the International Journal Volume 16

on Marine Navigation Number 2

http://www.transnav.eu and Safety of Sea Transportation June 2022

DOI: 10.12716/1001.16.02.07

Blended Learning Approach in Improving Student’s

Academic Performance in Information Communication,
and Technology (ICT)
R.R. Germo
John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University, Iloilo City, Philippines

ABSTRACT: This quasi-experimental study aimed at looking into the effectiveness of blended learning
approach in improving the performance in Information, Communication, and Technology (ICT) Course of
Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation (BSMT) first year students at JBLFMU-Arevalo during the second
semester of school year 2018-2019. The respondents of this research were the two sections comparable with each
other who were enrolled in the subject ICT. There were 40 student respondents composed of 20 in the
experimental group and 20 in the control group. A validated and reliability-tested 45 item researcher-made
multiple choice test was used as an instrument with a Cronbach index of 0.88. The statistical tools used were
mean, standard deviation, Mann-Whitney test, and Wilcoxon-Signed ranks test set at .05 level of significance.
The effect size was computed to determine the effectiveness of the blended learning approach in terms of
students’ performance in ICT. Results showed that in the pretest, though the experimental group had a higher
mean score than the control group, the Mann-Whitney test showed that the mean scores of the two groups were
comparable because the significant value was greater than .05. When the treatment was introduced, findings
showed that there were significant differences in the ICT performance in the pretest and posttest of
experimental and control groups as well as in the posttests of both groups. Results inferred that blended
learning approach was more than a hundred percent effective showing significant results on the experimental
group. It could also be inferred that the better performance of the control group could be attributed to the
traditional method of teaching, the lecture method.

1 INTRODUCTION poses several pitfalls. First, the limited cognitive

system and instructional fall down (Coherence
According to Horton [1], a blended learning approach Principle). Second, degraded engagement on the
utilizes electronic technologies to create learning method or boring approach or even less interactive.
experiences. A common definition is also shared by Lastly, losing sight of the intended learning outcome
Clark and Mayer [2] as to which blended learning [2].
approach is delivered through digital devices to In the Philippines, the blended learning approach
support learning itself. In this nexus of the modern is synonymous with online learning [4]. However,
age where technology is delivering education across Moore, Dickeon – Deane, and Galyen [5] differently
the globe befits the emergence of the blended learning defined online learning from the blended learning
approach. Also cost reduction in training, education, approach as well as distance learning. They also
and transformed higher education is assured [2, 3]. On added that the implicit definition of the term relies on
the contrary, the blended learning approach also

