Overseas Fieldwork Report 2021

Online Surveys of Development Challenges
in the Philippines

March 2022
Graduate School of International Development
Nagoya University
Nagoya, Japan

Overseas Fieldwork Report 2021
Kampot Province, Cambodia
Copyright © GSID 2022

Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University
Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan 464-8601
https://www4.gsid.nagoya-u.ac.jp/en/

Acknowledgments
GSID students who participated in OFW 2021 and the committee of OFW 2021 are indebted to many people
and institutions both in The Philippines and Japan for the successful completion of this year’s program. In
particular, our appreciation goes to both external advisers and lecturers. From the University of the Philippines
Los Baños (UPLB), Dr. Evelie P. Serrano and Dr. Aileen V. Lapitan provided very valuable support and local
information on the current development challenges that the Philippines is currently facing. From Kyoritsu
Women’s University, Dr. Masayoshi Okabe also provided very valuable insights on the development issues of
the Philippines. We are also grateful for the contributions of external lecturers. Specifically, Ms. Yurika Suzuki
from IDE-JETRO and Ms. Marjorie Resuello from Ritsumeikan University provided a solid foundation forunderstanding the society and economy of the Philippines.
From GSID, we greatly benefited from the excellent lectures of Prof. Francis Peddie and Prof. Wataru
Kusaka. Their knowledge about the Philippines has always been inspiring for us. Also, Prof. Adam Smith
provided excellent support and leadership in the design and implementation of online surveys. Finally, we also
would like to thank Prof. Jeremy Wood for the English editing of this volume.
Carlos Mendez
Associate Professor
Chair of OFW 2021 Committee
Graduate School of International Development
Nagoya UniversityiIntroduction
The twenty-eighth Overseas Fieldwork (OFW 2021) of the Graduate School of International Development(GSID), Nagoya University, was carried out for the first time completely online. Each year, GSID carries out
OFW in a developing country in Asia in cooperation with a local partner university of GSID. In this year,
however, the COVID-19 pandemic has largely limited our regular face-to-face interactions with people bothoutside and inside Japan. OFW is an integral part of GSID’s curriculum, designed to provide students with
exposure to the “real world” development issues of a developing country. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced
us to find alternative ways to provide exposure to development issues using new online technologies. For the
first time, OFW has been carried out using online surveys. In close collaboration with the University of thePhilippines Los Baños (UPLB), GSID students gained valuable research experience and a foundational
understanding of educational development challenges in the Philippines. Although this online experience is
not equivalent to the usual fieldwork experience, it provides opportunities for research innovation and fosters
data-driven analytical capabilities.
We believe that the online OFW experience is also helpful for students seeking future careers ininternational development as it fosters data-driven insights that complement theoretical perspectives. Online
OFW also enables students to understand the importance of inter-disciplinary approaches. Considering therelevance of topics to the context of the Philippines and the expertise of GSID professors, we divided
participating students into three working groups: primary education (WG1), gender inequality in education(WG2), and higher education (WG3). After acquiring a foundational understanding of sustainable developmentin the context of the Philippines, students designed an online questionary using the online survey software
Qualtrics. The questionary was distributed through the online market research tool Lucid Marketplace. After
collecting representative samples, students analyzed the results using various statistical programs such as Stata,
GeoDa, R, and Python. Finally, students presented their results in multiple occasions, including the academic
sessions of the GSID 30th anniversary. The present volume is an outcome of all the efforts mentioned above.
Carlos Mendez
Associate Professor
Chair of OFW 2021 Committee
Graduate School of International Development
Nagoya UniversityiiTable of Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ i
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................iii
List of Participants .......................................................................................................................... v
Program of OFW 2021................................................................................................................... vi

Working Group 1
Elementary Education in Philippines and COVID-19 pandemic:
A Case of Study of National Capital Region (NCR) ..............................................1
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Problem Statement...................................................................................................................................... 5
4. Research Objectives and Research Questions ............................................................................................ 5
5. Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6
6. Summary of Data ........................................................................................................................................ 6
7. Findings .................................................................................................................................................... 10
8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 15
References .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix: Survey Questions Appendix ....................................................................................................... 17

Working Group 2
Gender Inequality in Education Attainment in the Philippines:
Does Return to Education Perception Matter? ....................................................23
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 26
2. Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................... 28
3. Data and Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 30
4. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 34
5. Conclusion and Policy Implication........................................................................................................... 37
References .................................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire .............................................................................................................. 39
Appendix B: Results ..................................................................................................................................... 44iii

Working Group 3
University Student’s Perception and Expectations
towards Flexible Learning in the Philippines ................................................................ 47
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 49
2. Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 52
3. Respondents’ Demographics .................................................................................................................... 54
4. Data Results .............................................................................................................................................. 55
5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 65
6. Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 66
References .................................................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix: Survey Questions ........................................................................................................................ 70iv

List of Participants
GSID Faculty Members (3)Working Group

GSID, Nagoya University

WG1: Primary Education

Yuki Shimazu

WG2: Gender

Christian Otchia

WG3: Higher Education

Carlos Mendez

GSID Students (14)Working GroupWG1: Primary Education

WG2: Gender

WG3: Higher Education

Name

Country

Abdoul Wahabou Koanda

Burkinabe

Catia Antonio Victor Joaquim De Oliveira*Mozambican

Gabriel Flores*

Venezuelan

Kengo Umeda

Japanese

Yuki Kobayashi

Japanese

Aldino Maria Andre

Mozambican

Gerald Chizonda

Malawian

Ryo Tsukamoto*Japanese

Yoshiki Ito

Japanese

Yuka Kimura

Japanese

Andrea Dyah Rahandini*Indonesian

Bilqis Oktaviani Putri

IndonesianDarleen May ClaroFilipino

Jie Zhu

Chinese* Group leadersvProgram of OFW 2021
Preparatory Seminar at GSID
Date

Time

Apr. 21(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Introduction & Team-building

OFW Committee

Apr. 28(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Understanding Culture and Current
Development Trends in the Philippines

Ms. Marjorie Resuello,
Ritsumeikan University

May. 12(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Migration as a Family Livelihood Strategy:a case study of the Overseas Filipino Workers
from the Municipality of Rizal, the Philippines

Dr. Francis Peddie,
Nagoya University

May. 19(Wed)

