LESSON PLAN MAKING: PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS
AND STRATEGIES IN AN ONLINE MODALITY
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the
College of Teacher Education
University of Cebu-Banilad
Cebu City, Philippines
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Elementary Education
By
DEMMEMOR CRISTY T. BONTILAO
NIÑA FAITH G. ALBARACIN
JEAN MICHELLE A. COGTAS
KHIEM L. HECHANOVA
KEVINJAY B. OUANO
AUBREY MAE B. TOMAODOS
May 2022
ii
APPROVAL SHEET
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor
of Elementary Education, this research entitled “LESSON PLAN MAKING:
PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS AND STRATEGIES IN AN ONLINE
MODALITY” prepared and submitted by Demmemor Cristy T. Bontilao, Niña Faith
G. Albaracin, Jean Michelle A. Cogtas, Khiem L. Hechanova, Kevinjay B. Ouano,
and Aubrey Mae B. Tomaodos has been examined, accepted and approved for ORAL
EXAMINATION.
JOSEPHINE PAGUNSAN, MAED-Filipino
Adviser
ACCEPTED AS partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor
in Elementary Education.
DEBRA SIACOR AGUANTA-LLAGAS, Ed.D
Dean, College of Teacher Education
Approved by the tribunal at Oral Examination with the grade of PASSED.
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
JUDY ANN FERRATER-GIMENA, DBA
Chairperson
CRISLEN DESAMPARADO, LPT
Member 1
BLAS GERALDE, MA-PHILO
Member 2
MARITESS T. KHO, MAT-Eng
Program Research Coordinator
DEBRA LLAGAS, Ed.D
Dean, College of Teacher Education
Date of Oral Examination: May 28, 2022
JUDY ANN FERRATER-GIMENA, DBA
Research Director
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Without the service and assistance of these persons, the researchers
would not have been able to complete their thesis. It gives them great pleasure
to express their deepest gratitude to the following:
First and foremost, to the Lord God, who was always by the researchers’
side, even in the darkest circumstances. Because of His wisdom, direction,
love, and tranquility, this study was made possible;
To Attorney Augusto W. Go, President of the University of Cebu, in
giving superior education to all striving youths;
To Dr. Debra Siacor Aguanta-Llagas, Dean of the College of Teacher
Education, for permission to perform their research;
To Ms. Josephine Pagunsan, their Research Adviser, for encouraging,
assisting, and advising them in doing and finishing their research. It would not
be possible without her knowledge and experience in this field;
To Ms. Roselita Doming, for guaranteeing the accuracy and
dependability of the researchers’ instrument throughout the survey;
To other members of the research committee: Dr. Judy Ann F. Gimena,
Ms. Crislen Desamparado, and Mr. Blas Geralde, for their insightful and
enlightening observations and ideas for improving their paper;
iv
Finally, they like to express their gratitude to their families and friends
for their understanding and assistance in areas including mental, moral, and
financial concerns.
v
DEDICATION
The researchers dedicated this to everyone who assisted them with the
study’s planning, development, production, and investing. Particularly to their
research adviser, Ms. Josephine Pagunsan, MAED-Filipino, who helped them
obtain competence that will one day allow them to make a significant impact
on their future.
They also dedicated this study to their very understanding and
supported research instructor, Ms. Maritess T. Kho, MAT-Eng, who was
always ready to encourage them when the pressure seemed hard to bear.
Also, they dedicate this study to the respondents, who helped them by
taking part in their survey and allowing the researchers to spend their time
including themselves in this study. The researchers would not be able to
conduct this investigation without them.
They also dedicate this study to their family, as they are the ones who
encourage and support them financially, spiritually, morally, and emotionally.
Finally, they dedicate this study to Almighty God for the talent,
knowledge, and love He has given them. And to all the unnamed who have
crossed their way in conducting research leaving fragments of their wisdom.
vi
ABSTRACT
Lesson Plan Making: Preferred Teaching Methods and Strategies In An Online
Modality
Demmemor Cristy T. Bontilao
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6889-8820
bontilaodemmemor@gmail.com
Niña Faith G. Albaracin
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9129-5163
albaracinninyafaith@gmail.com
Jean Michelle A. Cogtas
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7557-5744
jeanmichelle143@gmail.com
Khiem L. Hechanova
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-51059-5533
khiemhechanova28@gmail.com
Kevinjay B. Ouano
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9625-9142
kevinjayouano123@gmail.com
Aubrey Mae B. Tomaodos
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6021-5500
tomaodos2000aubrey@gmail.com
Josephine Pagunsan
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4778-0422
josephinepagunsan2017@gmail.com
University of Cebu-Banilad
Cebu City, Philippines
Lesson planning is the preparation for teachers to deliver practical lessons. Teachers
develop instructional strategies to promote active learning and student engagement in the
learning process. Researchers at the University of Cebu-Banilad conducted a study to
determine the preferred teaching methods and strategies in an online modality of fourthyear BEEd students. Based on the findings of this study, they proposed a webinar workshop
on creating a lesson plan utilizing appropriate teaching methods and strategies for primary
school students.
This research used a descriptive-correlational research design. Raw data were
collected using a questionnaire developed by the researchers, which was analyzed using
simple percentages, weighted mean, and chi-square independence tests. This instrument
performs content verification and dry-run procedure to prove its efficiency and reliability.
vii
Forty (40) students under the fourth year of BEEd students from the University of CebuBanilad Campus were selected as respondents using a random sampling method.
Based on the findings, most respondents were female under the ages of 21-22 years
old. Twenty of them made detailed lesson plans, and most spent more than 2 hours
developing a lesson plan. It also shows a significant correlation between the respondents’
profile and preferred teaching methods and strategies in an online modality. Therefore,
respondents consistently preferred these.
Keywords: Education, lesson planning, teaching methods, instructional strategies, online
modality, active learning, descriptive-correlational design, University of Cebu-Banilad
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
i
ii
iii
v
vi
viii
xi
xi
Title Page
Approval Sheet
Acknowledgment
Dedication
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
CHAPTER
1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
INTRODUCTION
1
1
Rationale of the Study
1
Theoretical Background
6
THE PROBLEM
14
Statement of the Problem
14
Statement of Null Hypothesis
15
Significance of the Study
15
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
17
Research Design
17
Research Environment
17
Research Respondents
18
ix
Research Instrument
18
Dry Run Procedure
19
Research Procedures
19
Gathering of Data
20
Statistical Treatment
20
Ethical Consideration
21
Trustworthiness of the Research
23
DEFINITION OF TERMS
2
25
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS,
AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
27
Analysis of Respondents’ Profiles
27
Interpretation of Teaching Methods
29
Interpretation of Teaching Strategies
31
Test of Hypothesis Between the Profile
of the Respondents and Their
Preferred Teaching Strategies
34
Test of Hypothesis Between the Profile
of the Respondents and Their
Preferred Teaching Methods
3
35
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
37
x
Summary
37
Findings
38
Conclusion
38
Recommendations
39
PROPOSED OUTPUT
40
REFERENCES
43
APPENDICES
A
Transmittal Letters
51
B
Informed Consent Form
53
C
Research Instrument
64
D
Location Map
67
E
Reliability Test Results
68
F
Research Ethics Committee
69
G
Grammarly Results
70
CURRICULUM VITAE
71
xi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table
Description
Page
1
Profile of the Respondents
28
2.1
Preferred Teaching Methods Results
30
2.2
Preferred Teaching Strategies Results
32
3.1
Results on the Significant Relationship
Between the Profile of the Respondents
And their Preferred Teaching Strategies
34
Results on the Significant Relationship
Between the Profile of the Respondents
And their Preferred Teaching Methods
35
3.2
Figure
1
Description
Research Flow
Page
17
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the Study
Lesson planning is a complex process that involves goals, knowledge,
sequencing, activity procedure, implementation, and assessment (Jacobs et al.,
2008). A lesson plan is an activity that the teacher plans ahead of time that
links the necessities of the curriculum and textbooks in presenting within the
classroom (Li et al., 2009). A lesson plan, as defined by the Teaching
Excellence in Adult Literacy [TEAL] Center (2010), is a tool that is a detailed
description of how the instructor will convey the subject and where the
contexts in which the learning objectives are can be achievable. It also covers
explanations related to the lectures and the assessments, content, materials,
time, teaching strategies, and classroom assistance strategies. Furthermore,
the lesson plan provides teachers with guidance on what to teach and what to
review.
In education, especially in schools and universities, it is only correct to
pay attention to teaching methods and the search for the best solution for the
educational problem. One thing that can be useful in solving these problems
is the search for teaching methods to develop and expand the learning scope
of the learner (Lenman & Yonatan, 2012; Mahasneh, 2020).
2
Therefore, knowing the proper performance methods is preferable
because teachers do not have time to experiment. Furthermore, students favor
a teacher who empowers them to make their own decisions. Meanwhile,
friendly students prefer a teacher who provides detailed answers to questions
students and encourages positive classroom participation. It gives the
impression that the student-friendly collaborator has adapted the guidelines
and can supervise the completion of the tasks assigned to the students
individually (Grasha, 2002; Kassaian & Ayatollahi, 2010; Rosario, 2004).
Teaching methods are the principles, strategies, and behaviors teachers
adapt to enable learning. From a different perspective, teaching styles reveal
how educators present themselves to learners, transfer learning material,
interact with students, manage learning tasks, guide work in progress, and
engage students in their courses (Grasha, 2002). Teaching methods include
curriculum understanding, student learning styles, academic performance, and
professional knowledge.
Based on a study by Koballa and Glynn (2007), students prefer more
practical work, extended investigation, opportunities for discussion, and an
emphasis on the applicability of a topic through experience based on the issue.
It also shows that the most common methods include lectures, brainstorming,
and problem-solving (Demirkan & Saracoglu, 2016; Kayabasi, 2012;
3
Karamustafaoglu & Kandaz, 2006; Marbach-Ad et al., 2001; Yesilyurt, 2013).
Of course, all students are not the same; thus, it is crucial to discover groups
of students who prefer particular teaching methods. In addition, it will be
helpful to know more about students’ preferences for specific teaching
methods and strategies for teacher training.
On the other hand, cooperative learning, projects, and concept maps are
among the less frequently used methods (Yesilyurt, 2013). These typically
include a variety of traditional and non-traditional or emerging techniques
such as conventional or interactive lectures, experiments, games, simulations,
case studies, cooperative learning, and community-based learning (Faust &
Paulson, 1998; Emerson & Taylor, 2007; Tanner, 2013).
Previous studies (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007; Reeve, 2002), teaching
methods that allow teachers to be responsive (e.g., spending time listening),
supportive (e.g., praising quality performance), and flexible (e.g., giving
students time to work their way up) are best for the interests’ development.
Thus selecting appropriate teaching methods makes it possible to arouse and
develop students’ interests.
Instructional strategies teach the methods and approaches that teachers
follow to achieve primary instructional objectives. It is hard to say there is the
existence of the concept of unity in strategies.
4
Marzano (2003) stated that instructional strategies influence student
success and allow teachers to diversify instructional applications. Teaching
strategies include activities that help create the classroom environment for
good quality learning. These activities should take into account instructional
objectives as well as curriculum content. Instructional strategies that teach the
components which influence the target learning have a notable impact on the
quality of knowledge, deciding which activities to start and what teaching
methods and strategies to employ (Baker & Dwyer, 2005).
John (2006) stated that educators’ responses were quite diverse when
they began this process for themselves. For some teachers, these encounters
have creative possibilities, while it is a brick wall of confusion and anxiety for
others. Consequently, planning is one of the crucial skills teachers should
acquire, but despite that, they still have difficulty organizing the lesson plan.
Many skilled teachers face problems when they plan a lesson.
Sometimes they meet difficulties in getting the students’ attention and
sometimes misjudge the capabilities of their students (Postareff et al., 2007).
After completing their Teacher Education, teachers report having trouble
using theory to lesson planning, notably identifying appropriate learning
