National University MOA

College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

The Effectiveness of Learning Mathematics through Online vs.

Traditional Learning Modality
Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3,

Trizzia Mae V. Dela Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6,

Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9,

Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
National University Mall of Asia, Philippines

RESEARCHERS AND THEIR ROLES:

Asajar, Samantha Alexa C. Lead Representative
Jagocoy, Hannamarie A. Lead Representative Assistant
Villaraza, Andrea B. Leader of 1st group (Research
Methodology)
Dela Cruz, Trizzia Mae V. Leader of 2nd group (Survey
Questions)
Vicente, Bianca Nicole E. Member of 1st group
Yambot, Daniela M. Member of 1st group
Bobadilla, Christian Daniel A. Member of 1st group
Cemania, Russel T. Member of 1st group
Padua, Cassandra Lauri A. Member of 1st group
Elizaga, Vallerie J. Member of 2nd group
Diaz Jr., Francis Paulo A. Member of 2nd group

1|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................. 1

Researchers and their Roles ............................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................... 6

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 6

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................... 6

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ........................................................................................ 7

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................. 7

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................................. 9

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 14

Research Design ................................................................................................. 14

Participants ......................................................................................................... 14

Instrument .......................................................................................................... 15

Data Collection and Analysis Procedure ......................................................... 15

PLAN OF WORK AND TIME SCHEDULE ............................................................. 16

2|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 19

3|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

INTRODUCTION:

The concept of online education already existed before, but it wasn't generally accepted

as the "new normal" until the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Teachers and students alike were forced

to adapt to the sudden changes brought on by the widespread pandemic outbreak. The transition

to the new normal was not easy, and some students are still struggling to meet the demands of

online learning. Students faced financial difficulties that jeopardized their education, had new

living conditions that made learning challenging, and frequently lacked the resources required to

even log onto class online. (Acosta et al., 2021) Besides that, not all students are privileged

enough to have a study environment at home. In fact, according to National University California

(2022), managing time effectively can be challenging especially in an online learning

environment, in which students are challenged to self - regulate themselves — alone without

assistance of friends and peers to keep them focused in class.

Students often voice out their struggles when it comes to learning Mathematics due to its

complicated equations and formulas. According to Kurukkan (2015), mathematics learning, in

particular, is a dynamic type of function in cognitive processing. Numerous factors affect it,

including short attention span, long-term memory, the capacity to recall mathematical facts, and

both visual and spatial interoceptive abilities. Another issue that the educators perceive is the

issue of possible academic dishonesty in online learning modality, as there is no way to

absolutely make sure that the student takes the examination fairly. One may argue that even the

4|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

measures used to assess learning in online courses, such as the formative or summative

assessment methods, do not accurately represent learning because they could be tainted by

cheating throughout these evaluations. (Dendir & Maxwell, 2020)

According to research conducted by Gürsul & Keser (2009) entitled The Effects of

Online and Face to Face Problem-Based Learning Environments in Mathematics Education on

Student’s Academic Achievement, “once all sub-dimensions are taken into account, the mastery

level of the groups during the face-to-face and online problem-based instructional strategies is

more in favor of the online groups.” The researchers used an experimental approach, and is also

one of the quantitative research models. The experimental study explores the impact of a single

variable on other variables to demonstrate the cause-effect correlation. (Gürsul & Keser, 2009).

On the other hand, a study conducted by Dendir & Maxwell (2020) entitled Cheating in online

courses: Evidence from online proctoring stated that “The findings of the data analysis highly

suggest that cheating took place before the implementation of online proctoring. Every exam

provided in the two courses had such a significant lower average scoring rate when proctoring

was used. GPA, as a way of measuring ability, had a stronger impact on proctored test scores

than unproctored exam results, according to regression analyses. Pertinent statistical tests

primarily revealed this, demonstrating an endogeneity in estimated coefficients as well as greater

overall predictive validity of regression models incorporating proctored pass rates.” To further

5|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

explain, “On average, a unit increase in GPA raises exam score by half a letter grade (5

percentage points) in unproctored exams. However, in proctored exams, GPA has a larger impact

- close to 8 % on average. This indicates that when proctoring is used, there is a stronger

relationship between capability and performance.” (Dendir & Maxwell, 2020)

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

Mathematics is a diverse and complex subject to learn both in traditional and online

classes, but the new normal has made it more difficult for students to learn Mathematics

effectively through the online learning modality.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

The purpose of this research is to determine which mode of learning modality students

believe will best assist them to meet their specified learning objectives, the struggles that

students are facing in online compared to traditional learning, and whether the type of learning

environment is actually related to the students' academic performance.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

6|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

1. Which mode of learning modality, online or traditional, do students perceive better helps

them to meet their specified learning outcome goals?