16:30-18:00

An Introduction to Philippine Politics

Dr. Wataru Kusaka,
Nagoya University

May. 26(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Philippine Economy

Jun. 2(Wed)

16:30-18:00

Education Issues of the Philippines

Jun. 9(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Group presentation to share research interests

OFW Committee

14:45-16:15

Research methods 1: Secondary macro andmeso data

Dr. Carlos Mendez,
Nagoya University

16:30-18:00

Research methods 2: Secondary micro data

Dr. Christian Otchia,
Nagoya University

Jun. 23(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Research methods 3: Primary micro data

Jun. 30(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Data analysis methods 1: Macro and meso data

Jul. 7(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Data analysis methods 2: Micro data

Dr. Adam Smith,
Nagoya University

Jul. 14(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Group presentation of the research proposal

OFW Committee

Jul. 21(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Questionnaire survey form preparation

OFW Committee
Teaching Assistants

Jul 28(Wed)

14:45-16:15

Group presentation of the online survey form

OFW Committee

Jun. 16(Wed)

Title of the Lecturevi

Lecturer(s)Ms. Yurika Suzuki,
Area Studies Center,
IDE-JETRO
Dr. Masayoshi Okabe,
Kyoritsu Women’s
University

Dr. Adam Smith and
Dr. Yuki Shimazu,
Nagoya University
Dr. Carlos Mendez and
Dr. Christian Otchia,
Nagoya University

Schedule of Online Survey in the Philippines
The students developed their online survey forms by using a program called Qualtrics, and a survey company
distributed them in the Philippines between August 28th and 31st, 2021. The collected data was handed to thestudents on September 3rd, 2021.

Interim Presentations of Research Findings
The interim presentation of research findings was held online on September 29th, 2021. Each working grouppresented for 20 minutes, followed by a Q&A session. Dr. Evelie P. Serrano and Dr. Aileen V. Lapitan, Collegeof Public Affairs and Development (CPAf), University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), and Dr.
Masayoshi Okabe, Kyoritsu Women’s University attended the presentation to give feedback.

Presentation of Research Findings at the GSID 30th Anniversary Event
The online session titled “GSID’s overseas fieldwork 2021” was held during the GSID 30th anniversary event.
Two working groups presented their research findings, and representatives from each group discussed what
they learned and the challenges they faced during the OFW 2021.

vii

viii

Working Group 1

Elementary Education in Philippines and COVID-19 pandemic:
A Case of Study of National Capital Region (NCR)

Group Members:
Abdoul Wahabou Koanda
Catia Antonio Victor Joaquim De Oliveira*Gabriel Flores*
Kengo Umeda
Yuki Kobayashi

Advisor:Dr. Yuki Shimazu* Group Leaders1

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Problem Statement
4. Research Objectives and Research Questions
5. Research Methodology
6. Summary of Data
6.1 Characteristics of Respondents (Parents)
6.2 Characteristics of Respondents’ Children (Elementary School Students)
6.3 Internet Access and Connection
7. Findings
7.1 Challenges of Homeschooling in Manila
7.2 Necessary Support for Homeschooling
7.3 Assistance for Children
7.4 Perception toward Homeschooling
8. Conclusion
References
Appendix: Survey Questions2

1. Introduction
There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic presents severe challenges to the world. Many governments
had to adopt drastic measures like travel restrictions, mass vaccinations, and lockdowns. The lockdowns
affected various public and private services, including education. The lockdowns deprived students of thedirect enjoyment enjoyment of a school environment. This forced the schools to adopt new learning
methodologies using online and offline alternatives. Remote learning was introduced in most schools frompre-primary to high school levels. However, it is challenging for students to adapt to these innovative ways oflearning. Many families are also struggling to adapt to the new situation. Especially, parents with children inelementary schools face many challenges. Since it is difficult for these children to study by themselves, theirparents have to facilitate homeschooling and play the role of teachers in many cases.
The situation of elementary school level homeschooling in the Philippines is smiliar to the other countries.
Filipino parents are facing challenges in fulfilling the remote learning of their children. There are challenges
from different dimensions, for example resources related challenges and lack of their skills. This research aims
to analyze the impact of COVID-19 and identify the challenges that parents of elementary school children in
the Philippines have faced. The location for this research was limited to the National Capital Region (NCR),
also known as Metro Manila. The study will explore the two types of homeschooling in the Philippines, online
and offline print-based learning. This study focuses on families with children in elementary schools because
they face various challenges of homeschooling since the children need much support from their parents. In
addition, the lack of resources, including physical ones such as devices for communication, and non-physicalones like teaching capacity and time for teaching, is also a problem.
This study presents parents’ perceptions regarding their main challenges of homeschooling and the
support they need to overcome these education challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic in Metropolitan
Manila, Philippines.