strategies, learning activity phases, and achievement of competence and
learning goals.
5
As a result, Sendurur (2018) posits that student-teachers tend to use
teacher-centered learning. This fact is supported and reinforced by the
research results of Taylan (2016), who found that prospective teachers did not
include learning objectives or evaluates (Beyer & Davis, 2011) training
difficulties in teaching. The alignment between learning objectives, learning
activities, and assessment will determine student learning success (Chizhik &
Chizhik, 2018). Thus, the ability to plan education units for undergraduate
teachers to produce qualified teachers is a defined requirement for Education
lecturers.
A study conducted in the Philippines showed that lecture, question and
answer method, project method, and demonstration style were ranked from
highest to lowest as the dominant teaching style used by academics and
technical instructors (Rizardo & Vyhmeister, 2010). In another study in the
Philippines, teachers in the College of Education preferred to use the
following strategies: panel discussion, lecture-demonstration, reporting,
lecture, and teaching modules (Creer et al., 2008).
Some of the areas of literature offered that have not yet been explored
and studied include identifying student learning issues in the activities
presented and providing a general summary of instructional objectives (Maher,
2008; Schuitema, 2008; Tashevska, 2008; Dunn et al., 2010). Another area of
6
literature that still needs to be studied is the learning and teaching objectives
(Freiberg & Driscoll, 2000; Nunan, 2015; Bin-Hady & Abdulsafi, 2019) and
ways to achieve them (Freiberg & Driscoll, 2000; Kagan & Tippins, 1992).
As a result of the papers and publications discussed above, the
researchers decided to undertake their research into the preferred teaching
methods and strategies utilized in constructing lesson plans. The purpose was
to determine what methods and strategies respondents employed in their
online teaching. Furthermore, as a study tool, the researchers used a survey
questionnaire. Through these questionnaires, they discovered the preferred
methods and strategies utilized by fourth-year BEEd students in the online
mode when developing lesson plans. The researchers proposed a webinar
workshop on creating a lesson plan using appropriate teaching methods and
strategies based on the results of this study.
Theoretical Background
This study anchored Constructivism Learning Theory by Jean Piaget,
which describes a learning paradigm that claims that people actively construct
their knowledge and experiences of learners to describe reality (Elliott, 2000).
Constructivists believe in the personal production of student meaning via
learning and impact the interaction of existing knowledge and new
occurrences (Arends, 2014). Constructivist teaching will build a curriculum
7
depending on the level of interest and growth, which will guide them in their
learning while also assessing it to establish future teaching points as they are
encouraged to explore, explain, and research. This method shifted the focus
of the learning environment from the teacher to the students.
Concerns in instructional design within a framework of constructivism
begin to be attached, allowing for the possibility of prior knowledge,
understanding, and student interest. Boethel and Dimock (1999) stated that
teachers should understand what students bring to the learning situation and
start helping students develop new knowledge. The benefit of constructivist
learning may be crucial wherein the instruction of complex skills such as
problem-solving or critical thinking ability is concerned (Tam, 2000).
Additionally, Paparozzi (1998) states that constructivism is student-centered,
which involves problem-solving, and requires the student to interpret and
explain. It recognizes the student’s prior knowledge, encourages social and
environmental interaction, and looks at mistakes as learning opportunities.
Felder and Silverman (1988) offered a parallel model of teaching style
that categorizes instructional approaches based on how effectively they
respond to the specified learning style components. As a result, he proposed
four elements of teaching styles; content, presentation, student participation,
and perspective. Content (concrete or abstract) focuses on the sort of
8
information delivered. Concrete information includes facts, data, and
experiments, whereas principles, theories, and models are examples of
abstract knowledge. The presentation (whether visual or verbal) emphasizes
information. Visible models include pictures, diagrams, videos, and
presentations, while lectures, readings, and conversations are part of the
verbal model. Student participation (active/passive) focuses on how the
student participates, while passive participation is where students only watch
and listen. Finally, the perspective (sequential or global) focuses on the type
of perspective provided on the information presented. The primary idea of
constructivism is that human learning is intact, and students develop new
knowledge based on prior knowledge. This prior knowledge will influence
what new or modified knowledge an individual can derive from these new
learning experiences (Phillips, 1995).
The anchored theory was supported by Jean Piaget’s Cognitive
Learning Approach, allowing educators to identify learning needs. Learners
must reflect on their previous experiences to understand a new idea and then
change their expectations to integrate new experiences. They form knowledge
based on recently provided ideas, resulting in long-term changes. As a result,
teachers must provide lessons for pupils to learn, depending on their learning
levels and experiences (Kurt, 2020).
9
In selecting appropriate methods and techniques, teachers consider
their personalities, the students, the subject content, time factors, and physical
materials (Kucukahmet, 2017). Teachers also said the lecture was the most
common method because their classrooms were over-crowded, and other
styles and techniques were too time-consuming (Demirkan & Saracoglu,
2016). However, teachers should use strategies to highlight the cognitive
abilities of students, such as critical thinking and problem-based learning, and
lead students to be more reflective (Ishiyama et al., 1999).
Teachers determine the format and content of their lessons, including
how much to present, asking questions, how much information to cover in the
allocated time, and the subjects’ complexity (Borich, 2017). In addition, the
teacher organizes and structures instructional activities to stimulate the
cognitive activation of students (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001).
Social Learning Theory developed by Albert Bandura also supported
the anchored theory, known as the bridge between the behaviorist learning
hypothesis and cognitive learning theories because it covers attention,
memory, and motivation (Muro & Jeffrey, 2008). It allows educators to take
this knowledge of students’ thought processes and apply it to the classroom
that engages students. Moreover, it uses knowledge about their behavior to
give teachers the tools to overcome their barriers in learning. He believes that
10
direct reinforcement could not account for all types of knowledge. For that
reason, he added a social element, arguing that people can learn new
information and behaviors by watching others.
Teachers need to understand the process of individualized learning. In
the learning process, individuals interact with the environment, i.e., unique
information processing, and require a unique environment for learning.
Addressing the challenge of facilitating learning conditions while organizing
such interactions should be considered to help individuals optimize their
learning (Singh, 2017). Thus, teachers should apply appropriate teaching
strategies best suited to specific goals and abilities to ensure and facilitate the
process of knowledge transmission (Tebabal & Kahssay, 2011). Whether
students work in groups or alone, they learn to take responsibility for their
learning (Rizardo & Vyhmeister, 2010).
There are four elements in social learning theory, including attention,
which states that students cannot learn if they are not focused on the task.
However, if they see other students paying attention, they are more likely to
pay attention. Teachers use reward and punishment systems to help students
learn from the examples of others. Retention is where students learn by
internalizing information. Students can remember information when they
want to respond to a situation or a question. Reproduction is where students
11
bring their previously comprehended knowledge. Finally, motivation often
comes from seeing others rewarded or punished for something (Western
Governors University, 2020). Students who get positive reinforcement have
more confidence in themselves and their abilities — this is unique in their
minds. Therefore, they want to repeat this behavior.
Furthermore, David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory also
supported the anchored theory stating that learning entails the acquisition of
abstract concepts that may be able to use flexibly in a range of contexts. This
theory defines learning as a process by which knowledge construct through
the change of experience (Kolb, 1984).
Bonwell and Eison (1991) defined active learning as anything which
concerns students doing things and thinking about things they do. Learning
by doing involves actively participating in a planned event, evaluating and
reflecting on the experience, and applying principles learned in school, work,
and life situations.
Among the typical planning of lesson pitfalls that novice teachers find
burdensome to incorporate into their daily lesson plan are the demands of
activities and commitment before service (Rodriguez & Abocejo, 2018).
Boreham (1987) stated that the concept of experiential learning means
learning through reflection on experience. Reflection is a crucial element in
12
learning. Without this, students are at risk of committing the same mistakes.
Learning happens when a student shifts his thinking through reflection from
learned experiences (Menaker et al., 2006). More importantly, experiential
learning is related to empirical evidence and affects lesson planning ability
(Miettinen, 2010). Experiential lessons allow students to experience the
concepts themselves and, as a result, give students a richer, more meaningful
understanding of course concepts and how they work in real life (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012).
Even if they all have the same traits and similar aims, teachers can
employ strategies to boost student comprehension, motivation, and behavior.
Because of the similarities between these concepts, the terms collaborative
learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, self-directed, and
engaged learning are nearly interchangeable (Rizardo & Vyhmeister, 2010).
With teacher coaching, scaffolding, and questioning, these activities help
students develop the self-monitoring skills necessary to identify learning
needs using their internal thought processes (reflection). Students select and
become individually responsible for specific learning issues (autonomy,
responsibility, and intentionality).
The said theories, related literature, and studies have provided in-depth
knowledge of the various teaching methods and strategies used to provide and
13
deliver proper lessons. Hence, they are highly relevant for teachers to develop
better instructional plans and to the needs of students to learn effectively.
THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem
This study determined the preferred teaching methods and strategies
used by the fourth-year Bachelor of Elementary Education students in an
online modality. The result of this study was used and served as the basis for
proposing the webinar workshop on developing a lesson plan with appropriate
14
teaching methods and strategies.
Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1. age;
1.2. gender;
1.3. types of lesson plans already made; and
1.4. amount of time spent working on the lesson plan?
2. What are the respondents’ preferred teaching methods and
strategies in an online modality?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the
respondents and the preferred teaching methods and strategies in an
online modality?
4. What webinar workshop may be proposed based on the findings for
creating a lesson plan utilizing appropriate teaching methods and
strategies?
Statement of Null Hypothesis
The following null hypothesis tests at a 0.05 level of significance:
Hø1: There is a significant relationship between the profile of the
respondents and the preferred teaching methods and strategies in an online
modality.
15
Significance of the Study
The outcome of this study will be beneficial to the following:
Bachelor of Elementary Education students. It will be useful for the
BEEd students since they will be the ones to make the lesson plans that they
will use in teaching the lessons.
School Administrators. The school administrators will understand how
to create a lesson plan and use teaching methods and strategies. Consequently,
this research can be a guide.
Teachers. Teachers can see where students struggle when employing
suitable teaching methods and strategies when creating lesson plans. As a
result, they will produce an example lesson plan incorporating appropriate
teaching methods and techniques.
Researchers. The accomplishment of this study will benefit the
researchers as this will help them make appropriate lesson plans for future
use.
Future Researchers. The result of this study can help future researchers
with their studies with related research topics like ours.
16
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study utilized the descriptive-correlational method to determine
the preferred teaching methods and strategies used by the fourth-year
Bachelor of Elementary Education students in the online modality of lesson
plan-making using the researcher-made survey questionnaire.
17



