confidential except in cases where the

researcher is legally obligated to report specific incidents. These incidents
include, but may not be limited to, incidents of abuse and suicide risk.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
If you have questions at any time about this study, you may contact the
researchers whose contact information is provided on the first page.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION:
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether

or not to take part in this study. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be
asked to sign a consent form. After you sign the consent form, you are still free to
withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. Withdrawing from this study will not
affect the relationship you have, if any, with the researcher. If you withdraw from the
study before data collection is completed, your data will be returned to you or
destroyed.
CONSENT
I have read and I understand the provided information and have had the
opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that
am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I
understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take
part in this study.
_________________________________________
Respondent’s signature over printed name
Date:_________________
Appendix F Research Instrument
PART I: STUDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Direction: Kindly provide the needed information below.
Name:____________________________________(optional) Age:_______
Gender:
Male:Female: Others:
Program:
BEED:
BECED:
BSNED:
BPED:
BTLED:
BSED - ENGLISH
BSED - MATH
BSED - FILIPINO BSED

- SCIENCE:
BSED - SOC. STUD.:
PART II: TEACHER PRESENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(Adopted from: Hosler et al., 2013)
Directions: Below is a statement about the Teacher Presence in a Blended
learning environment. Please indicate by putting a check () on the level of
agreement. 1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Strongly Strongly
Neutral
Instructional Design Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
(3)
and Organization (1) (2) (4) (5)
1. The instructor
clearly
communicated
important course
topics.
2. The instructor
clearly
communicated
important course
goals.
3. The instructor
provided clear
instructions on
how to participate
learning
activities.
4. The instructor
clearly
communicated
important due
dates and time
frames for learning

activities.
5. The instructor
helped me take
advantage of the
online environment
in a way that
assisted my
learning.
6. The instructor
helped students
understand and
practice the kinds
of behaviors
acceptable in
online learning
environment.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
(2) (3) (4)
Facilitating Discourse (1) (5)
7. The instructor was

helpful in
identifying areas of
agreement and
disagreement on
course topics that
helped me to
learn.
8. The instructor was

helpful in guiding
the class towards
understanding
course topics in a
way that helped
me clarify my
thinking.
9. The instructor
helped to keep
course participants
engaged and
participating in
productive dialog.
10.The instructor
helped keep
course participants
on task in a way
that helped me to
learn.
11.The instructor
encouraged
course participants
to explore new
concepts.
12.Instructor actions
reinforced the
development of a
sense of
community among
course
participants.
Direct Instruction Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
13.The instructor
provided useful
illustrations that
helped make the
course content
more
understandable to
me.
14.The instructor
presented helpful
examples that
allowed me to
better understand
the content of the
course.
15.The instructor
provided
explanations or
demonstrations to
help me better
understand the
content of the
course.
16.The instructor
provided feedback
to the class during
the discussions or
other activities that
helped us learn.
17.The instructor
asked for
feedback on how a
subject could be
improved.
PART III: STUDENT ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
(Adopted from: Elmaadaway, 2017)
Directions: Below is a statement about the Student Engagement in a
Blended learning environment. Please indicate by putting a check () on the
level of agreement. 1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagre Strongly
Neutral Agree
Disagree e Agree
(3) (4)
(1) (2) (5)
1. I listen
carefully to
everything that is
said in class.
2. I ask questions
about what I do
not know.
3. I interact with
my peers during
class.
4. I strive to
understand
lessons during
class.
5. I am alert
during class.
6. I always
participate in
discussions with
my teacher.
7. I am always
Behavioral eager to attend
Engagement class.
8. I always
complete my
assignments.
9. I prefer to
complete
activities and
assignments
during class with
my instructor and
peers.
10. Enough time
is provided
during class for
practice activities
and discussions.
11. I always ask

the instructor
about difficult
content.
12. I attempt to
apply things that I
learned during
class.
13. I relate to my
peers and
discuss with
them what I
learned at home.
14. I strive to
acquire new
knowledge about
the course.
15. Being familiar
with the content
prior to attending
class motivates
me and
increases my
engagement.
16. Preparing for
lessons enables
Cognitive me to
Engagement communicate
better with my
peers and the
instructor.
17. Familiarizing
myself with
content prior to
attending a
lecture enables
me to share what
I ;earned with
others during
class.
18. I enjoy the

class.
19. The teaching
method practiced
by the instructor
is enjoyable.
20. I enjoy the
practice activities
conducted during
class.
21. I enjoy
studying content
at home.
22. I like it when
the instructor
asks me
questions.
23. I am
optimistic when I
go to class with
an understanding
of the content.
24. Participating
in class
discussions
boosts my
confidence.
25. Solving and
Emotional sharing problems
Engagement during class in
enjoyable.
PART IV: STUDENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