2. Literature Review
Many scholars have discussed homeschooling. This type of learning is seen as “a progressive movement
around a country and the world in which parents educate their children at home instead of sending them to a
traditional public or private school (Martin, 2020).” Parents choose to homeschool for diverse reasons,
including dissatisfaction with educational philosophies and the belief that children are progressing within the
traditional school structure. A movement towards homeschooling began growing in 1970 when some famous
researchers and experts in education started working on possible education reforms (ibid).
Conceived this way, homeschooling is another form of education that existed long before the COVID-19
pandemic. Home schooling was widely used in teaching children with disabilities in the past. The COVID-19
crisis has persuaded various government institutions and the education sector to reimagine and reshape thepresent curriculum. These reforms are known in the Philippines as modular learning, including homeschooling.
Cahapay (2020) researched how Filipino parents’ home educate their children who live with autism during
COVID-19. He found that COVID-19 positively impacted children’s education with autism. First, the3pandemic had a positive effect, as it had “brought family members together at home for a considerable long
period” (Cahapay, 2020). This allowed most family members to be mainly involved in the education of children
with autism. Second, the pandemic crisis forced many families to create new activities for their children with
autism, demonstrating that their routines had changed somewhat. The pandemic finally increased solidarity
between families: families assisted each other during COVID-19.
Reyes (2012) also discusses the positive aspects of homeschooling. Based on the psycho-pedagogy
perspective, she explains that homeschooling allows for the personalization of curriculum content. Therefore,
in this type of learning, it is necessary to understand the child’s competence, whether they are ready for the
new lesson, and if they understand enough to move on to the next content. Although homeschooling has its
advantages, Reyes’s explanation shows that isome expertise is required in order to conduct effective
homeschooling.
Agaton and Cueto (2021) also conducted a different study in 2021 to explore the lived experiences of theparents of both regular students and those living with disabilities, who act as learning supervisors, tutors, andhomeschooling teachers for modular learning during the COVID-19 crisis in the Philippines. Their findings
showed that Parents fully supported the government’s educational policies during COVID-19. These policies
include closing all the educational establishments and delaying the reopening of schools “to give teachers
enough preparation time for the new normal.” Parents also supported the “government’s strategic plan ofhelping students pursue learning at home (Agaton & Cueto, 2021).” However, the findings have underscoredthe fact that parents have encountered various challenges from the new learning mode in virtual settings since
the pandemic started. Some of them are as follows: delivery of instruction; unsatisfactory learning outcomes;
financial difficulties while working for the family during lockdown; struggle with the use and availability oftechnology; and personal problems regarding health, stress, and learning style.
Cahapay (2021) has conducted a similar study, with the main focus on mothers’ involvement in the remotelearning of their children amid the COVID-19 crisis. This study found that parents consider remote learning
strategies as “bringing many changes in the ways of learning (Cahapay, 2021, p.7),” and they have not only to“adjust some spaces and routines at home but they also to adjust to the new environment (ibid, p.7).” Therefore,
this sudden adjustment was very “difficult as they also have to deal with changes in other spheres of their daily
lives such as work (ibid, p.9).” The research also showed a kind of optimism among parents despite these
difficulties. Some parents thought that the remote learning due to the crisis helped them somehow to connect
with the child physically and emotionally. Parents also tried to “adapt to the new situation created by the covid19 outbreak as much as possible and therefore focus on the essential end that learning may still occur amid the
difficult situation (ibid, p.7).”
Palma (2021) conducted a study in the Philippines. The researcher described the parents with children atelementary school perception toward the new learning modalities adopted because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study concluded that many parents changed their children from private to public schools. Many of themwere committed and supportive of their children’s homeschooling, especially the parents with children in
private schools. The study also mentions that parents perceive that teachers have a vital role in adopting any
changing of learning modalities. The parents were not aware of their duties and skills (Palma, 2021).
Against these findings, the present study aims to identify parents’ main challenges with homeschooling4during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. The novelty of this research lies in its particular focus on
lived experiences of the parents who only have children at elementary schools in the Philippines.

3. Problem Statement
Education is a universal right and is crucial for fulfilling other rights. Primary Education is universal andcompulsory (UNESCO, 2020). However, the fulfillment of this right might be threatened because of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Like many countries worldwide, since 2020, the Philippines has been affected by the COVID-19
pandemic. After approximately a year of school closures, they are still not open (Joviland, 2021). As a result,the Ministry of Education of the Philippines released Alternative Learning Modes. The document is referred
to as Order #21 and is a guideline for homeschooling methods. In general, two remote learning methods areindicated, namely, remote and online. Modular style is individualized and consists of self-learning throughprinted or digital modules like textbooks, activity sheets, and other materials. Students can progress in learningwith the assistance of teachers by telephones calls, messages, and other means (Llego, 2020). It requires
schools to prepare a set of exercises and the children to complete and return them within the deadline.
The other homeschooling method is online. This mode uses online resources such as computers,
smartphones, and the internet to deliver lessons to students. The online learning method is internet-based, live,
and requires teachers and students to have a stable internet connection during the lessons, interactions, andreal-time responses (Llego, 2020). Both homeschooling modalities are being implemented in the Philippines
and assumed as a new normal. However, there are some challenges when implementing these methods.
Challenges include a lack of resources like electricity, internet connection, and electronic devices likecomputers, iPad, and smartphones necessary for online learning. In the Philippines, many students face thechallenges of unstable and slow Internet connections (Baticulon, 2021). For the Modular style, parents play anessential role. It was reported that they have to struggle with unwilling children, and sometimes teachers
discovered that parents or guardians completed the activities on behalf of their children (De Guzman, 2021).
In general, there are many challenges associated with homeschooling, such as the requirement of parents’supervision and knowledge to help with their children’s homeschool tasks (Nakpil, 2019). The participation ofparents in homeschooling their children at the elementary level is more demanding, since at this level thestudents do not have the ability to guide their own self-learning.

4. Research Objectives and Research Questions
This study aims to research the current situation and parents’ experience of homeschooling in the Philippines
during the COVID-19 pandemic by conducting a questionnaire survey. The main objective of this study is to
identify Filipino parents’ opinions on homeschooling during the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges they
have encountered. This research attempts to answer the following questions in order to achieve this objective.
5

Main research questionHow have parents experienced homeschooling during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines?

Sub-research questions
What are the main challenges parents have encountered when implementing homeschooling during the
COVID-19 pandemic?

What are the parents’ opinions regarding their homeschooling experience during the COVID-19
pandemic?

5. Research Methodology
This study adopted a quantitative research method for data collection. This method allowed us to work withcomplex data and better analyze the challenges of homeschooling at the elementary school level. The datacollection instrument was an online survey. It was designed to collect information about the experience ofparents living with children in elementary school in the National Capital Region (NCR). The survey was
divided into the following sections:1.

Basic information – the questions are related to the social demographic background, including gender,family composition, and economic situation.

2.

Homeschooling experience – this section collects data about the characteristics of the homeschoolingsituation during the COVID-19 pandemic—facts like hours of studying, educational resources, and family
members’ involvement with children’s studies.

3.

Homeschooling Opinions – parents were asked to express their opinions regarding the homeschoolingexperience. The responses are given through the Likert scale.

4.

Final comments – the questions are open-ended for the respondents to answer.
This study also used secondary data from the Philippine government, such as an official report publishedby the Ministry of Education and K12 Program Education Guidelines. The data contributes to understanding
the Philippian education system.