INPUT
Respondents’
Profile
Lesson Plan
Making
Preferred
Teaching
Methods and
Strategies


PROCESS
Descriptive Correlational
Method
Survey Questionnaire

Data Gathering

Data Processing

Analysis and
Interpretation of Data

OUTPUT
Webinar Workshop
in Constructing a
Lesson Plan Using
Appropriate
Teaching Methods
and Strategies
Figure 1
Research Flow
The descriptive-correlational method represents the variables and
relationships that naturally occur between them. The researchers applied
correlation statistics to measure and describe the level of correlation between
and among these variables (Creswell, 2015).
Research Environment
This study took place at the University of Cebu-Banilad Campus,
located at Gov. M. Cuenco Avenue in Banilad, Cebu City, and specifically at
the College of Teacher Education on the fourth floor (See Appendix E Location Map).
The vision of the College of Teacher Education is to produce ethically
guided and globally competitive teachers who will serve as leaders in their
respective communities. They are committed to developing global and
effective teachers who can teach in areas of primary education; instill
18
awareness in the appreciation and the ethics of the teaching profession;
provide the leadership skills required in the practice of the teaching profession.
Research Respondents
This study focused on students in the fourth year of the Bachelor of
Elementary Education at the University of Cebu-Banilad Campus. The said
year level has a total population of 65 students. The researchers chose 60
percent of the 65 students, or equivalent to 40 students, using the random
sampling method. It means the individuals of each demographic have an equal
chance of being chosen to participate. Hence, every student from the said year
level has an equal chance to be a respondent.
Research Instrument
Getting the necessary information, the researchers used a survey
questionnaire. The questionnaire is a set of well-structured questions created
by researchers to collect data and facts. It is divided into two components and
serves as the primary data collection tool. The first part was profiling, which
required respondents to fill out a form that contained their name (optional),
age, gender, the types of lesson plans they had already created, and the number
of hours they had spent doing so. The second part was split into two sub-parts
to determine the preferred teaching methods and strategies used by fourthyear Bachelor of Elementary Education students in an online modality. The
19
researchers used this tool for data collection to determine the respondents’
preferred teaching methods and strategies in an online modality (See Appendix
C - Research Instrument).
Dry Run Procedure
The researchers ran a dry run on fourth-year Bachelor of Secondary
Education students from the University of Cebu-Banilad Campus, ensuring
the instrument’s reliability. Forty (40) students were requested to answer and
respond to the dry run procedure. The researchers chose the respondents who
would answer.
The informed consent form and the survey questionnaire were
distributed to the identified dry run respondents using Google Form and
Messenger App. The researchers asked respondents to put their e-signatures
on the consent form if they accepted the invitation to be part of the study.
Afterward, the researchers collected the data and tallied and tabulated the
results. The researchers and their statistician use Cronbach’s Alpha to
determine the reliability of the research instrument. The computed Cronbach’s
Alpha value is 0.81, indicating that the results are consistent and reliable (See
Appendix D - Reliability Test Results).
Research Procedures
20
Gathering of Data. The researchers seek approval and permission from the
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus Director, Dean Ofelia G. Maa (See
Appendix A1 - Transmittal Letter). The researchers also secured approval from
the Dean of the College of Teacher Education, Mrs. Debra Siacor AguantaLlagas (See Appendix A2 - Transmittal Letter). The researchers also gave
participants a consent form explaining the purpose of their research and asked
for their approval. Along with the document is a certificate of consent, on
which they stamped their e-signatures as proof of participating in the said
study voluntarily. After that, they sent the file again, and the researchers sent
the Google Form for the survey questionnaire.
Due to pandemic restrictions, the researchers distributed the survey
questionnaires using various online platforms such as Google Forms and
Messenger Apps. First, the respondents filled in their profile information and
a questionnaire about their interest in the topic. After the survey, the
researchers analyzed the answer. They kept and stored the information in a
secure folder. They create duplicate backup files in case a problem occurs,
and they will delete these files and information after six months. Meanwhile,
the researchers’ statistician treated all the data gathered.
Statistical Treatment
21
Participants answered the survey questionnaire. After administering the
test, the results were analyzed using statistical tools and interpreted as the
basis for conclusions and recommendations.
The researchers used a Simple Percentage for computing the profile of
the respondents, including their age, gender, types of lesson plans already
made, and the amount of time spent creating the lesson plan.
The researchers used Weighted Mean to determine the preferred
teaching methods and strategies in an online modality.
The researchers used a Chi-square Test of Independence to
determine the significant relationship between respondents’ profiles and the
preferred teaching methods and strategies in an online modality.
Ethical Considerations
Considered in this research are informed consent, voluntary
participation, and confidentiality. Protecting the respondents’ rights is the
primary obligation of the research team.
Beneficence. This research may be helpful to the respondents,
considering that they are the subject and center of establishing a webinar
workshop that will help them address the needs of developing lesson plans
using appropriate teaching methods and strategies.
22
Non-maleficence. The researchers asked the respondents to share
some personal details about themselves and informed them not to give
answers to questions asked if they were uncomfortable answering them. The
researchers respected the respondents’ decision and did not ask for any reason.
The researchers, their adviser, and the group’s statistician are the only
ones who have access to the data collected in this study. Instead of using their
names, the researchers indicate the respondents’ information as numbers.
Only the researchers had access to their personal information, which they
secured and placed in a separate folder.
Justice. The researchers thoroughly explained to the respondents the
purpose of conducting the study and the intended benefits to the respondents.
Also, they comprehensively told them about the risks they might face when
they accepted being a respondent in such a study and how the researchers
would keep every detail hidden from other people, excluding the adviser and
statistician of the researchers.
Confidentiality. The researchers informed the respondents about the
study; (i) the researcher sent the purpose and consent letter to the participants.
(ii) the respondents’ participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and they
had the right to withdraw. (iii) researchers retained participants’ personal
information to protect their privacy and keep them safe. Furthermore, the
23
researchers conducted the study for academic purposes and prepared for the
potential risks.
Trustworthiness of the Research
Credibility. The study consisted of six researchers and used a variety of
sources of reliable facts and information. The researchers use an anchored
theory such as Jean Piaget’s Constructivism Learning Theory and three
supporting theories such as Jean Piaget’s Cognitive Learning Theory, Albert
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory and David Kolb’s Experiential Learning
Theory. The researchers used the primary data source as respondents’
responses. Along with the generated data, their adviser, statistician, and
research instructor kept an eye on the data to ensure the findings were
consistent. Therefore, the credibility of the study is certain.
Transferability. The researchers described the context of their research
thoroughly. They provided evidence that the findings were relevant and
applicable to other situations, settings, populations, and even times. They also
use up-to-date studies, theories, articles, journals, and books to support their
claim.
Reliability. Respondents were selected through random sampling to give
an equal chance to every student from the fourth year to be part of the study.
24
Before being distributed to the respondents, the survey questionnaire was
tested and analyzed by the group’s statistician to guarantee its reliability.
Confirmability. The researchers meticulously reviewed and re-evaluated
the acquired data and diagnosed and interpreted it with the help of their
research adviser. The analyzed results and findings were based only on the
responses. Therefore, the findings are accurate with no possibility of
researcher bias.
25
DEFINITION OF TERMS
This document introduces specialized terms to evade uncertainty before
unfolding a more precise depiction. Hence, the researchers defined the
following:
Lesson Plan. The term refers to the instructor’s road map of what the
students need to learn and how it will be taught effectively during class.
Online Modality. The term refers to the use of the internet as a delivery
modality to offer thoughtfully designed, quality, student-focused learning
experiences built on proven best practices that create effective interactions
between learners, peers, instructors, and content.
Respondents’ Profile. The term refers to the participants’ background
in the study, such as their name (optional), age, gender, types of lesson plans
already made, and the amount of time spent working on the lesson plan.
Teaching Methods. The term comprises the principles and styles used
by teachers to enable student learning.
Teaching Strategies. The term is also known as instructional strategies,
which teachers use to deliver course material that keeps students engaged and
practicing a variety of skill sets.
Proposed Webinar Workshop. The term webinar workshop is a form
of academic instruction conducted in small groups over the internet, wherein
26
the participants are allowed to practice their skills.
27
CHAPTER 2
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter consists of the analysis, presentation, and interpretation of
the results of this study. Data analysis and interpretation have two parts. The
profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, types of lesson plans
already made, and amount of time spent working on the lesson was based on
the result of the first part. And the second part is divided into two sub-parts,
with the results based on preferred online teaching methods and strategies in
an online modality.
For more detailed information, the following table reveals the analysis
and interpretation of the profile of the respondents and the preferred teaching
methods and strategies in an online modality based on the given survey
questionnaire made by the researchers. The data collected were analyzed
using statistical tools, namely, simple percentage, weighted mean, and chisquare test of independence, defined in the previous chapter.
This study looks at the profiles of respondents in the fourth year of
BEEd at the University of Cebu-Banilad, the type of lesson plans they prepare,
and the amount of time they spend doing so. Respondents were exposed to
different lesson plans, allowing them to assess which ones were most useful
in the classroom. See Table 1 to explore more the types of lesson plans they
already made and the time spent developing them.
28
Table 1
Profile of the Respondents
(n = 40)
Indicators
Frequency
(f)
Percentage
(%)
29-30 years old
27-28 years old
25-26 years old
23-24 years old
21-22 years old
1
0
1
8
30
2.5
0
2.5
20
75
Male
Female
Types of Lesson Plan
Detailed Lesson Plan
Semi-Detailed Lesson Plan
5E’s model
Amount of Time Spent on Lesson
Plan
Over 2 hours
2 hours
1 hour
Less than 1 hour
2
38
5
95
20
16
4
50
40
10
21
12
4
3
52.5
30
10
7.5
Age
Gender
Table 1 shows that most students who responded to the survey for
preferred teaching methods and strategies in an online modality were between
21-22 years old, with a total percentage of 75%, while 2.5%, the lowest were
aged 25-26 and 29-30. Moreover, most respondents were 38 females, with
95%, and two male respondents, with only 5%.
The profile of the respondents also shows the types of lesson plans
already made. It revealed that 20 respondents have already developed a
detailed lesson plan with a percentage of 50%, followed by 16 respondents
who have developed a semi-detailed lesson plan with 40%, and the remaining
four have created a 5E model with 10%. It was supported by Richards and
29
Bohlke (2011), saying that planning a lesson before teaching is necessary to
stay on their feet and teach more effectively because it allows students to learn
adequately in classroom instruction, so they acquire specific classroom
teaching skills.
Moreover, the profile of the respondents also shows the amount of time
they spent making lesson plans. It revealed that 21 respondents spent over 2
hours making the lesson plan, with 52.5%. Meanwhile, only 3 out of 40
respondents spent less than an hour developing a lesson plan, the lowest
percentage of 7.5%. Wang et al. (1997) agreed with this result, saying that the
more time spent on instruction, the better the student’s achievements.
It shows the preferences of the respondents for teaching methods. The
respondents always praised their students’ works or activities to motivate
them. Based on the data gathered, respondents know what teaching method to
use and listen to their students’ concerns and opinions (see Table 2.1 below).
Often, sociocultural learning techniques focus only on student interaction,
