CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

RATIONALE/SIGNIFICANCE

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Natural disasters such as earthquakes significantly disrupt the traditional

delivery of education, particularly when school facilities become unsafe for

regular face-to-face instruction. In the present context, cracks in the main school

building have resulted in an alternating schedule between modular and face-to-

face classes for Grade 9 and Grade 10 students. While this arrangement ensures

learning continuity, it raises concerns regarding its impact on students’ academic

performance and overall learning experience. Although previous studies have

explored modular learning and remote education, limited research specifically

examines the effects of an alternating learning setup caused by infrastructure-

related disruptions. The combination of modular and face-to-face instruction may

influence students differently compared to purely remote or purely traditional

systems. Understanding these effects is essential in determining whether the

current arrangement supports academic achievement and student engagement

effectively. Furthermore, as schools continue to adapt to emergency conditions

and infrastructure challenges, evidence-based findings are necessary to guide

educational planning and decision-making. This study seeks to contribute to

existing literature by examining how alternating learning modalities affect Grade

9 and Grade 10 students. The results may help educators and administrators

design more responsive and effective learning strategies that balance flexibility

with instructional quality.

The findings of this study may help students understand how different

learning modalities affect their academic performance and encourage them to

develop effective study strategies.

Teachers. The results may guide teachers in adjusting instructional approaches

to better support learners in both modular and face-to-face settings.

School Administrators. This study may assist administrators in designing more

effective schedules and interventions while infrastructure repairs are ongoing.

Parents. The findings may help parents understand the academic challenges

their children face and encourage them to provide appropriate support at home.

Future Researchers. This research may serve as a reference for future studies

on modular learning, face-to-face instruction, and blended educational models.

OBJECTIVES

The general objective of this study is to examine the comparative impact

of modular learning and face-to-face instruction on Grade 9 and Grade 10

students. Specifically, the study aims to:

1. Compare students’ academic performance under modular and face-to-

face instruction.

2. Identify difficulties encountered in modular learning.

3. Analyze the influence of reduced teacher interaction on student

understanding.

4. Provide recommendations to improve the implementation of blended

learning arrangements.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aims to determine the effects of alternating face-to-face and

modular learning on Grade 9 and Grade 10 students. Specifically, it seeks to

answer the following questions:

1. How does modular learning affect students’ academic performance compared

to face-to-face instruction?

2. What challenges do students experience in modular learning?

3. What are students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the alternating learning

setup?

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The global transition in educational delivery has sparked a critical debate

regarding the efficacy of Modular Distance Learning (MDL) compared to

traditional Face-to-Face (F2F) classes. Historically, the classroom has been the

gold standard for academic development, characterized by real-time interaction,

structured environments, immediate feedback, and collaborative learning

experiences. However, the implementation of modular instruction—driven by the

necessity for flexibility and accessibility—has introduced a self-paced alternative

that challenges the traditional pedagogical framework.

According to the Department of Education (2020), modular learning was officially

adopted as part of the Learning Continuity Plan to ensure that education remains

accessible during disruptions such as natural disasters and public health

emergencies. The DepEd emphasized that Self-Learning Modules (SLMs) were

designed to provide guided instruction even without daily classroom interaction.

This initiative aimed to prevent learning interruption and ensure that students
could continue their academic progress despite limited physical access to

schools.

Central to the comparison between MDL and F2F instruction is the difference in

academic performance and cognitive mastery. While modular learning promotes

independent study and flexibility, research by Pe Dangle and Sumaoang (2020)

suggests that this shift often results in "surface learning." Surface learning occurs

when students focus primarily on completing tasks rather than deeply processing

and understanding concepts. Without the immediate scaffolding and

reinforcement provided by a teacher in a physical classroom, students may

experience reduced opportunities for deeper engagement and critical thinking.

Beyond academic grades, the social and psychological dimensions of learning

provide a stark contrast between the two modalities. The "Transactional

Distance" theory explains that physical separation between learners and

instructors may create a psychological gap that can lead to feelings of isolation,

reduced engagement, and weaker academic connection. In modular setups,

students may experience limited peer collaboration and reduced opportunities for

social interaction. Sayer and Braun (2020) argue that the loss of peer-to-peer

interaction in remote and modular learning environments can negatively affect

social development and reduce extrinsic motivation. The classroom setting

naturally fosters collaboration, shared learning experiences, and immediate

academic support. Face-to-face classes create a “community of practice” where

students learn not only through instruction but also through observation and

discussion. In contrast, modular learning relies heavily on the student’s self-

discipline, time management skills, and the level of parental or home support

available.

In conclusion, the gathered literature indicates that while modular learning offers

a necessary alternative during times of crisis and provides a degree of flexibility

for self-starters, it cannot fully replicate the holistic benefits of face-to-face

intelligence and providing immediate academic intervention. Nevertheless, the

evolution of these two modalities suggests a growing shift toward blended

learning, where the independence promoted by modules and the interactive

engagement of classroom instruction are combined to create a more resilient

educational model.