6. Summary of Data
6.1 Characteristics of Respondents (Parents)
179 parents living in the NCR assisting their children’s homeschooling at the elementary level answered theonline survey. Half of the respondents reside in Manila and Quezon City. The majority of respondents havefull-time jobs; the rest of them have either part-time jobs or are self-employed in one way or another, with only
11 of them

being unemployed. A third of the respondents said they work 40 hours per week, accounting foran average income of 43,000 PHP, with a couple of cases averaging a more significant amount than this. Morethan 80% of the respondents have either a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree. These figures show the respondentsof this survey have a higher level of education and more income than average in the Philippines.
6Figures 1: Demographics of Respondents(a) Residence(b) Gender and Marialites(c) Age(d) Educational background(e) Monthly income (unit: PHP)

7

6.2 Characteristics of Respondents’ Children (Elementary School Students)
One hundred seventy-nine parents provided information of 224 elementary school level children because someof them have more than one child going to elementary schools simultaneously. One of the households had four
elementary school students in Grade 6, 5, 4, and 3. As the following figures show, more than half of them areboys. There is a similar percentage for each grade, but slightly more children in the lower ones. 66% of children
go to public schools, and most of them experience both online and modular homeschooling styles. Onlinestyle homeschooling was adopted more at public schools than private schools.
Figures 2: Demographics of Respondents’ Children(a) Number of children per household (unit: number of children)(b) Gender(c) Grade(d) Type of school and homeschooling (unit: number of children)86.3 Internet Access and Connection
Since many schools offer online-style homeschooling in the Philippines, the survey also asked about thesituation of internet access and connection. Since they live in the NCR, internet access and connection aremuch better than in other regions. 95% of them have a stable internet connection at home. Most of them have
Wi-Fi, but around 10% use only phone wire internet connection. It means they might face difficulties if theirchildren have to attend many online classes or other family members want to use the phone during the classes.
Figures 3: Internet Access and Connection(a) Stable internet access at home(b) Type of internet at home (unit: number of respondents)

97. Findings
7.1 Challenges of homeschooling in Manila
In the survey, parents were asked to answer the question: What are the challenges of home studying you haveexperienced? A list of possible challenges was provided, and the parents selected as many as applied to theirexperiences. As a result, it was found that most of the parents have faced several challenges regarding theirchildren’s homeschooling, which include financial issues, internet-related, material, time, teaching, difficulty
concentrating, space, electricity, and others. The biggest challenge was noise, which was pointed out by almost
80% of the parents. More than half of them mentioned children’s unwillingness to study and lack of teachingexperience.
Figure 4: Challenges of HomeschoolingNo significant differences were observed based on characteristics of children (age, gender, grade, number ofsiblings) or characteristics of parents (age, gender, job, and working hours). Nevertheless, the type ofhomeschooling may be affected differently. As Figure 6 shows, noise and children’s unwillingness to study arehigher in Modular compared with Online. This may indicate that online learning

is more attractive forchildren than the modular type.
Figure 5: Challenges of Homeschooling by Type of Homeschooling10In addition to the multiple-choice question, the parents were also asked to write about the challenges as an
open-ended question. For the question, about 25% of parents indicated that an unstable internet connection
was one of the problems. One father mentioned that his daughter’s study time was reduced during the pandemic
because of internet connection problems. He worried that his daughter might not be able to go to the next
grade because of the lack of knowledge. Although they live in NCR, which is the economic center of thePhilippines, the internet condition is not good enough for attending many classes online.
Previous studies pointed out mothers and a fathers play different roles in their children’s education. For
example, Petts et al. (2020) said that child care issues fall in household activities, and it is not expected to be
assumed mainly as a father’s activities. The answers for the multiple-choice question led to the conclusion thatregardless of the gender, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the same challenges. Both males and females
face similar challenges for their children’s homeschooling. However, the answers for the open-ended question
show that males and females have slightly different perceptions toward these challenges. As the figures below
show, the female respondents, mothers, wrote more about lack of time, difficulties in teaching, and children’sconcentration. On the other hand, the male respondents, fathers, mentioned more about the material challenges,
such as lack of necessary hardware or internet connection.
There was no marked difference in the challenges by their residence.
Figures 6: Challenges of Homeschooling by Gender(a) Female respondents (Mothers)(b) Male respondents (Fathers)

7.2 Necessary Support for HomeschoolingMore than 85% of parents answered that they need support for homeschooling. 22% indicated they needfinancial support. They need support to solve internet connection problems and to purchase the hardware
necessary to attend online classes. About 23% needed teaching support since they were worried about whether
or not they could teach their children properly. Some parents expressed that they needed some form of mental
support.
11

Figures 7: Support for Homeschooling(a) Demand for support(b) Type of support needed by parents

Figure 8 shows that fathers and mothers have different opinions about homeschooling support. Fathers tend topoint out the technical aspects, such as financial, time, and teaching support. On the other hand, mothers tend
to mention mental or moral support, in addition to the technical side. For instance, nearly 15% of mothers
mentioned support for tutoring, while only 4.5% of fathers said so. The opinion toward necessary support
seems to be related to the challenges they pointed out in the previous section.
In addition, as Figure 9 shows, most of the parents need support no matter where they live.
Figure 8: Support for Homeschooling by Gender

Figure 9: Support for Homeschooling by Residence

127.3 Assistance for Children
Over 95% of parents feel that their children need assistance for homeschooling. According to the parents, there
are two types of assistance they provide to their children. The first one is teaching/helping them to answer
printed worksheets. One of the parents said, “I may like a teacher. I tell him what to do.” As pointed out in theprevious section, some parents feel the questions on the modules are hard. One said, “They need assistance onanswering the modules; there are lectures that appear confusing for grade 3.” Another also mentioned that
“The question in the module is sometimes hard to understand and someone needed to clarify the question.”
However, as Figures 7 in the previous section show, many parents feel they need support for teaching. It meansthat they think that they cannot teach as well as teachers at schools.
The other assistance is setting up necessary gadgets for online classes. Since some students are notfamiliar with starting up the computer, connecting to Wi-Fi, or entering a password to see the school’s website,
parents have to do all of the preparation.
According to the parents, most of them always support their children’s studies. There is an extensive range,from a few minutes to 10 hours per day. Some families have a strategy: “mother supports from 10:00 AM to
2:00 PM, and father supports from 2:00 to 3:00 PM.” Other family members, including cousins, siblings,
uncles, aunts, and grandparents also spend their time helping children study. However, as Figure 11 shows,mothers tend to spend more time on their children’s studies than other family members. It means mothers tend
to have more burden of implementing homeschooling.
Figure 10: Time for Supporting Children’s Study