251
the author’s explicit definition. In addition; they also assessment of effectiveness of blended learning
stated that uncertainties of the definition become the approach course to the maritime students. Lastly, to
characteristics of the term “blended learning address the challenges of modern shipping in a way
approach” and it may be of any form as long as it can of technological education with the help of modern
provide a learning opportunity for an individual [6]. pedagogy as well as the rapid assimilation of
For a blended learning approach experience to be education to the leading maritime workforce supplier
authentic, Herrington, Reeves and Oliver [7] state that of the world.
it must follow the foundation in the theory of situated
This study is anchored under the learning theories
cognition or situated learning with the application of
for online education specifically the Theory of
technology associated pedagogical approaches to
Connectivism developed by Siemens [17] that
blend the course [2]. Esteves [8] even ventured the
acknowledges major shifts in the way knowledge and
application of social media for the enhancement of
information flows, grows, and changes because of vast
learning.
data communication networks as well as guide the
For the blended learning approach experience to development of effective learning materials together
be effective, it must follow the four key processes with the application of other existing learning
outlined [2]. In addition, they also added the three theories.
blended learning approach architectures - Receptive,
Generally, this study aimed to determine the
directive and guided discovery. However, there are
effectiveness of blended learning approach to improve
fewer papers for each individual architecture which in
the students’ academic performance in ICT.
turn be an opening for more studies to be conducted.
To fill in some interesting parts, Hrastinski [9] stated
that there are two types of blended learning
approaches namely: asynchronous [10, 11]. In 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
addition, Horton [1] also stated his different varieties
of blended learning approach which includes:
standalone course, learning games and simulations, 2.1 Research Design
mobile learning, social learning, and virtual classroom The quasi-experimental method of research was
courses. utilized to effectively answer the questions relating to
Modern Philippine educational instruction, the effectiveness of blended learning approach in
especially focused on higher education systems are improving the student performance in ICT. According
slowly pacing for blended learning approach to David [18] quasi-experimental design is nearly the
ventures. Interestingly, the University of the same as true experimental designs, except that the
Philippines Open University (UPOU) ventures for former do not have restrictions of random assignment.
mobile learning approach [1] to tap excluded sectors The study is a quasi-experimental in structure
of the Filipino society to reach their online learning since it uses two comparable groups of respondents.
programs [4]. (Access to technology as indeed been a The first group was the “Experimental Group” where
challenge in implementing a blended learning the intervention was applied and the other was the
approach for developing countries like the Philippines “Control Group” where the traditional instruction
[12]. Further challenges include technological method is to be applied. In this case, the experimental
awareness, curriculum design, motivation, and group shall receive the blended learning approach
learner’s behavior [13]. intervention. Furthermore, in line with the objectives
The rapid growth of computers and network of this research, a pretest-posttest method is to be
communication systems with the upbringing of employed. The idea is to assess the respondents’
modern educational instructions has made initial and final performances. At the same time,
Information, Communication, and Technology (ICT) a assess their growth after the intervention. This is done
superb media in transforming education. ICT also as to solely isolate the effectiveness of the intervention
reaches far out to technology as much as cloud with negligible factors affecting the results.
computing. Nowadays, many are venturing for the This pretest-posttest quasi-experimental research
application of cloud computing in delivering a design determines the effectiveness of blended
blended learning approach namely: blended learning learning approach in improving the student
approach cloud [14]. To add, ICT has been proven to performance in ICT among first year BSMT students
create a paradigm shift of Philippine educational during the first semester of school year 2019–2020.
instruction methods and thus blended learning
approach has been embraced as a means of delivering
efficient and low-cost quality education [15]. ICT and
2.2 Participants
blended learning approaches have proven to address
educational development effectively as stated by The participants of this research were two intact
Button, Harrington, and Belan [16] for a blended sections relatively comparable first year BS Marine
learning approach in nursing education. Transportation sections of the JBLFMU-Arevalo in
Iloilo City, who were enrolled in the course ICT
This study comes with several critical reasons. First
during the second semester of school year 2019-2020.
and foremost is the introduction of blended learning
They were selected through match-group design
approach for maritime education systems especially in
using their General Weighted Average (GWA) in the
the course of ICT. Second, the challenge for modern
second semester, school year 2018-2019. There was a
instruction parallel to the rise of technology. Third,
total of 40 students composed of 20 in the
the challenge to deliver quality, low cost and effective
experimental group and 20 in the control group. The
education for the maritime workforce. Fourth, the