2. Which instructional method, online or traditional, do students perceive presents more

challenges in meeting their specific learning outcome goals?

3. Does the type of learning environment relate to successful course performance as

measured by test, final exam, and course grade?

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

There is a significant difference in the student’s learning effectivity in Math related

subjects on Traditional Face-to-Face classes versus the new normal Online Classes. Some of the

challenges that the students face in the new normal is physical, mental, and financial health

issues.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

This study helped the researchers to gain knowledge about The Effectiveness of Learning

Mathematics through Online vs. Traditional Learning Modality. This will also help the students

in assessing which learning modality is effective for them and for the educators to find an

effective approach of teaching for the students. Lastly, this paper can also serve as reference for

future researchers who plan on tackling this topic furthermore.

7|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

To the Students,

This paper can assist students in establishing which learning modality best suited for

them and in understanding about the challenges and difficulties of the new reality enough so they

can utilize this information to identify solutions that are effective for them.

To the Educators,

This can help educators become more aware of the challenges and difficulties that

students are facing in both traditional and online learning modes, allowing them to work toward

improving the student's instructional strategies.

To the parents and the community,

This research will assist the community become cognizant of the difficulties of the

educational approach and prepare them in the occurrence that another unprecedented threat

affects the children's learning community.

8|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In research from Wikipedia contributors (2023), “the Pythagoreans, who originated the

term Mathematics from the ancient Greek word “Mathema” which means "subject of

instruction," began the study of mathematics as a "demonstrative discipline" in the 6th century

BC.”[1] In a study conducted by Tambychik et al., (2010), “Several students have difficulties

with mathematics, — especially problem-solving. They must, however, understand mathematics

due to its importance to their daily lives.”[2] A statement from Ashby et al., (2011), “According to

recent research, the educational environment really does have an impact on the success rates of

neurocognitive students.” In this study, when attrition was not considered, online and blended-

learning students performed worse than traditional face-to-face educational math students.

(Ashby et al., 2011)[3] According also to Gürsul & Keser (2009), “The exponential development

in information as well as the volume of students has induced a multitude of challenges, and all

these technological advances have played a role in the advancement of the learning system, and

the quality imposed on the academic system has become mandatory.” A statement also further

supports this claim “The process of learning seems to be no longer dependent on the educator

and has instead become learner-dependent (Erdem and Akkoyunlu, 2002). As a result, educators

should act as a guide for students in fostering self-discipline, self-control, as well as self-

motivation (Anderson, 2004).”[4] To further support this claim, a study by Harris et al., (2014)

states “Face-to-face meetings are preferred because they make it possible for much more

straightforward and physical interaction with the educator and allow for less self-directedness.”[5]

9|Page
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

According to Tambychik & Meerah (2010), they identified one of the challenges that students

faced when learning Mathematics, “The rationale as to why students failed to comprehend the

problem may differ between students. They may have difficulty comprehending the dialect, the

mathematical phrases used, or the problem's ability to connect. Longer time spent understanding

questions results in longer time spent solving problems. As a result, students may not have

sufficient time to solve every one of the problems in the required time.” To further support their

claim, Tambychik & Meerah also states that “Aside from identifying the problems, majority of

the respondent also had difficulty determining how to solve the given problems. Even when

participants did understand the problems, they were unable to solve them. They were having

difficulty connecting the problems. This difficulty could be caused by a deficiency of number

fact and information skill. The relationship between facts and information, as well as facts and

formulas, may be factually inaccurate.”[6] Jones & Long (2013) further improved this claim with

their conclusion “These significant statistical findings suggest that in-person students could have

understood far more than online students. These results show that the on-site student mean rating

was 5% greater than that of the online student mean grade, however the median on-site grade

was also 5% higher. On-site students may have had an edge in studying the course material due

to the lecture as well as in work.” [7] Another study proves that although online learning may

produce higher mean grades for students, there is no absolute way to know if this is accurate. A

study from Dendir & Maxwell (2010) states “Several arguments are provided as to why online

classes might be more susceptible to academic misconduct. One issue is that because evaluations