7.4 Perception toward Homeschooling
Almost 80% of parents believe regular schooling before COVID-19 was better than homeschooling. Most ofthem mentioned that the students could focus more on studying in the classrooms with teachers. They also
pointed out that children could have more experience at school by joining various activities with their friends.
One of the parents answered, “I think my child will discover a lot at school, and he will socialize more.” Itmeans that parents consider school a place to gain new knowledge and interact with others and develop social
skills. However, there are still some parents who prefer homeschooling. One of them gave the reason as “Wehave plenty of time together and can join his class and see how he behaves.” As some previous studies pointed
out, homeschooling might be good for parents who are willing to spend more time with their children.
However, as Figures 11 shows, father and mother have different opinions. Fathers are less opposed to the13introduction of homeschooling, while mothers prefer regular schooling over homeschooling. The bias in the
responses between males and females is apparent because mothers are more burdened than fathers about
homeschooling.
There was no correlation between their current living place and their preferences. No matter where they
live, they answered that they preferred regular schooling as before the pandemic.
Figures 11: Parents Preference of Schooling Type(a) Male respondents (Fathers)(b) Female respondents (Mothers)

One of the reasons for parents preferring regular school was study time. About 60% of parents feel children’s
study time decreased or slightly decreased during homeschooling (Figure 12). There was no difference basedon the type of homeschooling, characteristics of children (like age, gender, grade, number of siblings), orcharacteristics of parents (age, gender, job, and working hours). The reasons can be divided into two. First, it
was because the actual time of the lesson had been reduced. One of them said that “From Monday to Friday,
from 7 AM to 4 PM classes had been reduced to fewer days.” Another parent also mentioned that “before thepandemic, the school hours were about 6 hours. In the online class, it’s only 3 hours.” It shows the challenges
for schools in securing enough study time for children during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 12: Study Time compared to Regular Schooling

14

Moreover, according to the survey, some subjects such as arts, music, and physical education have beencanceled in some schools. However, these are important for children’s social and emotional development,
especially for young children. The schools also have to consider how to provide these opportunities to children.
The other reason for the reduced study time is that children cannot focus on studying while at home. Someparents are worried when they see their children watching TV, playing games, and playing at home during thedaytime on weekdays.
Some parents answered that the study time had been increased. According to them, it was because they
were watching children studying. Some of them said the contents of printed modules seem to be more difficult
than regular schooling’s contents, so it takes more time to understand. One of the parents gave a different
answer. He said his children came to study more because they could advance as far as they liked.

8. Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives of millions of people worldwide. From education to politics
and even the status of the health system itself, there is no untouched area by the effects of the pandemic. In
many developing countries, such as the Philippines, these effects have had a profound impact on the people,
affecting their lifestyles, their ability to work, and the education of their children. The government of thePhilippines, like many other countries, has implemented various measures to alleviate the situation with regard
to the education of children in the lower primary grades. Most of them, however, were borne by parents who
had to take on the role of educators of children who were physically unable to attend school.
The situation was no different in the National Capital Region (NCR), where parents pointed out various
challenges they faced while spending time with their children through homeschooling. The majority of the
respondents agreed with the need for support because of the many challenges they faced during this time.
Noise, quality of teaching materials, lack of parents’ teaching experience, and children’s unwillingness to study
were the main challenges during the homeschooling experience. It is not surprising, therefore, that “teaching”
and “finances” were the two areas of support most desired by the respondents. When comparing themunicipalities in NCR, there does not seem to be a marked difference. The need for help and difficulties inhomeschooling, both online and in modular styles, were common in all municipalities. Of course, the type of
support varied from case to case, but the responses were more uniform in this regard.
Finally, we must mention the difficulties that this study had. Because of the COVID-19 restrictions still inplace at the time of data collection, it was not possible to obtain a more in-depth perspective from parents.
There were several sections in the questionnaire where parents expressed their concerns and opinions, but thismay not be enough to gain a deeper understanding of their overall experience. Further research is needed tobetter identify the regional differences in the NCR in the Philippines.

15References
Agaton, C. & Cueto, L. (2021). Learning at home: Parents’ lived experiences on distance learning during
COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education(IJERE), 10 (3), 901-911.
Baticulon, R. E., Sy, J. J., Alberto, N. R. I., Baron, M. B. C., Mabulay, R. E. C., Rizada, L. G. T., Tiu, C. J. S.,
Clarion, C. A., and Reyes J. C. B. (2021). Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: A
national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Medical science educator, 31(2), 615-626.
Cahapay, M. B. (2020). How Filipino parents home educate their children with autism during COVID-19
period, International Journal of Developmental Disabilities.
Cahapay, M. B. (2021). Involvement of Parents in Remote Learning of Children amid COVID-19 Crisis in thePhilippines: A Transcendental Phenomenology. International Journal of Sociology of Education.
De Guzmán, C. (2021). The Philippines Still Hasn’t Fully Reopened Its Schools Because of COVID-19.
What Is This Doing to Children? Retrieved February 9, 2022 from https://time.com/6124045/schoolclosures-covid-education-philippines/
Joviland, R. (2021). UNICEF: Philippine education sector hurt by long COVID-19 break. GMA News
Online. Retrieved February 9, 2022 fromhttps://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/777270/unicef-philippine-education-sector-hurt-bylong-covid-19-break/story/
Llego, M. (2020). DepEd learning deliver modalities for school year 2021-2022. Professional Learning
Online Community of Teachers and for Teachers. Retrieved February 9, 2022 fromhttps://www.teacherph.com/deped-learning-delivery-modalities/
Martin, J. (2020). What is homeschooling? A Guide for Parents and Students. Retrieved February 9, 2022 fromhttp://www.parents.com/kids/education/home-schooling/homeschool-ing-101-what-ishomeschooling/
Nakpil, D. (2020). Education in the face of a pandemic: Should parents shift to homeschooling?. CNN.
Retrieved February 9, 2022 from https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/5/12/Educationpandemic-homeschooling-.html
Palma, A. (2021). Homeschooling and the Learning Modalities in the Philippines During COVID-19.
Academia Letters, Article 923.
Petts, R. J., Carlson, D. L., and Pepin, J. R. (2021). A gendered pandemic: Childcare, homeschooling, andparents’ employment during COVID-19. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(S2), 515–534.
Reyes, M. (2012). When School is home. The three-pronged nature of homeschooling and its consequenceson children learning. Psychology Department. College of Liberal Arts. De La Salle University.
UNESCO (2020). What you need to know about the right to education. Retrieved February 9, 2022 fromhttps://en.unesco.org/news/what-you-need-know-about-right-education