(Adopted from: Naaj et al., 2012)
Directions: Below is a statement about the Student Satisfaction in a
Blended learning environment. Please indicate by putting a check () on the
level of agreement. 1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. A blended
learning session
keeps me always
alert and focused.
2. Interaction is
adequately
maintained with
the lecturer when
he/she is on the
other side of the
blended learning
classroom.
3. Having
students from the
opposite gender
on the other side
of the blended
learning
classroom
listening to what I
say might restrict
my participation.
4. A blended
learning course
makes it more
Interaction important for
students to visit
the lecturer during
office-hours.
5. I cannot
interrupt the
lecturer to ask a
question when
he/she is on the
other side of the
blended learning
classroom
6. I am satisfied
with the quality
interaction
between all
involved parties.
7. I am dissatisfied
with the process
of collaboration
activities during
the course.
8. I am satisfied
with the way I
interact with
others student.
9. I am satisfied
with my
participation in the
class.
10. The use of

blended learning
technology in this
course
encourages me to
learn
independently.
11. My
understanding is
improved
compared to
similar courses I
Instruction studied before.
12. My
performance in
exam is improved
compared to
similar courses I
studied before.
13. I am satisfied
with the level of
effort this course
required.
14. I am
dissatisfied with
my performance
in this course
15. I believe I will
be satisfied with
my final grade in
the course
16. I am satisfied
with how I am able
to apply what I
have learned in
this course.
17. If I had known
this was going to
be a blended
learning class, I
would not have
taken it.
18. I am willing to
take another
course using the
blended learning
delivery mode.
19. I am satisfied
enough with this
course to
recommend it to
others.
20. Compared to
face-to-face
course settings, I
am less satisfied
with this learning
experience.
21. I enjoy
working on
assignments by
myself.
22. The instructor
makes me feel
that I am a true
member of the
class.
23. I am
dissatisfied with
the accessibility
and availability of
the instructor.
24. The instructor
uses blended
learning
technology
appropriately
25. Class
assignments were
clearly
communicated to
me.
26. Feedback on
evaluation of tests
and other
assignments was
given in a timely
Instructor manner.
27. Discipline is
highly observed
when the lecturer
is on the other
side of the
blended learning
classroom.
Course 28. The
Management lecturer,supervisor
always takes
attendance.
29. I attend
videoconferencing
classes the same
way I attend
faceto-face
classes.
30. The
instructor’s voice
is audible.
31. Course
content shown or
displayed on the
smart board is
clear.
32. The
microphone is in
good working
condition.
33. The video

image is clear and
comprehensive
when the lecturer
is on the other
side of the
blended learning
classroom.
34. Technical
problems are not
frequent and they
do not adversely
affect my
understanding of
the course.
35. The
technology used
for blended
teaching is
Technology reliable.
86
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Shada Marie M. Marcos
Date of Birth : January 23, 2002
Place of Birth : Lo-ok, Almeria, Biliran
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Religion : Iglesia Filipina Independiente
Home Address : Lo-ok, Almeria, Biliran
E-Mail : shadamarcos232002@gmail.com
Mobile number : 09754773886
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
: Bachelor of Secondary Education

Undergraduate Major in Social Studies
Naval, Biliran
2020 - Present
Secondary
Senior High School : Humanities of Social Sciences
Naval, Biliran
2019 - 2020
: Almeria National High School
Almeria, Biliran
2013 - 2014
87
CURRICULUM VITAE
2017 - 2018
: Lo-ok Elementary School

Lo-ok, Almeria, Biliran
88
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Venson Ray F. Olaguer
Date of Birth : June 3, 2001
Place of Birth : Talustusan, Naval, Biliran
Religion : Roman Catholic
Home Address : Talustusan, Naval, Biliran
E-Mail : vensonrayolaguer@gmail.com