252
tossing of coin was used to determine the Table 1. Mean scale and description for interpreting the
experimental and control group. The head was pretest and posttest scores
_______________________________________________
assigned for experimental group and the tail for Mean scale Description Indicators
_______________________________________________
control group. 36.04 – 45.0 ExcellentStudents have mastered all the
competencies
27.03 – 36.03 Very good Students have mastered most
2.3 Instrument of the competencies
18.02 – 27.02 Good Students have mastered at the
A Table of Specification (TOS) was used to create the average competencies
questionnaire. It underwent content validity and 9.01 – 18.01 Fair Students have mastered few
reliability-testing of 0.88 using Kuder-Richardson 20 competencies.
set at .05 level of significance. Then after, a 45-item 1.0 – 9.0 Poor Students have mastered very
few competencies
_______________________________________________
researcher-made multiple choice test was made that
comprises topics from prelim to final was used in this
study. Standard deviation was used to determine the
level of the students’ homogeneity in their ICT course
The topics were taken from the prelim, midterm, performance.
and final lessons which included the following:
Introduction to Computer Concept, Windows and Mann-Whitney test was used to determine the
Desktop, Word Processor and Application significant differences in the pretests and posttests of
Spreadsheet and Application, Main Features of Data two groups in ICT and for the significant difference in
Processing System Software and Management, the mean gain of the pretest and posttest of the
Hardware and System Technology Basic Construction experimental and control groups set at .05 level of
and Use of Computer Networks on Ships, Bridge- significance.
Based and Shipboard Computer Application, and Wilcoxon-Signed ranks test was used to determine
Basic Hardware, Software and Network the significant differences in the pretest and posttest
Troubleshooting. The study was conducted from June of two groups in ICT set at .05 level of significance.
2019 to October 2019 of the school year 2019-2020.
Effect size was used to determine the effectiveness
of the blended learning approach in terms of students’
2.4 Data Collection performance in ICT. This is done by using the means
and standard deviation in the posttest among the
The data needed for this study were gathered through experimental and the control groups.
the use of achievement tests in pretest and posttest.
The pretest was submitted for preliminary validation
to a panel of jurors selected for their expertise in terms
of content and appropriateness of instrument. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pre-and post-tests were administered to both
experimental and control groups. During the first- 3.1 Pretest Score Performance of the Experimental and
class session, the researcher administered the pretest Control Groups
to the experimental and the control group. This set of The pretest was initially conducted to determine the
data was tagged as the “pre-course” data. comparableness between the experimental and the
The experimental group and control group were control groups in terms of cognitive levels. The
handled by 2/M Karl Danielle Sira, an ICT Instructor. posttest was given to the respondents after the
The experimental group who are the section Polaris 1 experiment.
A was taught according to blended learning approach Table 2 shows the pretest scores among the
using online session using Blackboard OLMS and experimental and control groups. Twenty students
lecture-class discussion. On the other hand, section composed the experimental group and 20 for the
Bowline the control group was taught the course control group.
employing only the traditional lecture-class
discussion method. The intervention lasted for two The experimental group’s pretest mean score is
months, i.e. 18 weeks during the first semester of 19.15 described as “Good” (students have mastered at
school year 2019-2020. the average competencies) while the controls group’s
mean score is 17.95 described as “Fair” (students have
mastered few competencies).
2.5 Data Analysis It is noted that the experimental and control
groups registered comparably the same mean scores
The statistical tools used in this study were the in the pretest, indicating their almost identical
following: cognitive levels before the experiment. This is closely
Mean was used to determine the students’ similar with the results of Navallasca, Damarcus, and
performance in the pretest and posttest. The mean Atanacio [19] where the experimental group results a
scale and description for interpreting the pretest and higher mean compared to the control group.
posttest scores is shown in Table 1 below: However, when tested statistically, they are non-
significantly different with each other denoting that
the two groups are homogenous. Similarly, Simkins
and Allen [20], Kirk [21], and Aidoo, Boateng, Kissi,
and Ofori [22] coheres with this fact.