16

Appendix: Survey Questions
Section I - Basic information
1. What is your gender?
a. Manb. Womanc. Non-binary/third gender d. Prefer not to answer

2. What is your age?
3. Where were you born? (Please write your country of origin)
a. In the Philippines

b. Other (Please specify___________________)

4. Where do you currently live?
a. City of Manila

b. Mandaluyongc. Marikina

d. Pasig e. Quezon City f. San Juang. Caloocan h. Malabon i. Navotas j. Valenzuela k. Las Piñas l. Makati m. Muntinlupa
n. Parañaque

o. Pasay p. Pateros q. Taguig

5. Which languages are you capable of speaking fluently? (Select all that apply)
a. Filipino b. English

c. Other (Please specify _______________________)

6. What is the highest degree or level of education that you have completed?
a. Elementaryb. Secondary (Before K-12)

d. Senior Secondary: SHS(K-12)

c. Lower Secondary: JHS (K-12)

e. Bachelor’s degree

f. Master’s degree g. Ph.D. degree

h. Other (Please specify)
7. What is your current marital status?
a. Single b. Marriedc. Widower/Widow d. Separated

e. Other (Please specify_______________________)
8. What is your employment status?
a. Full-time b. Part-time c. Freelancer

d. Self-employed e. Retired f. Unemployed

9. Approximately how many hours do you work per week?
10. What is your job?
11. Approximately, what is your house's average monthly income (including everyone in your household)?
12. Do you receive financial support besides your salary (from government, NGOs, relatives, and so on.)?
a. Yes (Please specify how much you received _________________ PhP/Month)b. No

13. Do you have stable internet access or contract-based internet access (pre-paid) at your home?
a. Yes b. No
14. What is the type of internet connection you have?
a. Phone wire b. Optic Fiber c. Wireless connection (Wifi)
d. None of the above (Please specify________________________ )15. How many people live with you? Please write the number.
16. With whom do you live? (Select all that apply)
a. Spouse/partnerb. Child/children c. My parent(s)e. Others (Please specify____________________)
17

d. My spouse’s/partner’s parent(s)17. How many children do you have? Please write the number.
18. Please tell us about your children.
18-1. Does your 1st child live with you?
a. Yes b. No (Go to the next child)
18-2. How old is your 1st child? Please write the number.
18-3. What is your 1st child’s gender?
a. Male b. Female c. Non-binary/third gender d. Prefer not to answer
18-4. What is your 1st child’s education status?
a. Not a student (Go to the next child) b. Kindergarten student (Go to the next child)c. Elementary school student

d. Lower secondary school (JHS) student (Go to the next child)e. Senior secondary school (SHS) student (Go to the next child)f. University or higher education student (Go to the next child)g. Other (Please specify__________) (Go to the next child)
18-5. What type of elementary school does your 1st child attend?
a. Public schoolb. Private school c. Other (Please specify____________________)

18-6. Which grade is your 1st child in? Please write the number.
Section II - Homeschooling experience
Please answer the following questions about your children attending elementary school.
19. Do your children going to elementary school have any experience of homeschooling?
a. Yes b. No
20. What kind of homeschooling system do your children receive?
a. Online classes b. Printed worksheet c. Both printed worksheets and online classes
d. Other (please, specify_______________________________).
21. How many times per month do you communicate with the school?
22. How do you communicate with the school?
a. Visit the school b. Talk to teacher on phonec. Send text messagesd. Other (Please specify____________________)(Worksheets only)
23. Do you receive any assistance from the school on how to use the worksheet?
a. Yes b. No
24. What assistance do you receive from school?
a. Printed guideline of how to use the worksheetb. Lecture/Seminar about how to use the worksheetc. Individual consultation to ask how to use the worksheet
d. Other (Please specify_____________________)
18

25. How frequently do you receive the worksheets from the school?
26. How do you receive the worksheets from the school?
a. I go to the school to receive the worksheets
b. My children go to the school to receive the worksheetsc. My family members go to the school to receive the worksheets
d. The school send the worksheets by email
e. Other (Please specify_____________________)(Online classes only)
27. Are the online classes recorded or live?
a. Recorded (videos)b. Live (online meeting)

28. Which software do your children use for online classes? (Select all that apply)a. Zoom b. Microsoft Teams c. Facebook d. WhatsApp e. Youtube
f. Google classroom g. Google meet h. Other (Please indicate_________________________)
29. Which equipment do your children use for online classes? (Select all that apply).
a. Smartphone b. Tablet c. Laptop

d. PC e. TV

f. Other (Please, specify_____________________)(For everyone)
30. Do the children need any assistance with homeschooling?
a. Yes b. No
31. Please tell us what assistance they need?
32. Please select all the subjects your children had been learning before the COVID-19 pandemic.
a. Language (Filipino)d. Natural Sciencesb. Language (English) c. Language (Other languages)

e. Mathematics f. Social Sciences

g. Music h. Arts

i. Physical Education j. Others (please specify_____________________)
33. Please select all the subjects your children learn/ have been learning under the COVID-19 pandemic.
a. Language (Filipino)d. Natural Sciencesb. Language (English) c. Language (Other languages)

e. Mathematics f. Social Sciences

g. Music h. Arts

i. Physical Education j. Others (please specify_____________________)
34. How many days do your children have lessons per week before the COVID 19 pandemic?
a. 1 to 2 days per week b. 3 to 4 days per week c. 5 or more days per week.
35. How many days do your children study per week during the COVID 19 pandemic (including
homeschooling)?
a. 1 to 2 days per week b. 3 to 4 days per week c. 5 or more days per week.