although the instructor plays a crucial role in cultivating students in long-term
mental science (Scott, 1998).
30
Table 2.1
Preferred Teaching Methods in an Online Modality
(n = 40)
Indicators
1. I use a lecture-based teaching style such as
PowerPoint presentations or slideshows in
conveying information.
2. I use open-ended questions that are connected
to the learning outcomes of the students.
3. I use direct instruction when teaching.
4. I let my students relate to our topic by using
real situations or real-life experiences for a better
understanding of the lesson.
5. I give activities to encourage my students to
work independently.
6. I let my students work in groups.
7. I let my students reflect on what we discussed
and did after each session.
8. I use appropriate learning materials to reach
my students’ learning needs.
9. I listened to what my students have to say.
10. I praise my students’ works/activities to make
them feel proud.
Factor Mean
Legend: 3.26 - 4.00 Always;
2.51 - 3.25 Oftentimes;
Weighted Mean
3.65
Interpretation
Always
3.58
Always
3.50
3.62
Always
Always
3.70
Always
3.48
3.75
Always
Always
3.76
Always
3.80
3.81
Always
Always
3.67
1.76 - 2.50 Sometimes;
Always
1.00 - 1.75 Never
Table 2.1 shows the respondents’ preferred teaching methods in an
online modality. As presented in the table above, the overall mean is 3.67,
which means they always use these teaching methods.
The results revealed that respondents always praised their students’
work/activity to make them feel proud, with the majority having a weighted
mean of 3.81. With a 3.80 weighted mean, they constantly listen to what their
pupils have to say. Then, with a weighted mean of 3.76, they always use
appropriate learning materials to match the learning needs of the students and
always let them reflect on what was discussed and developed after each
session, with a weighted mean of 3.75. Also, they always provide activities to
31
encourage their students to work independently, with a total mean weight of
3.70, followed by a 3.65 weighted mean, always using a lecture-based
teaching style such as a PowerPoint presentation or slideshow to convey
information. With a weighted mean of 3.62, they always allow their students
to relate to the material using real-life circumstances or experiences.
Meanwhile, continuously using open-ended questions connected to their
learning outcomes, always using direct instruction when teaching, and always
allowing them to work in groups obtained a weighted mean of 3.58, 3.50, and
3.48.
Because the primary task of instructors is to help students immerse
themselves in learning activities that will lead to the desired learning
outcomes (Shuell, 1986), the learning styles of these students are formed by
their previous experiences (Anicas, 2015). And because students have
different learning styles, online educators must design activities that include
multiple learning styles and teaching models must also adapt to the new
learning environment.
The questionnaire encouraged the respondents to select one of the
various techniques, ranging from Never to Always. For example, one
respondent answered “Always” in letting the students share their ideas with
the class to help them develop self-confidence, communication, and critical
32
thinking skills. Additionally, the statistics presented are descriptive to show
how respondents interpret their preferred teaching methods and strategies (see
Table 2.2). The results revealed they always employ these when giving the
lesson, ensuring that their students’ learning is their top priority.
Table 2.2
Preferred Teaching Strategies in an Online Modality
(n = 40)
Indicators
1. I use visual and practical learning experiences
such as photos, audio, or videos to help my
students understand the lesson more.
2. I use discussion forums to encourage my
students in participating during our asynchronous
sessions, and use web-conferencing such as
Zoom and, or Google meet for our live
discussion.
3. I place lecture notes with links or resources for
my students to review.
4. I let my students share their ideas in the class
to help them develop their self-confidence, their
communication skills and critical thinking skills.
5. I encourage my students to ask questions and
improve their problem-solving skills to gain
deeper understanding of academic concepts.
6. I allocate tasks based on my student’s abilities
and learning needs.
7. I give rewards to my students the time they
participate in my class.
8. I let my students learn from themselves in our
asynchronous sessions.
9. I let my students do the task/activity and guide
them.
10. I let my students recreate a situation relating
to real-world problems.
11. I let my students prepare for the class by
telling them to study in advance.
Factor Mean
Legend: 3.26 - 4.00 Always;
2.51 - 3.25 Oftentimes;
Weighted Mean
Interpretation
3.80
Always
3.53
Always
3.43
Always
3.83
Always
3.82
Always
3.68
Always
3.72
Always
3.68
Always
3.75
Always
3.67
Always
3.71
Always
3.69
1.76 - 2.50 Sometimes;
Always
1.00 - 1.75 Never
Table 2.2 shows that the three with the highest weighted mean of the
respondents’ preferred teaching strategies by constantly allowing their
33
students to share their ideas in class to help them build their self-confidence,
skills in communication, and critical thinking, with a weighted mean of 3.83.
With a 3.82 weighted mean, they always encourage their pupils to ask
questions and enhance their problem-solving skills to increase their
understanding of academic concepts. And they always use visual and practical
experiences to learn, such as photos, audio, or videos, to help them understand
the lesson further, with 3.80. Meanwhile, the lowest weighted mean was as
follows: always letting their students recreate a situation related to real-world
problems, with a 3.67 weighted mean, always using a discussion forum to
encourage them to participate in asynchronous sessions, and always using
web-conferencing such as Zoom and Google meet for live discussion, with a
3.53 weighted mean, and posting lecture notes with links or resources to be
reviewed by students, with a lowest weighted mean of 3.43.
Anicas (2015) revealed that the results showed a homogeneous type of
students despite the differences in the institutes to which they belong. Since
the students’ learning is the most important thing here, teachers should use an
egalitarian teaching style with chances for debate and self-direction in
activities that can boost their self-confidence and self-esteem (Schuitema,
2008). Thus, the results obtained an overall mean of 3.69, which means the
respondents always use these teaching strategies in online modalities.
34
The survey was collected using a questionnaire for students in the
fourth year of BEEd at the University of Cebu-Banilad Campus. Further, the
findings in Table 3.1 show a strong significant relationship between the
profile of the respondents and their preferred teaching strategies in an online
modality, with an average factor of 15.520 in 5%. Studies have documented
that younger students prefer interactive learning, such as; live chats and group
projects (Simonds & Brock, 2014; Koh & Lim, 2012).
Table 3.1
Results of the Test of Hypothesis on the Significant Relationship Between the Profile
of the Respondents and the Preferred Teaching Strategies in an Online Modality
Variables
Age
Gender
Types of
Lesson Plan
Amount of
Time Spent
on Lesson
Plan
Factor
Average
Computed
Value of X²
PValue
Decision
Interpretation
df
22.514
9.001
13.115
Critical
Value of
X²
21.026
7.815
12.592
12
3
6
0.0321
0.0293
0.0412
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Significant
Significant
Significant
17.451
16.919
9
0.0421
Reject Ho
Significant
15.520
14.588
8
0.0362
Reject Ho
Significant
Statistically Significant at 0.05 levels
The results show a substantial correlation between the profile of the
respondents and their preferred teaching strategies in an online modality. As
estimated, Chi-square values are better than critical values, and P-values are
less than the significance level of 0.05. The factor average also showed that
the computed Chi-square value of 15.520 was more outstanding than the
critical value of 14.588. Thus, it rejected the null hypothesis. It means that
35
there is a strong correlation between the profile of the respondents and the
preferred teaching strategies in an online modality at 5%.
Lastly, using Chi-square values, Table 3.2 shows a significant
correlation between respondents’ profile and their preferred teaching methods
in an online modality, with a total calculation of 16.145 and 5%. Closed
educational institutions during the lockdown period forced policymakers to
adopt an alternative education system. Scholars referred to it as an online
Emergency Remote Education [ERE] System adopted by most educational
institutions worldwide during the COVID-19 crisis. They differentiate
between ERE and distance education (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a; and Bozkurt
& Sharma., 2020b).
Table 3.2
Results of the Test of Hypothesis on the Significant Relationship Between the Profile
of the Respondents and the Preferred Teaching Methods in an Online Modality
Variables
Age
Gender
Types of
Lesson Plan
Amount of
Time Spent
on Lesson
Plan
Factor
Average
Computed
Value of X²
PValue
Decision
Interpretation
df
24.112
10.345
13.119
Critical
Value of
X²
21.026
7.815
12.592
12
3
6
0.0196
0.0158
0.0412
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Significant
Significant
Significant
17.004
16.919
9
0.0486
Reject Ho
Significant
16.145
14.588
8
0.0313
Reject Ho
Significant
Statistically Significant at 0.05 levels
As shown in Table 3.2, there was a significant association between the
respondents’ profiles and preferred teaching methods in an online modality.
36
As estimated, calculated Chi-square values are more remarkable than the
critical value, and P-values are more significant than the 0.05 level. The factor
average also revealed that the totaled Chi-square value of 16.145 is greater
than the critical value of 14.588, which leads to the rejection of the null
hypothesis. It means that the profile of the respondents has a significant
relationship to the preferred teaching methods in an online modality at 5%.
37
CHAPTER 3
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The central objective of this study was to determine which teaching
methods and strategies students in the fourth year of Bachelor of Elementary
Education in an online modality preferred. It explores the demographic profile
of the respondents, including their age, gender, types of lesson plans
developed, and the time spent working on the lesson plan. Moreover, the
researchers performed this study to determine the significant relationship
between the profile of the respondents and their preferred teaching methods
and strategies in the online modality. They used these findings in proposing a
webinar workshop for the said year level.
This study utilized a descriptive-correlational design to determine the
preferred teaching methods and strategies used by fourth-year Bachelor of
Elementary Education students in an online modality in lesson planning
conducted at the University of Cebu-Banilad. Forty (40) fourth-year BEEd
students were selected using random sampling. The researchers used a survey
questionnaire created by them to gather data.
38
Findings
The following were the findings of this study.
1. Most respondents were under 21-22 years old, female, and spent
more than 2 hours preparing the lesson plan. Twenty respondents developed
detailed lesson plans, with a majority of 50%.
2. Respondents always use different teaching methods and strategies.
3. There was a 5% level of significant correlation between the profile
of the respondents and the preferred teaching methods and strategies in an
online modality. Thus, it rejected the null hypothesis.
4. The researchers proposed a webinar workshop for constructing a
lesson plan using the appropriate teaching methods and strategies.
Conclusions
The findings showed that respondents constantly prefer different
teaching methods and techniques in their online teaching methods. It also
revealed that their profile and preferred teaching methods and strategies in an
online modality are significantly correlated.
As a result, the findings are consistent with Constructivism Learning
Theory, which suggests that educators should focus on students’ learning
using various methods and strategies (Hein, 1991). And that constructivist
teaching will guide their learning, assessing it as a way to identify future
39
teaching points while encouraging the students to think, explain, and
investigate (Arends, 2014).
Recommendations
The following are the researchers’ recommendations based on the
findings.
1. Teachers should consider the ages of their students in making lesson
plans and identify the factors that affect the making of lesson plans. They
should allow their students to explore different lesson plans that include
multiple learning styles. Also, they should spend more time creating a lesson
plan to ensure the students’ learning.
2. Teachers should use a mixture of teaching methods and strategies
that give opportunities for their students to learn well and immerse themselves
in the activities provided.
3. The researchers recommended a webinar workshop entitled
“Writing an Effective Lesson Plan Using Appropriate Teaching Methods
and Strategies” to help develop a better instructional plan.
40
PROPOSED OUTPUT
Title of Webinar: Writing an Effective Lesson Plan Using Appropriate
Teaching Methods and Strategies
Introduction
The third-year BEEd student researchers proposed this Online Webinar
for the fourth-year BEEd students from the University of Cebu-Banilad. The
content of this webinar will discuss how to write a lesson plan effectively
using appropriate teaching methods and strategies.
Given the current situation, researchers will implement this webinar via
Google Meet or Zoom.
The said webinar will only run for half a day, which will take place in
the morning. Researchers will invite students from the fourth year of BEEd,
although this is only voluntary.
Objectives:

The workshop aims to assist attendees in writing practical lessons
using appropriate teaching methods and strategies. It is to help
those who have difficulty creating more effective lessons to deliver
for their class.

They will also develop a better instructional plan to produce better.
Below is the flow of the webinar.
41
Topic: Writing an Effective Lesson Plan Using Appropriate Teaching
Methods and Strategies
Desired Learning Outcomes:

Participants will learn the different aspects of developing a
lesson plan and how to overcome it.

Participants will understand the importance of lesson plans for
the student’s learning.

Participants will learn the importance of using appropriate
methods and strategies in their teaching.

Participants will practice their skills in developing a lesson plan
by applying the proper procedures and techniques .
Time
Activity
Description
7:00 - 7:30 AM
Prayer,
Opening The webinar will begin
Remarks
and with a prayer, followed
Introduction to the by
the
Philippine
Speaker
National Anthem, then
UC Hymn. Then, the
host will introduce the
speaker.
7:30 - 8:40 AM
Short Introduction for The speaker will give a
the Main Event
brief introduction about
the purpose of the
webinar and will ask
about the attendees’
own opinions about the
main event.
8:40 - 9:40 AM
Introduction to Lesson The speaker will begin
Planning
the event by describing a
lesson plan and its
importance to students’
learning. They will
provide various aspects
of developing a lesson
plan, such as the
difficulties they are
experiencing or have
experienced, how they
have
applied
and
achieved the learning
42
9:40 - 10:00 AM
10:00 - 10:40 AM
10:40 - 12:00 NN
objectives and using
appropriate
methods
and
strategies
in
teaching. Participants
can also ask questions or
address their issues or
concerns by making
lesson plans with the
speaker.
Break time/Recess
The speaker or hosts
will give the participants
the time to go to the
bathrooms or eat their
snacks.
Writing an Effective The
speaker
will
Lesson Plan Using continue the discussion
Appropriate Teaching by giving reasons you
Methods and Strategies should use appropriate
methods and strategies
in your teaching. Also,
the speaker will talk
about the ways to
effectively write lesson
plans with explanations
of why you should do it
that way.
Lesson Plan Making
The
speaker
will
provide the final activity
for
the
webinar
participants
by
developing a simple
detailed lesson plan of
their chosen topic or
subject, applying what
they have learned from
the discussion. The
participants may submit
their outputs through the
speaker’s or the host’s
email.
43
REFERENCES
Books
Arends, R. (2014). Learning to teach (10th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Boethel, M., & Dimock, K. (1999). Constructing knowledge with technology.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, Texas, 1-58.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement
in the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Boreham, N. C. (1987). Learning from experience in diagnostic problem
solving. In J. T. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck, & D. W. Piper (Eds.),
Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology.
J.T.E.
Borich, G. D. (2017). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice
(9th ed., pp. 1-458). Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Elliott, S. N. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective
learning (3rd ed., p. 256). Mcgraw-Hill, Boston.
Freiberg, H. J., & Driscoll, A. (2000). Universal Teaching Strategies. Allyn
& Bacon.
Jacobs, C. L., Martin, S. N., & Otieno, T. C. (2008). A science lesson plan
analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation
of a teacher education program. Science Education, 92(6), 1096-1126.
Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs
in science learning. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 1,
85-94.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
44
Kucukahmet, L. (2017). Teaching principles and methods. Nobel Academic
Publishing.
Lenman, J., & Yonatan S. (2012). Constructivism in practical philosophy.
Oxford University Press.
Maher, C. A. (2008). Video recordings as pedagogical tools in mathematics
teacher education. International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 2, 65-83.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into
action. Association For Supervision And Curriculum Development.
Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An
introduction. Routledge.
Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging
instruction to learning. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4, 10311065.
Paparozzi, C. (1998). Implementing constructivism in the middle school
classroom. West Virginia University.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings.
Handbook of Self-determination Research, 2, 183-204.
Richards, J. C., & Bohlke, D. (2011). Creating effective language lessons.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 35.
Schuitema, J. A (2008). Talking about values: A dialogic approach to
citizenship education as an integral part of history classes. Universeit
Van Amsterdam.
Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure mattes: Twenty-one teaching strategies to
promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE Life
Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331.
Journals/Manuals/Periodicals
Anicas, R. P. (2015). Learning styles and learning strategies of geology
technology and exploration information technology students in
45
petroleum and natural gas higher institute of technology and training in
Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum
Exhibition
and
Conference.
OnePetro.
https://doi.org/10.2118/177896-MS.
Baker, R. M., & Dwyer, F. (2005). Effect of instructional strategies and
individual differences: A meta-analytic assessment. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 69-84. Retrieved from
https://eric.gov.org?id=EJ698803.
Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2011). Learning to critique and adapt science
curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice
elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science
Education, 96(1), 130-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20466.
Bin-Hady, W. R. A., & Abdulsafi, A. S. T. (2019). How can I prepare an ideal
lesson
plan? SSRN
Electronic
Journal, 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3434031.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020a). Education in normal, new normal, and
next normal: Observations from the past, insights from the present and
projections for the future. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2),
i-x. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4362664.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020b). Emergency remote teaching in a time
of global crisis due to Corona Virus pandemic. Asian Journal of
Distance
Education, 15(1),
i-vi.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083.
Chizhik, E. W., & Chizhik, A. W. (2018). Using activity theory to examine
how teachers’ lesson plans meet students’ learning needs. The Teacher
Educator, 53(1),
67-85.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1296913.
Creer, R. M. P., Pacheca, M., Galleza, L. G. R., Tayco, G. J. N., Tomelden,
K. V., & Cabiao, A. C. (2008). Teaching methods preferred by the
college of education tertiary faculty at USM, Kabacan, Cotabato, SY
2007-08. University of Southern Mindanao, 16(2), 165-172. Retrieved
from https://tinyurl.com/2hv98b93.
46
Demirkan, O., & Saracoglu, G. (2016). Views of Anatolian high school
teachers about teaching methods and techniques they use in class. The
Journal of International Lingual, Social and Educational Sciences, 2(1),
1-11.
Accessed
on
January
3,
2023,
from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/217954.
Dunn, R., Craig, M., Favre, L., Markus, D., Pedota, P., Sookdeo, G., & Terry,
B. (2010). No light at the end of tunnel vision: Steps for improving
lesson plans. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues
and
Ideas, 83(5),
194-206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903507460.
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different
folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational
factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.597.
Emerson, T., & Taylor A. (2007). Interactions between personality type and
the experimental methods. The Journal of Economic Education, 38(1),
18-35. https://doi.org/10.3200/jece.38.1.18-35.
Faust, J., & Paulson, D. R. (1998). Active learning in the college classroom.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 9(2), 3-24. Retrieved from
https://www.studocu.com/es/n/17907151?sid=01672749732.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in
engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Retrieved on January 2002, from https://tinyurl.com/2jbhbhss.
Grasha, A. F. (2002). The dynamics of one-on-one teaching. College
Teaching, 50(4),
139-146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595895.
Hein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. International Committee
of
Museum
Educators.
Retrieved
from
https://www.exploratorium.edu/education/ifi/constructivist-learning.
Ishiyama, J. T., McClure, M., Hart, H., & Amico, J. (1999). Critical thinking
disposition and locus of control as predictors of evaluations of teaching
47
strategies. College Student Journal, 33(2), 269-274. Accessed on
January 3, 2023, from https://tinyurl.com/yekw4yur.
John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re‐thinking the
dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500363620.
Kagan, D. M., & Tippins, D. J. (1992). The evolution of functional lesson
plans among twelve elementary and secondary student teachers. The
Elementary
School
Journal, 92(4),
477-489.
https://doi.org/10.1086/461703.
Karamustafaoglu, S., & Kandaz, U. (2006). Teaching methods used in science
activities in preschool education and difficulties encountered. Journal