Naval, Biliran
2020 - Present
Secondary
Senior High School : Humanities of Social Sciences
Naval, Biliran
2019 - 2020
: Naval National High School
Larrazabal, Naval, Biliran
2013 - 2014
89
CURRICULUM VITAE
2017 - 2018
Talustusan Elementary
: School
Talustusan, Naval , Biliran
90
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Edhen Rose B. Pelaez
Date of Birth : December 17, 2000
Place of Birth : Quezon City
Religion : Born Again (Christian)
Home Address : P.I. Garcia St. Naval, Biliran
E-Mail : justdhen19@gmail.com

Naval, Biliran
2020 - Present
Secondary
Senior High School : Accountancy, Business and
Management (ABM)
Naval School of Fisheries
Caraycaray, Naval, Biliran
2019 - 2020
: Naval School of Fisheries
2013 - 2014
91
CURRICULUM VITAE
Caraycaray, Naval,
Biliran
2017 - 2018
: Naval Central School

Naval, Biliran
92
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Roanne A. Solayao
Date of Birth : January 15, 2001
Place of Birth : San Lorenzo, Kawayan, Biliran
Religion : Roman Catholic
Home Address : San Lorenzo, Kawayan , Biliran
E-Mail : roannesolayao549@gmail.com
Undergraduate : Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in Social Studies
Naval, Biliran
2020 – Present
Secondary
Senior High School : General Academic Strand (GAS)
Bool National High School
Culaba, Biliran
2019 - 2020
Junior High School : Tucdao National High School
2013 - 2014
93
Kawayan, Biliran
2017 - 2018
Elementary : San Lorenzo Elementary School

San Lorenzo, Kawayan, Biliran
2013 - 2014

Final Manuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER PRESENCE, STUDENT

ENGAGEMENT, AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN A BLENDED

In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Shada Marie M. Marcos

This thesis entitled, ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER

Date Approved: ____________ KEVIN T. LAGAT, MSc

THE THESIS COMMITTEE

Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of _________.

ERNIL D. SUMAYAO, EdD

ROBERT P. JORDAN, MAEd VINCENT JUSTINE L. REALINO, MSc

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Recommending Approval: Approved:

GRACE L. CONCEPCION, EdD MARIBEL N. ZIPAGAN, PhD

broaden their perspectives as they went through this study:

Dr. Maribel N. Zipagan, Dean of School of Teacher Education and Dr.

Grace L. Concepcion, Chairperson of Bachelor of Secondary Education for

immense knowledge, and expertise for supervising them in writing this

Their Panel of Examiners, for their encouragement, insightful comments,

and suggestions for the best outcome of this research paper.

understanding and tireless motivation.

time they felt worn out.

SHADA MARIE M. MARCOS

VENSON RAY F. OLAGUER

EDHEN ROSE B. PELAEZ

Research Respondents ….………………………. 22

Research Instrument ….………………………. 23

Data Gathering Procedure ….………………………. 24

Data Analysis ….………………………. 24

CHAPTER III - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents ….……………. 26

Level of Teaching Presence ….………………………. 27

Level of Student Engagement ….………………………. 33

Level of Student Satisfaction ….………………………. 39

Relationship of Variables ….………………………. 48

CHAPTER IV - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

LITERATURE CITED ….………………………. 54

CURRICULUM VITAE ….………………………. 87

Table Title Page

1 Respondents and Sample Size 22

2.0 Respondents’ Age 26

2.1 Respondents’ Gender and Program of 26

3.1 Level of Facilitating Discourse 29

3.3 Level of Teacher Presence in Blended Learning 31

4.0 Level of Behavioral Engagement 33

4.1 Level of Cognitive Engagement 34

4.2 Level of Emotional Engagement 36

5.1 Level of Instruction-Related Factor 41

5.2 Level of Instructor-Related Factor 42

5.3 Level of Course Management-Related Factor 44

5.4 Level of Technology-Related Factor 45

5.5 Level of Student Satisfaction in Blended Learning 46

7 Intervention Plan Matrix 50

1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 8

A Letter of Approval to Conduct the Study 66

C Letter to the Expert 68

D Survey Instrument Validation Rating Scale 71

SHADA MARIE M. MARCOS, VENSON RAY F. OLAGUER, EDHEN

Adviser: MR. KEVIN T. LAGAT

The sudden shift from traditional in-person modality to blended learning

was the compelling reason in measuring its effectiveness through student

satisfaction. The study aimed to determine the level of teacher presence,

student engagement, and student satisfaction of undergraduate students of

teacher education programs in a state university, analyze the relationships