10 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

are frequently conducted in unsupervised or unproctored environments, it is difficult to establish

the authenticity of the examinee (Kraglund-Gauthier & Young, 2012). Correspondingly, during

assessments, online exam takers may use unauthorized resources such as cheat sheets, booklets,

or online materials.” They also provided sufficient evidence, “The study's research indicates that

cheating occurred in the unsupervised examinations. First, simple bivariate analysis reveals that

after online proctoring was implemented, mean exam scores dropped significantly in both

courses, often by more than one letter grade.”[8] In another study by Sankar, L. & Sankar, C.

(2010), face-to-face or traditional classes was favored among other modalities. This study states

“Face-to-face educational approach, a traditional professional educational strategy provided in

small or large groups, creates an avenue for interactions, particularly when offered in small

groups, developing closeness in the facilitator-learner relationship (Benson, Johnson, Taylor,

Treat, Shinkareva, & Duncan, 2005). Face-to-face interaction, as according researchers, is

considered the most effective method of delivering lessons because it enables individuals to

provide facial stimuli and verbal feedback, as well as to interact through nonverbal cues. As a

result, the learner's drive to learn grows as a result of the greater interaction (Daft & Lengel,

1986).”[9] Back to the research study conducted by Gürsul & Keser (2009), “A further study

examined neurodevelopment math student achievement in online, blended, and

traditional learning environments, which contradicted previous research findings that there was

no substantial difference in excellence based on the educational environment. Students in the

blended environment performed the most poorly in the course, while traditional students

11 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

performed worse than online students (Ashby, Sadera, & McNary, 2011). Consequently, four out

of the five studies undertaken between 2009 and 2011 concluded that the online mathematics

course success rates were either equivalent or effective.”[2] Another study disproves this claim

from L. Sankar & C. S. Sankar (2010), stating “However, there are still some circumstances in

which online learning might not be successful, for instance when the subject of study is

incredibly challenging, or when the learner lack the confidence and requires substantial

encouragement and assistance to complete the program. In those cases, traditional learning is

advisable to online learning because the educator in face-to-face learning can identify the

learner's difficulties as well as provide immediate feedback. Furthermore, students may require

an additional individual to guide their knowledge acquisition if they are unfamiliar with the

subject of study, considering that without the guidance of a facilitator, the student may not be

capable of fully understanding the concepts.”[9] This research conclusion from Jones & Long

ends the long discussion with a statement “Given that there was no significant difference in

average scores for both traditional and online learning students for the seven most latest

semesters, it would seem plausible to conclude that students in both learning modality of a

course can achieve equity in mathematics achievement as evaluated by end - of - course

academic results.” It was also highlighted in the end of the paper that “More research is needed

to examine the effect of sustained curriculum and evaluation on learning outcomes when a

similar lesson is explained by different lecturers, regardless about whether most sections of the

class are face-to-face, online, or a combination of both. Student desires for web - based versus

12 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

face-to-face learning must also be reviewed in order to figure out how students believe they learn

better and whether other factors could affect their choice to complete a class in one setup rather

than another.” [10]

13 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Quantitative research uses the descriptive approach to gather more information and facts

from the existing data that can help the researchers to uncover the information that has either a

similar or different meaning. Furthermore, this data will not be changed and will only become a

basis for the researchers in observing, analyzing and interpreting while assessing The

Effectiveness of Learning Mathematics through Online vs. Traditional Learning Modality. This

research will relatively discuss experiences, observations and interactions among variables where

in a descriptive questionnaire was used.

Participants

This study has 30 respondents from any school or university, from junior high school to

college undergraduate levels. The research used a non-probability sampling, particularly

judgment sampling, since the respondent was selected in a non-random manner. Students were

questioned to determine which mode of learning modality, online or traditional, do students

perceive better helps them to meet their specified learning outcome goals, which instructional

method, online or traditional, do students perceive presents more challenges in meeting their

specific learning outcome goals and does the type of learning environment relate to successful

course performance as measured by test, final exam, and course grade?