of Gazi, University Gazi Education, 26(1), 65-81. Retrieved from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/77213.
Kassaian, Z., & Ayatollahi, M. A. (2010). Teaching styles and optimal
guidance in English language major. Quarterly Journal of Research
and Planning in Higher Education, 55, 131-152. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/ynbenatu.
Kayabasi, Y. (2012). The teaching methods and techniques used by teachers
in teaching process and the reason why teachers prefer them. Balikesir
University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 15(27), 45-65.
Retrieved
from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/baunsobed/issue/50194/646294.
Koh, E., & Lim, J. (2012). Using online collaboration applications for group
assignments: The interplay between design and human
characteristics. Computers
&
Education, 59(2),
481-496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.002.
Kurt, S. (2020). Jean Piaget and his theory & stages of cognitive development.
Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/j52knj2d.
Li, Y., Chen, X., & Kulm, G. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ practices and
thinking in lesson plan development: A case of teaching fraction
division. ZDM, 41(6), 717-731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-0090174-8.
48
Mahasneh, O. M. K. (2020). The effect of teaching by (mobile learning) in
university students’ achievement. In Proceedings of the 16th
International
Conference
Mobile
Learning.
https://doi.org/10.33965/ml2020_202004c017.
Marbach-Ad, G., Seal, O., & Sokolove, P. (2001). Student attitudes and
recommendations on active learning. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 30(7), 434-438. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/3wtracez.
Menaker, E., Coleman, S., Collins, J., & Murawski, M. (2006). Harnessing
experiential learning theory to achieve warfighting excellence. In
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference
(I/ITSEC). Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yvtbseat.
Miettinen, R. (2010). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s
theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of
Lifelong
Education,
19(1),
54-72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026013700293458.
Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application
of social learning in participatory natural resource management
processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3),
325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560801977190.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of
constructivism. Educational
Researcher,
24(7),
5-12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x024007005.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of
pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and
Teacher
Education, 23(5),
557-571.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013.
Rizardo, J., & Vyhmeister, S. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of preferred
teaching strategies in a faith-based college. International Forum
Journal,
13(2),
31-46.
Retrieved
from
https://journals.aiias.edu/info/article/view/173.
49
Rosario, K. J. (2004). Quick identification of social style, aptitudes, and
motivation. American Journal of Professional Graphologists, 1-20.
Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/5a8thzyj.
Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A
Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1),
45-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127.
Sendurur, E. (2018). The pedagogical beliefs and instructional design
practices: Pre-service IT teachers’ case. Eurasian Journal of
Educational
Research, 18(75),
59-80.
Retrieved
from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ejer/issue/42536/512532.
Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational
Research, 56(4), 411-436. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170340.
Simonds, T. A., & Brock, B. L. (2014). Relationship between age, experience,
and student preference for types of learning activities in online
courses. The
Journal
of
Educators
Online, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2014.1.3.
Singh, V. (2017). Exploring the relationship between cognitive style and
learning style with academic achievement of elementary school
learners. Educational Quest-An International Journal of Education and
Applied Social Sciences, 8, 413-419. https://doi.org/10.5958/22307311.2017.00084.8.
Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching:
Theoretical
underpinnings,
basic
principles,
and
core
methods. Educational
Psychology
Review, 24(4),
569-608.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology:
Implications for transforming distance learning. Journal of Educational
Technology
&
Society,
3(2),
50-60.
Retrieved
from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.3.2.50.
Tashevska, S. (2008). Some lesson planning problems for new English
language teachers. The Language-A Phenomenon Without Frontiers,
50
424-429.
Retrieved
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12037657.pdf.
from
Taylan, R. D. (2016). The relationship between pre-service mathematics
teachers’ focus on student thinking in lesson analysis and lesson
planning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 16(2), 337-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9778y.
Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy [TEAL] Center. (2010). TEAL center
fact sheet no. 8: Effective lesson planning. Lincs Community, Courses,
and
Resources
for
Adult
Education.
Retrieved
from
https://tinyurl.com/53mj4nry.
Tebabal, A., & Kahssay, G. (2011). The effects of student-centered approach
in improving students’ graphical interpretation skills and conceptual
understanding of kinematical motion. Latin-American Journal of
Physics
Education, 5(2),
374-381.
Retrieved
from
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3696010.
Rodriguez, K. F. R., & Abocejo, F. T. (2018). Competence vis-à-vis
performance of special education pre-service teachers. European
Academic
Research,
6(7),
3474-3498.
Retrieved
from
https://tinyurl.com/yzhtkf6a.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1997). What helps students
learn? Spotlight on student success. Educational Leadership, 51(4), 7479. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED461694.
Western Governors University. (2020). How social learning theory works in
education.
Teaching
&
Education.
Available
on
https://tinyurl.com/ywh2aux8.
Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Teachers’ aim in using teaching methods and problems
they encounter. Journal of Ataturk University Institute of Social
Sciences,
17(1),
163-188.
Retrieved
from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/32372.
51
Appendix A
Transmittal Letter
February 15, 2022
DEAN OFELIA G. MAÑA
Campus Director
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus
Banilad, Cebu City
Dear Dean Maña,
Greetings!
In partial fulfillment of the requirements in Research II, we, the third year BEEd students
at University of Cebu-Banilad Campus, would humbly ask for your approval to allow us
to conduct our research entitled “Lesson Plan Making: Preferred Teaching Methods
and Strategies in an Online Modality” to forty (40) Bachelor of Elementary Education
fourth year students. The purpose of this study is to determine the preferred teaching
methods and strategies used by the said participants. The survey questionnaire is online
form which will be disseminated through a link. The result of this study will be used as the
basis for proposing a webinar workshop in constructing a lesson plan.
In the event that you grant our request, we will submit ourselves to any terms and
conditions that you shall impose, and we will comply with whatever it may be.
We are hoping for your approval regarding this matter.
Thank you!
Noted by:
DEMMEMOR CRISTY T. BONTILAO
Research Team Leader
Noted by:
MS. MARITESS T. KHO, MAT-Eng
Research Instructor
Approved by:
DEAN OFELIA G. MAÑA
Campus Director
MS. JOSEPHINE PAGUNSAN, MAED-Filipino
Research Adviser
Endorsed by:
DR. DEBRA LLAGAS, EdD
Dean, College of Teacher Education
52
Transmittal Letter
February 15, 2022
DR. DEBRA LLAGAS, EdD
Dean, College of Teacher Education
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus
Banilad, Cebu City
Dear Dr. Llagas,
Greetings!
In partial fulfillment of the requirements in Research II, we, the third year BEEd students
at University of Cebu-Banilad Campus, would humbly ask for your approval to allow us
to conduct our research entitled “Lesson Plan Making: Preferred Teaching Methods
and Strategies in an Online Modality” to forty (40) Bachelor of Elementary Education
fourth year students. The purpose of this study is to determine the preferred teaching
methods and strategies used by the said participants. The survey questionnaire is online
form which will be disseminated through a link. The result of this study will be used as the
basis for proposing a webinar workshop in constructing a lesson plan.
In the event that you grant our request, we will submit ourselves to any terms and
conditions that you shall impose, and we will comply with whatever it may be.
We are hoping for your approval regarding this matter.
Thank you!
Noted by:
DEMMEMOR CRISTY T. BONTILAO
Research Team Leader
Noted by:
MS. MARITESS T. KHO, MAT-Eng
Research Instructor
Approved by:
DR. DEBRA LLAGAS, EdD
Dean, College of Teacher Education
MS. JOSEPHINE PAGUNSAN, MAED-Filipino
Research Adviser
53
Appendix B
Informed Consent Form
A Survey Consent Form
Informed consent form for the fourth year Bachelor of Elementary Education students from
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus.
(Kasayurang Pag-uyon para sa ika-upat nga tuig nga mga estudyante sa Bachelor of
Elementary Education gikan sa University of Cebu-Banilad Campus.)
Name of Principal Investigator: Demmemor Cristy T. Bontilao
Name of Organization: University of Cebu-Banilad
Name of Proposal: Lesson Plan Making: Preferred Teaching Methods and Strategies in
an Online Modality
This Informed Consent has two parts:

Information Sheet (to share information about the research with you)

Certificate of Consent (for signatures if you agree to take part)
(Kini nga Kasayurang Pag-uyon kay adunay duha ka bahin:

Impormasyon Papel (aron ipaambit kanimo ang kasayuran bahin sa
panukiduki)

Sertipiko sa Pag-uyon (alang sa mga pirma kung mouyon ka nga moapil))
You will be given a copy of the full Informed Consent Form
(Hatagan ka ug kopya sa kompleto nga porma sa Kasayurang Pag-uyon)
PART I: Information Sheet
Introduction
We, the third year BEEd students from University of Cebu-Banilad Campus are
currently conducting a research entitled “Lesson Plan Making: Preferred Teaching
Methods and Strategies in an Online Modality”. In line with this, we are inviting you to be
54
a respondent of this study and request you to spare a few minutes of your time to answer
the questionnaire presented by the researchers.
However, you do not have to decide today whether or not you will participate in
this analysis. Before you decide, you can talk to anyone you feel comfortable with about
the research. If there are contents in the questionnaire that you do not understand and find
ambiguous please feel free to contact the researchers. Rest assured that all the answers will
be treated with utmost confidentiality.
(Bahin I: Impormasyong Papel
Pasiuna
Kami nga mga estudyante sa ikatulong tuig nga BEEd sa University of CebuBanilad Campus nagpahigayon karon og panukiduki nga nag-ulohan og “Lesson Plan
Making: Difficulties Experienced by Fourth Year BEEd Students from University of CebuBanilad”. Subay niini, kami nag-imbitar kanimo nga mahimong respondent niini nga
imbestigasyon ug mohangyo kanimo sa paggahin ug pipila ka minuto sa imong oras sa
pagtubag sa mga pangutana nga gipresentar sa mga tigdukiduki.
Bisan pa, dili nimo kinahanglan nga magdesisyon karon kung moapil ka ba o dili
sa kini nga pagtuki. Sa dili ka pa modesisyon, mahimo kang makigsulti sa bisan kinsa nga
imong gibati nga komportable bahin sa panukiduki. Kung adunay mga sulod sa pangutana
nga wala nimo masabti ug nakit-an nga dili klaro unya ayaw pagduhaduha sa pagkontak
sa mga tigdukiduki. Makasalig ka nga ang tanan nga mga tubag pagatagdon uban ang
labing kaayo nga kompidensyal.)
Purpose of the Research
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the preferred teaching methods
and strategies used by the fourth year BEEd students in making their lesson plans.
(Katuyoan sa Panukiduki
Ang nag-unang tumong niini nga pagtuon mao ang pag-ila sa gusto nga mga
pamaagi sa pagtudlo ug mga estratehiya nga gigamit sa mga estudyante sa ikaupat nga
tuig sa BEEd sa paghimo sa ilang mga plano sa leksyon.)
Type of Research Intervention
55
This study will involve a survey questionnaire.
(Matang sa Interbensyon sa Panukiduki
Kini nga pagtuon maglakip sa usa ka survey questionnaire.)
Participant Selection
We are inviting the fourth year BEEd students from the University of Cebu-Banilad
Campus as they are the target participants and the beneficiaries of the program that we plan
to design after this study.
(Pagpili sa Partisipante
Among giimbitar ang fourth year BEEd students gikan sa University of CebuBanilad Campus kay sila ang target nga partisipante ug benepisyaryo sa programa nga
among planong i-desinyo human ning maong pagtuon.)
Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. It is your choice whether
to participate or not. Should you choose not to continue in the survey, your refusal will not
be taken against your person.
(Boluntaryong Pag-apil
Ang imong pag-apil niini nga panukiduki kay boluntaryo. Anaa kanimo ang pagpili
kung moapil ba o dili. Kung gusto nimo nga dili magpadayon sa survey, ang imong
pagdumili dili makaapekto sa imong pagkatawong- dungog.)
Procedures and Protocol
In this investigation, you will be asked to answer a survey questionnaire through an
online google form link distributed by the researchers themselves and field investigators
during your free and convenient time. It will be collected outright or after seven days. The
information recorded is confidential, and no one else except the researchers, content expert,
and the adviser, will have access to the accomplished copies of the questionnaire. The said
copies of the questionnaire will be destroyed after six months.
56
To ensure that you will have a complete understanding of the purpose of the study,
the proponent will first explain the study’s objectives and the intended benefits of the
participants themselves.
(Mga Pamaagi ug Protokol
Sa kini nga imbestigasyon, hangyoon ka sa pagtubag sa usa ka survey
questionnaire pinaagi sa usa ka online google form link nga gipang-apod-apod sa mga
tigdukiduki mismo ug mga field investigator sa panahon sa imong libre ug sayon nga
panahon. Kini kolektahon dayon o pagkahuman sa pito ka adlaw. Ang impormasyon nga
narekord kay kompidensyal, ug walay lain gawas sa mga tigdukiduki, eksperto sa sulod,
ug magtatambag, ang adunay access sa nahuman nga mga kopya sa pangutana. Ang
maong mga kopya sa questionnaire mawagtang human sa unom ka bulan.
Aron masiguro nga makabaton ka ug kompleto nga pagsabot sa katuyoan sa
pagtuon, ang tigpasiugda mopatin-aw una sa mga tumong sa pagtuon ug ang gituyo nga
mga benepisyo sa mga partisipante mismo.)
Duration
The research will take place in six months. During that time, you will be asked by
the researchers to answer the survey questionnaire during your vacant time or any of your
convenient time and may submit it within seven (7) days. If you were intended to answer
the questionnaire immediately, then it will take 15-20 minutes. Your engagement as a
respondent will only take once.
(Gidugayon
Ang panukiduki mahitabo sa unom ka bulan. Nianang panahona, hangyoon ka sa
mga tigdukiduki nga tubagon ang survey questionnaire sa imong bakante nga oras o bisan
unsa sa imong kombenyente nga oras ug mahimong isumite kini sulod sa pito (7) ka adlaw.
Kung gituyo nimo nga tubagon dayon ang pangutana, molungtad kini og 15-20 minuto.
Ang imong pakigduyog isip usa ka respondent usa ra ka higayon.)
Risks
We are asking you to share some personal details about yourself. You should know
that you do not have to provide answers to all the questions presented if you are not
57
comfortable answering some of the questions. You do not have to give reasons for not
responding to any questions, or for refusing to take part in the said survey. We will not be
sharing with you either the responses given by you.
(Mga Risgo
Gihangyo ka namon nga ipaambit ang pipila ka mga personal nga detalye bahin
sa imong kaugalingon. Kinahanglan nimong masayran nga dili nimo kinahanglan nga
maghatag ug mga tubag sa tanan nga mga pangutana nga gipresentar kung dili ka
komportable sa pagtubag sa pipila nga mga pangutana. Dili kinahanglan nga mohatag ka
ug rason sa dili pagtubag sa bisan unsang pangutana, o sa pagdumili sa pag-apil sa maong
survey. Dili namo ipaambit kanimo ang mga tubag nga imong gihatag.)
Benefits
This research can be beneficial to the respondents considering that they are the
subject and the center in establishing a proposed webinar workshop that will help them
deal with the demands of making lesson plans in terms of the teaching methods and
strategies used.
(Mga Kaayohan
Kini nga panukiduki mahimong mapuslanon sa mga respondents tungod kay sila
ang hilisgutan ug sentro sa pag-establisar sa usa ka gisugyot nga webinar workshop nga
makatabang kanila sa pagsagubang ug pag-atubang sa mga gipangayo sa online nga
pagkat-on.)
Reimbursement
You will not be provided with any payment to take part in the research.
(Reimbursement
Dili ka hatagan sa bisan unsang porma sa pagbayad kung ikaw mohukom nga
moapil sa survey.)
Confidentiality
Because something out of the ordinary is being done through research on the school
campus, it might draw attention. If you participate, other people in your institution,
58
community, and society, in general, may ask you some questions. We will not be sharing
information about you. The information that we collect from this research project will be
kept confidential. Information about you and your perception that will be collected from
this research will be put away, and only the researchers have access to it. Any information
about you will be denoted by a number rather than your name. Only the researchers will
have access to your phone number/contact information, which we will secure with a lock
and key. It will be kept confidential and will not be shared or given to anyone except our
content expert and adviser.
(Pagkakompidensyal
Tungod kay adunay usa ka butang nga dili ordinaryo nga gihimo pinaagi sa
panukiduki sa kampus sa eskuylahan, mahimo’g makuha ang atensyon. Kung moapil ka,
ang ubang mga tawo sa imong institusyon, komunidad, ug katilingban, sa kinatibuk-an,
mahimong mangutana kanimo og pipila ka mga pangutana. Dili kami magpaambit sa
impormasyon bahin kanimo. Ang impormasyon nga among makolekta gikan niini nga
proyekto sa panukiduki pagatipigan nga kompidensyal. Ang impormasyon mahitungod
kanimo ug sa imong panglantaw nga makolekta gikan niini nga panukiduki itago, ug ang
mga tigdukiduki lamang ang adunay access niini. Ang bisan unsang impormasyon bahin
kanimo ipaila sa usa ka numero kaysa imong ngalan. Ang mga tigdukiduki ra ang adunay
access sa imong numero sa telepono / impormasyon sa pagkontak, nga among i-secure
gamit ang kandado ug yawe. Kini huptan nga kompidensyal ug dili ipaambit o ihatag kang
bisan kinsa gawas sa among eksperto sa sulod ug tigtambag.)
Sharing the Results
At the end of the study, we will share what we have learned from the respondents
and the community. We will do this by meeting first with the participants and then with
the larger community. Nothing that you answered in the questionnaire will be shared with
anybody outside the research. A written report will also be given to the participants, which
they can share with their families. We will also publish the results in order that other
interested people may learn from this research.
Where applicable, your strategy for sharing information with participants should be
included. Include details if you have a plan and a timeline for sharing information.
59
Additionally, you should inform the participant that the research findings will be
disseminated widely, such as through publications and conferences.
(Pagpaambit sa mga Resulta
Sa pagtapos sa pagtuon, among ipaambit ang among nakat-onan gikan sa mga
respondents ug sa komunidad. Buhaton namo kini pinaagi sa pagpakigkita una sa mga
partisipante ug dayon sa mas dako nga komunidad. Walay bisan unsa nga imong gitubag
sa pangutana nga ipaambit sa bisan kinsa gawas sa panukiduki. Ihatag usab ang usa ka
sinulat nga taho sa mga partisipante, nga mahimo nilang ipaambit sa ilang mga pamilya.
Imantala usab namo ang mga resulta aron ang ubang interesadong mga tawo makakat-on
gikan niini nga panukiduki.
Kung mahimo, ang imong estratehiya sa pagpaambit sa impormasyon sa mga
partisipante kinahanglang iapil. Ilakip ang mga detalye kon duna kay plano ug timeline sa
pagpaambit sa impormasyon. Dugang pa, kinahanglan nimong ipahibalo sa partisipante
nga ang mga nahibal-an sa panukiduki ipakaylap sa kadaghanan, sama sa pinaagi sa mga
publikasyon ug mga komperensya.)
Right to Refuse or Withdraw
You may choose not to participate in this study and do not have to participate in
this research if you do not wish to. Choosing to participate or not will not affect your grades
or academic performance in school. You may stop participating in the survey at any time
you wish without losing your rights here.
(Katungod sa Pagdumili o Pag-atras
Mahimo nimong pilion nga dili moapil niini nga pagtuon ug dili kinahanglan nga
moapil niini nga panukiduki kung dili nimo gusto. Ang pagpili sa pag-apil o dili kay dili
makaapekto sa imong mga grado o akademikong pasundayag sa eskwelahan. Mahimo
nimong hunongon ang pag-apil sa survey sa bisan unsang oras nga gusto nimo nga dili
mawala ang imong mga katungod dinhi.)
Whom to Contact
If you have any questions, you can ask the researchers now or later, even if the
study has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact any of the following:
60
Miss Niña Faith Albaracin – 09281823052
Miss Demmemor Cristy Bontilao – 09084172539
Miss Jean Michelle Cogtas – 09064101763
Miss Khiem Hechanova – 09421886448
Mr. Kevin Jay Ouano – 09156660947
Miss Aubrey Mae Tomaodos – 09190088251
This research proposal has been reviewed and approved by the authority at the
University of Cebu-Banilad, which is a committee whose task is to ensure that human rights
will not be violated in the conduct of this analysis and to ensure that the researchers have
properly conducted the study.
(Kinsa ang Kontakon