1936. Compared with the time before COVID-19, what do you think about the study time of your children?
(Likert scale)
37. Please tell us why do you feel like Q36.
38. How often do your family members support your children’s homeschooling? (Likert scale)
You Your spouse/partner Elder children Others (Please specify___________)
39. How many minutes a day, on average, do you spend on your children's studies?
40. How many minutes a day, on average, do your partner or spouse spend on your children's studies?
41. How many minutes a day, on average, do people other than you or your partner/spouse spend on yourchildren’s studies?
42. Do you believe your child will be able to go to the next grade in School Year (SY) 2022?
a. Yes (Go to Q44) b. No (Go to Q43)
43. Please tell us why you think your child will not be able to go to the next grade?
44. What are the challenges/obstacles of home studying? (Select all applicable)
a. Noiseb. Lack of place for studying (study room) c. Lack of teaching experienced. Child’s unwillingness to study e. Inadequate studying materialg. Lack of time for studying

f. Lack of time for teachingh. Other (Please, specify__________________________)

45. Comparing to the regular schooling before COVID19, how do you think about homeschooling?
a. I prefer homeschooling b. I prefer normal schooling as before COVID-19
c. Either way is OK for us d. Other (Please specify___________)
46. Please let us know the reason for your answer to Q45.
47. If you had to choose, which homeschooling mode for your children would you prefer?
a. Printed worksheetb. Online classes c. Combination of Printed worksheet and online classes

d. Other (Please specify___________)
48. Please justify your answer for Q47.
Section III - Homeschooling perceptions.
49. Please, answer honestly the questions provided by selecting a proper grading from 1 to 5 (Likert scale).


It has been difficult to teach my children at home.



The quality of education of my child has changed for the better after the COVID-19 pandemic
commencement?

The performance of my child at studying has improved during the COVID-19 pandemic.

My current teaching abilities are more than enough to teach my children at home.

I think my children are learning what they need to learn.



COVID-19 has impacted my children’s education in a negative way.



COVID-19 has had a bigger effect on public schools rather than private schools.

20Section IV
50. What other problems do you have with homeschooling besides those mentioned above?
51. Do you think you need any support for homeschooling?
a. Yes (Go to Question 51) b. No (End of the questionnaire)
52. Please explain what kind of support you need.

21

22

Working Group 2

Gender Inequality in Education Attainment in the Philippines:
Does Return to Education Perception Matter?

Group Members:
Aldino Maria Andre
Gerald Chizonda
Ryo Tsukamoto*
Yoshiki Ito
Yuka Kimura

Advisor:Dr. Christian Otchia* Group Leader

23

Table of Contents
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Research Objectives
2. Literature Review
2.1 Perceived Return to Education
2.2 The Local Context in the Philippines
2.3 Policy Practice: K-12 Program
3. Data and Methodology
3.1 Data
3.2 Sampling
3.3 Variables
3.4 Descriptive Analysis
3.5 Methods
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Regression Results
4.2 Oaxaca Decomposition
5. Conclusion and Policy Implication
References
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B: Results

24Abstract
Education is critical for a country’s development and vital for poverty alleviation. When it comes to the caseof the Philippines, there is a stagnant gender disparity in educational attainment, where men’s educational
attainment is lower than that of women despite men having higher returns to education than women. It posesa danger of failing to achieve equality in education attainment. This study, therefore, explores how to promote
gender equality in educational attainment in the Philippines. It investigates the role of the perceived returns to
education in explaining the gender disparity in educational attainment. We conducted regression analysis andOaxaca decomposition on our primary data and made two main findings. Firstly, the regression analysis
supports our hypothesis that a gender difference in anticipated returns may affect educational attainment. Our
results are robust as adding control factors such as fathers’ and mothers’ education levels, location, age, andrespondent’s education level, the magnitude, and sign of gender coefficient remained almost constant. The
findings reveal that only gender was a significant determinant in our sample’s variations in anticipated returns
to schooling. Secondly, the Oaxaca decomposition reveals that risk, father’s education, willingness to share,and individual personality explain the gender gap in perceived returns to education.
Our results have several policy implications. Policymakers can improve men’s education attainment by
increasing risk-taking behavior among males by including subjects in the school curriculum that emphasize
the importance of taking education as an investment. Life skills centered on transforming individual behavior
such as giving to the needy, volunteering without expecting something in return would also reduce the motiveof dropping out from school to get faster money. Most importantly, making information available to students
in schools about possible opportunities in the future would motivate them to pursue further education hence
achieving the goal of gender equality in educational attainment.
Key Words: Educational Attainment, Gender, Subjective Expectation, Philippines25

1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation
Education plays a vital role in developing a country, and it is a crucial instrument in poverty alleviation. Most
importantly, it serves also as a tool to close the gap between the rich and the poor; hence it is considered a
global concern (Walker J. et al. l. 2019, 5). The United Nations addressed the need for inclusive and equitableeducation through various actions and plans such as the Dakar Framework for Action on Education for All(2000). The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI 2002) reaffirmed the Millennium Development Goal
2 (MDGs 2). It compromised to achieve universal and eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary
education at all levels by 2015. This commitment was then re-adopted by the UN General Assembly andincluded in the SDGs to be achieved by 2030 as a post-2015 agenda and urged countries to achieve this goal.
One of the primary targets of this goal is to “eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal accessto all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities,
indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations” (SDGs 4.5). Although countries or internationalorganizations, including the UN or African Development Bank, are trying to achieve the desired outcome,statistics worldwide show that there is still a long way to this achievement. Promoting women’s education has
been one striking feature of education policies, mainly because women were lagging in different parts of theworld, especially Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.
While the world strives to reach gender parity in education, the Philippines is one of the few countries
that has overcome the gender gap in senior roles and professional and technical positions, changing thecommon trends of males ahead of women and achieving gender parity (Global Gender Report 2021). In fact,
after World War II, the government had more educated males than females. A Medium-Term Philippine
Development Plan 2004-2010 Report (2004) indicated that the participation rate of female pupils at theelementary level was slightly higher than that of the male pupils, 90.87 % and 89.26%, respectively. However,the female pupils’ participation rate was far more than that of the male pupil at the secondary level, 62.35%,
and 53.80%, respectively. The trend started reversing around the 1970s when women surpassed males in
educational attainment (ibid).
The 2000 Global Gender Gap Report of the World Economic Forum indicated that school enrolment inprimary education is almost equal for both boys and girls. However, the gap is larger at the higher educationlevel in the Philippines (WEF 2020), where the ratio is approximately 1.32 women per 1 male in the tertiary
education enrolment (ibid). This makes the Philippines rank 39th globally on educational gender disparity and1st in secondary and tertiary education.