14 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

Instrument:

The researchers aim to identify on which learning modality is more affective on students

learning outcome and in order to determine it, the researcher used a set of survey questionnaire

that composed of the respondent’s basic information and background as a student that can help to

gather more data. The researcher used Google Forms as a channel to conduct the survey

questionnaire that is convenient to both participants and researcher. This survey is divided into

four parts; the first part is the participants' personal information. To determine the possible

reason of the students challenges the second part of it is more on participants student background

which includes (1) grade level, (2) learning modality, and (3) devices used in studying.

Moreover, the third part is about the satisfaction of the student on learning modality that they are

using, this part uses the Likert scale with the choices of ‘extremely effective’ to ‘extremely

ineffective’ other than that, this part also has a multiple choice which is both ‘satisfied or not

satisfied’ and ‘yes or no.’ The last part is consisting of a question on what challenges the students

face in the modality that they’re using. After implementing the survey questionnaire, the

researchers will combine and calculate the data using statistical treatment.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedure

After gathering data from the post-test of the survey questionnaire, researchers would

then examine and interpret the information in a concise and accurate manner. However, before

15 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

they start providing their interpretations, they first should recognize the position of each piece of

data in order to fully comprehend the picture of the sample size and to determine whether there

would be any errors that could lead to the entire study being misrepresented. By using a

descriptive and inferential statistical treatment, researchers will be able to avoid irrelevant

information while providing more entirely appropriate statements.

PLAN OF WORK AND TIME SCHEDULE

TIMETABLE 
ACTIVITY TASK  TIME TO COMPLETE  GROUP MEMBER
RESPONSIBLE 
Searching for a study that the January 10, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar 
group should conduct  January 17, 2023  Bianca Nicole Vicente 
Andrea Villaraza 
Vallerie Elizaga 
Trizzia Dela Cruz 
Russel Cemenia 
Cassandra Padua 
Ella Yambot 
Christian Bobadilla 
Francis Paulo 
Hannamarie Jagocoy 
Deciding on what research January 17, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar 
study to conduct (by voting)  January 19, 2023  Andrea Villaraza 
Trizzia Dela Cruz 
Francis Diaz
Russel Cemania 
Daniela Yambot 
Hannamarie Jagocoy 
Start to distribute the January 19, 2023  Samantha Alexa Asajar 
designated parts to the
members. 
Formulating Research January 19, 2023 through Trizzia Dela Cruz 

16 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

Questionnaire  January 20, 2023  Vallerie Elizaga 

Francis Diaz Jr.
Samantha Alexa Asajar
Distribution of forms for the January 20, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar 
survey  January 21, 2023  Andrea Villaraza 
Trizzia Dela Cruz 
Hannamarie Jagocoy 
Members time to do and learn January 19, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar 
chosen research study  January 23, 2023  Bianca Nicole Vicente 
Andrea Villaraza 
Vallerie Elizaga 
Trizzia Dela Cruz 
Russel Cemania 
Cassandra Padua 
Daniella Yambot 
Christian Bobadilla 
Francis Diaz Jr.
Hannamarie Jagocoy 
Sampling Techniques and January 20, 2023  Daniella Yambot 
Research design submitted  Andrea Villlaraza 
Research Instrumentation, January 21, 2023  Russel Cemania 
Research locale, and Data Bianca Nicole Vicente 
gathering procedures submitted  Christian Bobadilla 
Revisions for research January 21, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar 
methodology  January 24, 2023  Hannamarie Jagocoy 
Introduction Submitted  January 24, 2023  Samantha Alexa Asajar 
Research Hypothesis Submitted January 26, 2023 Samantha Alexa Asajar 
Statement of the Problem January 26, 2023 Samantha Alexa Asajar 
Submitted
Significance of the Study January 26, 2023 Samantha Alexa Asajar 
submitted
Research Objectives submitted January 26, 2023 Samantha Alexa Asajar 
Distribution of Video January 26, 2023 Samantha Alexa Asajar 
Recording parts
Editing of Recording January 27, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar
January 28, 2023
Completion of PowerPoint January 26, 2023 through Hannamarie Jagocoy
presentation January 27, 2023
Bibliography and citations January 27, 2023 Vallerie Elizaga
17 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

Data Gathering and Analysis January 27, 2023 Hannamarie Jagocoy

Procedure
Completion of Review of January 26, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar
Related Literatures January 27, 2023
Finalizing the Chapter 1-3  January 24, 2023 through Samantha Alexa Asajar 
January 26, 2023 
Submit the final paper to Ms. January 26, 2023  Samantha Alexa Asajar 
Dondoyano 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