Kon aduna kay mga pangutana, mahimo nimong pangutan-on ang mga tigdukiduki
karon o unya, bisag nagsugod na ang pagtuon. Kung gusto nimo mangutana, mahimo
nimong kontakon ang bisan kinsa sa mga musunud:
Miss Niña Faith Albaracin – 09281823052
Miss Demmemor Cristy Bontilao – 09084172539
Miss Jean Michelle Cogtas – 09064101763
Miss Khiem Hechanova – 09421886448
Mr. Kevin Jay Ouano – 09156660947
Miss Aubrey Mae Tomaodos – 09190088251
Kini nga tanyag sa panukiduki gisusi ug giaprobahan sa otoridad sa Unibersidad
sa Cebu-Banilad, nga usa ka komite kansang tahas mao ang pagsiguro nga ang tawhanong
katungod dili malapas sa pagpahigayon niini nga pagtuki ug pagsiguro nga ang mga
tigdukiduki nakahimo sa husto nga paagi ang pagtuon.)
PART II: Certificate of Consent
I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me. I have had the
opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions that I have asked have been
answered to my satisfaction. I consent voluntarily to participate as a participant in this
research.
(Bahin II: Sertipiko sa Pag-uyon
61
Nabasa ko na ang naunang impormasyon, o gibasa na kini kanako. Nakahigayon
ko sa pagpangutana bahin niini ug ang bisan unsang mga pangutana nga akong
gipangutana natubag sa akong katagbawan. Ako boluntaryong mitugot nga moapil isip
partisipante niini nga panukiduki.)
Print Name of Participant: ____________________________________
Signature of Participant: ___________________
Date: ___________________________
Day/Month/Year
If illiterate
A literate witness must sign (if possible, this person should be selected by the
participant and should have no connection to the research team). Participants who are
illiterate should include their thumb-print as well.
I have witnessed the accurate reading of the consent form to the potential participant,
and the individual has had the opportunity to ask questions. I confirm that the individual
has given consent freely.
(Kung dili makamaong mobasa
Kinahanglang mopirma ang usa ka saksi nga makabasa (kung mahimo, kini nga
tawo kinahanglan nga pilion sa partisipante ug kinahanglan nga walay koneksyon sa
grupo sa panukiduki). Ang mga partisipante nga dili makamaong mobasa ug mobasa
kinahanglan nga maglakip usab sa ilang thumb-print.
Akong nasaksihan ang tukma nga pagbasa sa porma sa pagtugot sa potensyal nga
partisipante, ug ang indibidwal adunay higayon sa pagpangutana. Gikumpirma nako nga
ang indibidwal libre nga naghatag og pagtugot.)
Print name of witness ______________________
Signature of witness ______________________
Date ________________________
Day/Month/Year
Participant’s thumb print
62
Statement by the researcher/person taking consent
We have accurately read out the information sheet to the potential participant, and
to the best of our ability made sure that the participant understands that the following will
be done:
1. The researchers will explain the purpose of the study.
2. The researchers will explain what the benefits of the study are.
3. The researchers will explain their role as a researcher, including the
confidentiality of the information that will be gathered from the participants.
4. The responses from the survey will be used solely for the study.
We confirm that the participant was given an opportunity to ask questions about
the study, and all the questions asked by the participant have been answered correctly and
to the best of our ability. We confirm that the individual has not been coerced into giving
consent, and the consent has been given freely and voluntarily.
(Pahayag sa tigdukiduki/tawo nga nagkuha og pagtugot
Sakto namong gibasa ang impormasyong papel ngadto sa potensyal nga
partisipante, ug kutob sa among abilidad siguruha nga ang partisipante nakasabut nga
ang mga mosunod buhaton:
1. Ipatin-aw sa mga tigdukiduki ang katuyoan sa pagtuon.
2. Ipasabut sa mga tigdukiduki kung unsa ang mga benepisyo sa pagtuon.
3. Ipatin-aw sa mga tigdukiduki ang ilang tahas isip tigdukiduki, lakip na ang
pagkakompidensyal sa impormasyon nga matigom gikan sa mga partisipante.
4. Ang mga tubag gikan sa survey gamiton lamang alang sa pagtuon.
Among gikumpirma nga ang partisipante gihatagan ug higayon sa pagpangutana
mahitungod sa pagtuon, ug ang tanang pangutana nga gipangutana sa partisipante
natubag sa husto ug sa pinakamaayo sa among abilidad. Among gikumpirma nga ang
indibidwal wala pugsa sa paghatag ug pagtugot, ug ang pagtugot gihatag nga gawasnon
ug boluntaryo.)
A copy of this ICF has been provided to the participant.
(Ang usa ka kopya niini nga ICF gihatag ngadto sa partisipante.)
63
Print Name of Researcher/person taking the consent ________________________
Signature of Researcher /person taking the consent__________________________
Date ___________________________
Day/Month/Year
64
Appendix C
Research Instrument
Part I: Respondents’ Profile
Instruction: Supply the necessary information below by filling in and checking the blanks.
Name: ______________________ (Optional)
Age: ________________
Gender: __________
Types of lesson plans already made
___ Detailed Lesson Plan
___ Semi-detailed Lesson Plan
___ Understanding by design (UbD)
___ 5E’s Model
___ Others (specify) ________________________
Amount of time spent working on the lesson plan
___ less than 1 hour ___ 1 hour
___ 2 hours
___ over 2 hours
Part II: Teaching Methods and Strategies in an Online Modality
Instruction: Put a checkmark (✓) to the corresponding column of your answer.
1 = never
2 = sometimes
3 = oftentimes
4 = always
A. Teaching Methods
Teaching Methods
1. I use a lecture-based
teaching style such as
PowerPoint presentations or
slideshow
in
conveying
information.
1
(Never)
2
(Sometimes)
3
(Oftentimes)
4
(Always)
65
2. I use open-ended questions
that are connected to the
learning outcomes of the
students.
3. I use direct instruction when
teaching.
4. I let my students relate to
our topic by using real
situations
or
real-life
experiences for a better
understanding of the lesson.
5. I
give
activities
to
encourage my students to work
independently.
6. I let my students work in
groups.
7. I let my students reflect on
what we discussed and did
after each session.
8. I use appropriate learning
materials to reach my students’
learning needs.
9. I listened to what my
students have to say.
10. I praise my students’
works/activities to make them
feel proud.
B. Teaching Strategies
Teaching Strategies
1. I use visual and practical
learning experiences such as
photos, audios, or videos to
help my students understand
the lesson more.
2. I use discussion forums to
encourage my students in
participating
during
our
asynchronous sessions, and
1
(Never)
2
(Sometimes)
3
(Oftentimes)
4
(Always)
66
use web-conferencing such as
Zoom and, or Google meet for
our live discussion.
3. I place lecture notes with
links or resources for my
students to review.
4. I let my students share their
ideas in the class to help them
develop their self-confidence,
as well as their communication
skills and critical thinking
skills.
5. I encourage my students to
ask questions and improve
their problem-solving skills to
gain deeper understanding of
academic concepts.
6. I allocate tasks based on my
student’s abilities and learning
needs.
7. I give rewards to my
students the time they
participate in my class.
8. I let my students learn from
themselves
in
our
asynchronous sessions.
9. I let my students do the
task/activity and just guide
them.
10. I let my students recreate a
situation relating to real-world
problems.
11. I let my students prepare
for the class by telling them to
study in advance.
67
Appendix D
Location Map
68
Appendix E
Reliability Test Results - Cronbach’s Alpha
69
Appendix F
Research Ethics Committee
70
Appendix G
Grammarly Results
71
CURRICULUM VITAE
Niña Faith Albaracin
Talamban, Cebu City
albaracinninyafaith@gmail.com
0928 182 3052
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
●
Present Education:
University of Cebu- Banilad Campus
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Gov. M. Cuenco Ave., Banilad, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
S.Y. 2019 up to present
●
Secondary Education:
Talamban National High School
Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, 6000
S.Y. 2013-2018
●
Primary Education:
Talamban Elementary School
Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, 6000
S.Y. 2007-2012
PERSONAL DATA
●
Age: 22
●
Date of Birth: January 21, 2001
●
Civil Status: Single
●
Language Spoken: English, Tagalog
72
Demmemor Cristy Bontilao
Purok 3 San Jose, Cebu City
bontilaodemmemor@gmail.com
0908 417 2539
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
●
Present Education:
University of Cebu- Banilad Campus
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Gov. M. Cuenco Ave., Banilad, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
S.Y. 2019 up to present
●
Secondary Education:
Talamban National High School
Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, 6000
S.Y. 2013-2018
●
Primary Education:
San Jose Elementary School
Purok 3 San Jose, Cebu City
S.Y. 2007-2012
PERSONAL DATA
●
Age: 22
●
Date of Birth: October 14, 2000
●
Civil Status: Single
●
Language Spoken: English, Tagalog
73
Jean Michelle Cogtas
Upper Bacayan, Cebu City
jeanmichelle143@gmail.com
0906 410 1763
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
●
Present Education:
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Gov. M. Cuenco Ave., Banilad, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
S.Y. 2019 up to present
●
Secondary Education:
Pit-os National High School
Pit-os, Cebu City
S.Y. 2013-2018
●
Primary Education:
Bacayan Elementary School
Bacayan, Cebu City
S.Y. 2007-2012
PERSONAL DATA
●
Age: 22
●
Date of Birth: November 5, 2000
●
Civil Status: Single
●
Language Spoken: English, Tagalog
74
Khiem Hechanova
Ridgedale, Manokan, Talamban, Cebu City
khiemhechanova28@gmail.com
0942 188 6448
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
●
Present Education:
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Gov. M. Cuenco Ave., Banilad, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
S.Y. 2019 up to present
●
Secondary Education:
Talamban National High School
Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, 6000
S.Y. 2013-2018
●
Primary Education:
Talamban Elementary School
Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, 6000
S.Y. 2006-2012
PERSONAL DATA
●
Age: 22
●
Date of Birth: June 10, 2000
●
Civil Status: Single
●
Language Spoken: English, Tagalog
75
Kevinjay Ouano
Foothill Ridge, Kalubihan, Talamban, Cebu City
kevinjayouano123@gmail.com
0915 666 0947
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
●
Present Education:
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Gov. M. Cuenco Ave., Banilad, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
S.Y. 2019 up to present
●
Secondary Education
Talamban National High School
Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, 6000
S.Y. 2013-2018
●
Primary Education:
Talamban Elementary School
Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, 6000
S.Y. 2006-2012
PERSONAL DATA
●
Age: 24
●
Date of Birth: February 22, 1999
●
Civil Status: Single
●
Language Spoken: English, Tagalog
76
Aubrey Mae Tomaodos
Jubay, Liloan, Cebu City, Philippines
tomaodos2000aubrey@gmail.com
0919 008 8251
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
●
Present Education:
University of Cebu-Banilad Campus
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Gov. M. Cuenco Ave., Banilad, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
S.Y. 2019 up to present
●
Secondary Education:
Informatics College
Consolacion, Cebu City
S.Y. 2017-2019
●
Primary Education:
Young Ladies Association of Charity
Caritas Compound P. Gomez St., Cebu City
S.Y. 2009-2013
PERSONAL DATA
●
Age: 22
●
Date of Birth: November 9, 2000
●
Civil Status: Single
●
Language Spoken: English, Tagalog
77
Josephine Cuyos Pagunsan
Address: Baha-baha, Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu
Email Add: josephinepagunsan2017@yahoo.com
Contact no. 09222863116
Personal Details:
Date of Birth:
Place of Birth:
Age:
Status:
Gender:
Religion:
Height:
Weight:
February 7, 1992
Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu
31
Single
Female
Roman Catholic
5’1
42 kgs.
Educational background:
Secondary:
Tayud National High School
Tayud Consolacion, Cebu
Graduated: 2007-2008
Tertiary:
University of Cebu Lapu-lapu and Mandaue
Looc, Mandaue City
Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in Filipino
Graduated: 2015-2016
Graduate School
Cebu Technological University
MaEd In Filipino Teaching
Work Experience
University of Cebu -Banilad
Banilad, Cebu City
2018- Present
Cebu Technological University
M.J Cuenco Ave.Cor R. Palma St. 6000 Cebu
Part-Time College Instructor
2017-2018