253
Table 2 Pretest Score Performance in ICT of the gleaned later in Table 7. This simply implies that
Experimental and Control Groups
_______________________________________________ blended learning is an effective intervention.
Compared Group n M Description SD
_______________________________________________ Dickinson [25] cited the fact that curriculum
Experimental 20 19.15 Good 2.30 intervention intensifies learning which is apparent on
Control 20 17.95 Fair 3.14
_______________________________________________ the results. This was also supported by Navallasca,
Dumaicos, and Atanacio [19] and Metzler [26] stating
that an intervention with a successive and smooth
3.2 Posttest Score Performance of the Experimental and flow of activities embedded in the curricula is
Control Groups effective in increasing learning.
Table 3 shows the posttest scores among the Table 5. Mann-Whitney Test Result for the Significant
experimental and the control groups. The Difference in the Posttest Score Performance in ICT between
experimental group’s posttest mean score is 29.95 the Experimental and Control Groups
_______________________________________________
while that of the control group is 27.05. Both means Compared group U W Z
Asymp. sig.
scores are described as “Very Good” (students have (2-tailed)
_______________________________________________
mastered most of the competencies). Experimental 93.50* 303.50 -2.90 .004
On the other hand, the experimental group Control
_______________________________________________
manifested a higher mean score in the posttest than Note. Asterisk (*) means significant at .05 level of
the control group, implying that the experimental probability.
group’s better performance in ICT after the
experiment. In conjunction, González-Gómez, Jeong,
Rodríguez, and Cañada-Cañada [23] agrees that 3.5 Difference in the Pretest Score Performance in ICT
blended learning obtains higher results to traditional between the Experimental and Control Groups
methods. Israel [24] states the same. The students’ pretest and posttest mean scores were
Table 3 Posttest Score Performance in ICT of the compared to determine their significant difference.
Experimental and Control Groups
_______________________________________________ Table 6 reveals that there is a significant difference
Compared Group n M Description SD
_______________________________________________ in the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental
Experimental 20 29.95 Very Good 2.84 group, Z = -3.93, p = .000. This means that the
Control 20 27.05 Very Good 2.68
_______________________________________________ experimental group’s performance after the
intervention is significantly better than before the
intervention.
3.3 Difference in the Pretest Score Performance in ICT The experimental group’s performance after the
between the Experimental and Control Groups intervention is significantly better before the
Table 4 reveals that there is no significant difference in intervention. Notwithstanding with today’s modern
the pretest scores of experimental and control groups, age where students learn of the digital world at an
U = 164.50, p = .331. This means that both groups earlier age, the values denote that blended learning
possess the same knowledge in ICT. provides a greater experience in assimilating
knowledge [23- 27].
Relevant to the assessment of learning, Simkins
and Allen [20] defined pretest as an assessment of Table 6. Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks Test Result for the
Significant Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Score
fundamental knowledge of students and as a starting Performance in ICT of the Experimental Group
point of assistive learning. Aidoo, Boateng, Kissi, and _______________________________________________
Ofori [22] supports the results as pretests denote the Compared test Z Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)
_______________________________________________
constancy of their cognitive capacities. Pretest -3.93* .000
Posttest
_______________________________________________
Table 4. Mann-Whitney test result for the significant
difference on the pretest score performance between the Asterisk (*) means significance at .05 level of probability.
experimental and control groups on knowledge in
swimming and life-saving techniques.
_______________________________________________
3.6 Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Score
Compared group U W Z
Asymp. sig.
( 2-tailed) Performance in ICT of the Control Group
_______________________________________________
Experimental 91.50* 301.50 -2.95 0.003 Table 7 reveals that there is a significant difference in
Control
_______________________________________________ the pretest and posttest scores of control group, Z = -
Note. ns means not significant at .05 level of probability. 3.94, p = .000. This simply shows that the control
group’s posttest performance is significantly better
than their pretest performance.
3.4 Difference in the Posttest Score Performance in ICT
Although blended learning is highly effective as
between the Experimental and Control Groups
modified curricula, the traditional methods were also
Table 5 reveals that there is a significant difference in effective in delivering knowledge [28]. The proof of
the posttest scores of experimental and control time is evident at such that the traditional methods
groups, U = 93.50, p = .004. are still observed. However, since the traditional
curricula was also a modified one, Metzler [26]
The experimental group is better than the control adheres with the results
group. This can be supported by the larger mean
scores (see Tables 1 and 2) as compared to the control
group as well as the higher mean gain that can be