18 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

Tambychik, T. & Meerah, T. (2010). Students’ Difficulties in Mathematics Problem-

Solving: What do they Say? Elsevier.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810021257 

Jones, S. & Long, V. (2003). Learning Equity between Online and On-Site Mathematics

Courses: MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.

https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no1/jones_0313.pdf 

Ashby et al., (2011). Comparing student success between developmental math courses

offered online, blended, and face-to-face. Journal of Interactive Online Learning.

https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/10.3.2.pdf 

De, B. (2018). Traditional Learning Vs. Online Learning: eLearning Industry.

https://elearningindustry.com/traditional-learning-vs-online-learning/amp?

fbclid=IwAR3LBmHrScEmuWRJtbM2m7pkUtb3Uy95aM76Eg2b1D831GQMKbXhAE7sp90 

Hollebrands et al., (n.d.). Online Learning in Mathematics Education: Springer.

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=L8pKEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=learning

%20mathematics%20through%20online%20and%20traditional

%20learning&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVxZ7O3bn8AhVIplYBHYGFBzgQ6AF6BAgGE

AM#v=onepage&q=learning%20mathematics%20through%20online%20and%20traditional

%20learning&f=false 

19 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

Harris et al., (2014). PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TOFACE

LEARNING OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP GRADUATE STUDENTS: European

Journal of Educational Sciences. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1236642.pdf 

Gürsul, F. & Keser, H. (2009). The effects of online and face to face problem based

learning environments in mathematics education on student's academic achievement: Elsevier.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042809005035?

ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=786aa0e4d82f2756 

Acosta et al., (2021). What Students and Colleges Faced During the Pandemic: New

America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/what-students-and-colleges-

faced-during-pandemic/ 

Dendir, S. & Maxwell, S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online

proctoring: Elsevier.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958820300336#:~:text=Highlights&text

=We%20assess%20the%20prevalence%20of%20academic%20dishonesty%20in%20online

%20courses.&text=We%20compare%20student%20performance%20before,through%20a

%20webcam%20recording%20software.&text=Our%20analysis%20shows%20that

%20cheating,in%20the%20absence%20of%20proctoring 

20 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

Bordey, H. (2022). 94% of Filipinos in favor of full face-to-face classes — survey: GMA

News. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/838132/94-of-filipinos-in-favor-of-

full-face-to-face-classes-survey/story/ 

Koenig, R. (2019). Most Students and Faculty Prefer Face-To-Face Instruction,

EDUCAUSE Surveys Find: Edsurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-12-11-most-students-

and-faculty-prefer-face-to-face-instruction-educause-surveys-find 

(2023). Challenges of Distance Learning for Students: National University.

https://www.nu.edu/blog/challenges-of-distance-learning-for-students/ 

Wikipedia Cotributors (2023). History of Mathematics: Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics#:~:text=The 

Blog (n.d.) Online education vs Traditional Education: Which one is better for you?

Classgap. https://www.classgap.com/en/blog/online-education-traditional-education-which-one-

better-for?fbclid=IwAR0xRs0qkBexLJ5gC-MSu2QW1nK0I7fU8y-ZFD0Bu3d6PdW-Nc-

x9cJsvq8 

Bock et al., (2021). Effectiveness of Face-to-Face, Blended and E-Learning in Teaching

the Application of Local Anesthesia: A Randomised Study: BMC Medical Education.

https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-021-02569-z?

fbclid=IwAR1oTACifQIQM0gQV9je23_MEc6H5p-zPH4j4ziv3u1YvXvsgUxTHsOJFbg

21 | P a g e
 National University MOA
College of Business and Technology

Samantha Alexa C. Asajar1, Christian Daniel A. Bobadilla2, Russel T. Cemania3, Trizzia Mae V. Dela
Cruz4, Vallerie J. Elizaga5, Hannamarie A. Jagocoy6, Cassandra Lauri A. Padua7, Francis Paulo A. Diaz
Jr8, Bianca Nicole E. Vicente9, Andrea B. Villaraza10, Daniela M. Yambot11

Sankar, L & Sankar, C. (2010). Comparing the Effectiveness of Face-to-Face and Online

Training of Teacher Knowledge and Confidence: Proceeding of Informing Science & IT

Education Conference (InSite)

https://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2010/InSITE10p667-691Sankar875.pdf

22 | P a g e