254
Table 7, Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks Test Result for the Table 9. Mann-Whitney Test for the Significant Difference in
Significant Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Score the Mean Gains of the Experimental and Control Groups
_______________________________________________
Performance in ICT of the Control Group
_______________________________________________ Compared group U W Z
Asymp. sig.
Compared test Z Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)
_______________________________________________ (2-tailed)
_______________________________________________
Pretest -3.94 .000 Experimental 155.50ns 365.50 -1.21 .226
Posttest
_______________________________________________ Control
_______________________________________________
Note. Asterisk (*) means significant at .05 level of Note. ns means not significant at .05 level of probability.
probability.
The effectiveness of the blended learning approach
3.7 Mean Gains of the Experimental and Control Groups in terms of students’ performance in ICT was
quantified using the effect size. Using the means and
Table 8 shows the mean gains of the experimental and standard deviation in the posttest among the
control groups. It shows that the mean gain in their experimental and the control groups, the value of the
scores in ICT of the experimental group is higher than effect size is 1.05. This means that the effect size was
the control group. large and the intervention was more than a hundred
The active theme of the blended learning percent effective [30- 32].
stimulates the learner to seek further knowledge. This
was evident to Metzler [26]. Thus, the harmonized use
of blended learning gains a larger mean gain
compared to the traditional form with better results 4 CONCLUSIONS
compared to the other [23, 24]. As a result, Potter’s
[27] implications would guarantee a higher mark for The experimental group appeared to have learned
those who undergo blended learning. significantly better in their ICT lessons after having
been subjected to the blended learning approach than
Table 8. Mean Gains Between the Experimental and Control the control group. It was shown that the blended
Groups
_______________________________________________ learning approach was an effective teaching styles in
Compared group Pretest Posttest Mean Gain
_______________________________________________ teaching ICT course.
Experimental 19.15 29.95 10.80
In modern pedagogy where student centered
Control 17.95 27.05 9.10
_______________________________________________ approach is widely applied, the means of learning of
students greatly attribute as to how the subject matter
is thoroughly delivered. Through and through,
3.8 Difference in the Mean Gains of the Experimental and modern technology is affecting basic education and
Control Groups replacing traditional teaching methods. In effect,
Table 9 reveals that there is no significant difference in technology is harnessed to be a guiding tool for
the mean gains of experimental and control groups, U efficient learning by assimilating tools and methods of
= -155.50, p = .004. orderly fashioned learning resource techniques that
stimulates cognitive absorption of knowledge and
For mean gains, the experimental group is better as thus enabling continuous and smooth learning output
compared to the control group as showed on the and retention and that is blended learning approach.
mean gain of scores. However, there is no significant
difference with each other. It can be inferred that the However, learning may have barriers as to the
intervention was effective as the traditional method, nature of a 21st century learner. Despite this, being
however, slightly more effective than the traditional traditional and modern instruction may be way
ones. separate in delivering learning. Attitudes and
epistemology of a learner are also believed to be a
The mean gains are not significant for both groups factor. Nonetheless, triumph to modern and classic
but the posttests of both groups are significantly pedagogy is attributed to the bond shared between a
different. With this, despite the absence of significance teacher and a learner with trust as a key despite the
on both groups’ mean gains, the experimental group difference of instructional medium.
which is the blended learning approach is
significantly better than the control group.
The development of instructional models as stated
by Foster, Shurtz, and Pepper [29] guarantees higher ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ratings when there is a successful utilization of the
developmental processes which is aligned to the The researcher is grateful to the Commission on Higher
claims of Metzler [26]. The effectivity of both Education (CHED) for funding this research through the
Institutional Development and Innovation Grant (IDIG).
instructional models has both achieved results.
However circumstantial, blended learning has proved
better as an instructional model as it is significantly
different to its posttest results which implies a greater REFERENCES
learning tool [23, 24, 27].
1. Horton, W. 2011. E-learning by Design. Retrieved
fromhttps://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=q
a8UU9xru_wC&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&d
q=e+learning+definitions&ots=UM8JgHhazk&sig=Ccmy
EuAd43jvprmipVS8lMp6ct8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q
=e%20learning%20definitions&f=false

255
2. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. 2016. E-Learning and the nursing education: A review of the literature. Nurse
Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers Education Today, 34(10), 1311-1323.
and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Retrieved from 17. Siemens, G. 2004. Connectivism: A Learning Theory
https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id= v1uz for the Digital Age. Retrieved from
CgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=e+learning&ots=TM http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
wLiLeL8k&sig=ptpSAhY4lBdwAaQ9a0mksOJKCQ&red 18. David, F. 2005. Understanding and doing research: A
ir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=e%20learning&f=false handbook for beginners. Jaro, Iloilo City: Panorama
3. Garrison, D. R. 2011. E-learning in the 21st Century: A Printing Inc.
Framework for Research and Practice. Retrieved from 19. Navallasca, M.C., Dumaicos, M., & Atancaio, F. 2017.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books /9781136879913 The use of problem-based learning (PBL) in improving
4. Pena-Bandalaria, M. M. D. 2009. E-learning in the the student performance in navigation 3. Journal of
Philippines: Trends, directions, and challenges. Shipping and Ocean Engineering, 4, 161-167.
International Journal on E-Learning, 8(4), 495-510. 20. Simkins, S., & Allen, S. 2000. Pretesting students to
5. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. 2011. e- improve teaching and learning. International Advances
Learning, online learning, and distance learning in Economic Research, 6 (1), 100-112. doi:
environments: Are they the same?. The Internet and 10.1007/BF02295755,Wellness, and Brain Development.”
Higher Education, 14(2), 129-135. The Journal of School Health 85 (10): 704-13.
6. Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. 2012. 21. Kirk, R. E. 2009. Experimental design. In R. Millsap
Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An and A. Maydeu-Olivares
approach to the conceptual framework. The (Eds.). Sage handbook of quantitative methods in
International Review of Research in Open and psychology (pp. 23–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Distributed Learning, 13(2), 145-159. 22. Aidoo, B., Boateng, S., Kissi, P., & Ofori, I.N. 2016.
7. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. 2009. A Effect of problem-based learning on students’
Guide to Authentic E-learning. Retrieved from achievement in chemistry. Journal of Education and
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/ Practice, 7, 103-108.
eprint/1903/1/ a_guide_to_authentic_learning.pdf 23. González-Gómez, D., Jeong, J. S., Rodríguez, D. A., &
8. Esteves, K. K. 2012. Exploring facebook to enhance Cañada-Cañada, F. 2016. Performance and perception
learning and student engagement: a case from the in the flipped learning model: An initial approach to
University of Philippines (UP) Open University. evaluate the effectiveness of a new teaching
Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 115. methodology in a general science classroom. Journal of
9. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e- Science and Education Technology, 25 (3), 450-459.
learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55. 24. Israel, M. J. 2015. Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs
10. Adrian, L. A. D. O. (2013). Asynchronous E-learning. in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students.
Retrieved from http://web. rau.ro/websites/e- International Review of Research in Open and
society/lucrari/adrian%20lado.pdf Distributed Learning, 16 (5), 102-118.
11. Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. 2007. 25. Dickinson, D. 2011. Teachers’ language practices and
Synchronous E-learning. The eLearning Guild. academic outcomes of preschool children. Science, 333,
Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws. 964 – 967.
com/academia.edu.documents/32520313/synchronousbo 26. Metzler, M. 2017. Instructional models in physical
ok.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A education (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
&Expires=1538987905&Signature=0xYNJ2g4pMNYxxa7 27. Potter, J. (2015). Applying a hybrid model: Can it
5wmr2oAFoKA%3D&response-content- enhance student learning outcomes? Journal of
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSynchronous_e- Instructional Pedagogies, 17, 1-11.
Learning_The_eLearning_Gui.pdf 28. Olicia, J. V. 2016. An Action Research on the
12. Andersson, A., & Grönlund, Å. 2009. A conceptual Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction in Teaching
framework for e‐learning in developing countries: A English for Grade Four Classes. Retrieved from
critical review of research challenges. The Electronic https://www.teacherph.com/sample-action-research-
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, about- education/
38(1), 1-16 29. Foster, M., Shurtz, S., & Pepper, C. 2014. Evaluation of
13. Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & best practices in the design of online evidence-based
Ciganek, A. P. 2012. Critical success factors for e- practice instructional modules. Journal of the Medical
learning in developing countries: A comparative Library Association, 102 (1), 31-40.
analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers 30. Bartolucci, A. A., Tendera, M., & Howard, G. 2011.
and Education, 58(2), 843-855. Meta-analysis of multiple primary prevention trials of
14. Masud, M. A. H., & Huang, X. 2012. An e-learning cardiovascular events using aspirin. The American
system architecture based on cloud computing. System, Journal of Cardiology, 107(12), 1796-1801.
10(11), 255-259. 31. Carson C. 2012. The Effective Use of Effect Size Indices
15. Acosta, M. 2016. Paradigm shift in open education and in Institutional Research. Retrieved from
e-learning resources as teaching and learning in http://www.keene.edu/ir/effect_size.pdf.
Philippines. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 4(2), 161-172. 32. Coe, R. 2002. It's the Effect Size, Stupid: What “Effect
16. Button, D., Harrington, A., & Belan, I. (2014). E-learning Size” is and Why it is Important. Retrieved from
& information communication technology (ICT) in http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/
00002182.htm

256