1.2 Statement of the Problem
Despite the impressive progress in women’s educational attainment, recent evidence suggests that gender wage
gaps remain persistent, especially at higher levels of education. Figure 1 shows estimates of the returns toschooling in the Philippines from the World Bank’s STEP Skills Measurement 2016 data. It also shows that
returns for men are higher than women for those who have a college degree.
26

Figure1: Actual returns to education by gender and degree, Philippines

Source: Authors’ calculations, based on the World Bank STEP Skills Measurement Household
Survey 2015-2016 data.
Note: This figure shows the returns to education estimated from the World Bank STEP data. The
data was collected in 2016 in Urban Philippines, but women are underrepresented in
Tertiary education. The figure shows that males’ returns to education are higher in tertiary
education.
Despite men having higher returns to education, their educational attainment is lower than that of women, as
was discussed previously. They are behind women in terms of educational attainment. What is puzzling is why
men invest less in education while their returns are high? From the STEP data, we understand that perception
rather than wages influence people’s choices in attaining education. This study, therefore, explored whether
the perceived return to education is different between women and men in the Philippines. Jensen (2012) statesthat it is not actual wages that influence educational attainment, rather it is the perceived returns. For instance,a case study of the Dominican Republic found that the perceived returns by secondary school students are low
despite high measured actual returns (ibid).

1.3 Research Objectives
This paper explores how to promote gender equality in educational attainment in the Philippines. It investigates
the role of the perceived returns to education in explaining the gender disparity in educational attainment.
Specifically, we ask the following questions:• Is there a gender gap in the perceived returns to education?
• What factors explain the gender gap in the perceived returns to education?
27

2. Literature Review
2.1 Perceived Return to Education
Since the emergence of human capital theory in the 1950s, scholars turned to view education as a form ofinvestment, where costs are viewed as a discounted stream of expected benefits, particularly in the form ofwages (Jensen, 2012). In other words, investment in education turned out to be dealt with as a means to increase
future productivity.
This shift in academic perspective attracted much attention from educational economists and produced
many empirical studies (Ashenfelter & Krueger, 1994; Card & Krueger, 1992; Duflo, 2001; Oreopoulos, 2006).
Mainly, they aimed to estimate the increased level of wages by multiple variables in the supply side, such as
an additional year of schooling led by compulsory law, school quality, teachers’ quality, school construction,and the like. The key finding of their research is that especially low-education subgroups affected by policy
intervention can benefit from the higher marginal return to education, reflecting their high marginal cost of
schooling (Card, 2001). Previous studies also suggest that returns are highest for primary education, the generalcurricula, the education of women, and countries with the lowest per capita income (Psacharopoulos, 1985).
Another generally shared finding is that investment in the secondary academic curriculum is better in returnthan the vocational track because of the higher unit cost of vocational education (Psyacharopoulos, 1994). Also,
those who work in the competitive private sector tend to get higher returns than those in the public sector(Psyacharopoulos, 1994).
However, once we move our scope and ask what defines youth’s choice behavior in education, Jensen(2012) mentions that “typical students make their schooling decisions based on limited or imperfect
information” (p.515). In other words, they are most likely to have less information that suggests their future
return. Therefore, it is recognized that parents’ or students’ perceived return to education is a more plausible
indicator that contributes to their schooling choices. While there is usually an antipathy among economists forcollecting subjective data, there are a number of important studies. For instance, a case study of the Dominican
Republic by Jensen (2012) found that the perceived returns by secondary school students are low despite highmeasured actual returns. He argued that their low perception of the return to education would result in anundersupply of skilled laborers that inhibit domestic development, which is why his suggestion includes theprovision of information to them. Mcguigan et al. (2016) conducted a randomized controlled trial in secondary
schools in London, where they implemented an information campaign with treated groups via a website. They
found that the intervention strongly influenced their intention to pursue post-compulsory education. It is
exceptionally robust for those more likely to drop out early from full-time education (i.e., students from lowerincome backgrounds). Bleemer & Zafar (2018) also conducted randomized information experiments in the US.
Their survey provided two independent pieces of information to the treated group: (1) college-educatedworkers’ annual earnings relative to those who have not attended, and (2) the average annual net costs of public
and private universities in the US. Their finding is that respondents, especially disadvantaged, are morereactive to the former information rather than cost beliefs. Those who received the information of future returns
have increased attendance expectations. Supposedly, household heads may have underestimated the benefits
and overestimated the net costs of obtaining a college degree.
28

These previous studies imply that providing information to marginalized groups is likely to significantly
enhance their perceived return to education, which may, in turn, improve school attendance. This analyticalscope can better fit with the context of developing countries where people might obtain less information due
to multiple reasons, such as poverty and credit constraints, high discount rate, the disparity between urban andrural areas, or simply mismeasured returns (Attanasio, 2009; Jensen, 2012). Their situation that educational
attainment is generally low despite the high level of measured returns also implies the importance of analyzing
the perceived return to education rather than the actual return to education to understand their choice behavior
better.

2.2 The Local Context in the Philippines
The Philippines is known for its uniqueness in an educational situation where women receive more schoolingthan men. Confronted with this rare situation, multiple previous studies have reported boy’s lagging behindsituation in education. David et al. (2009) found through the average score of the National Achievement Testin the year 2006-2007 that girls outscored boys in every single subject, especially in English, Filipino, and thelike. Since their dropout rates are also higher than that of women, they suggest that policymakers need toaddress the motivational challenge for boys in attending school and its underlying causes.
This disparity might be attributed to parental choice behavior linked to social conditions. Estudillo et al.
(2001), for example, argued that in the recent generation, male children prefer to inherit land whereas female
children are treated favorably to receive schooling investment. According to the authors, this is related toparents’ assumption that rice farming is intensive in male labor to gain a higher return. In contrast, women tend
to receive higher returns on their education. In a nutshell, parents might decide based on their children’s
comparative advantage, either in agricultural or non-agricultural occupation; since women have a comparativeadvantage in the non-agricultural sector, they are more likely to be enrolled in education. They also mention
that this diversification of investment in children is a parent’s strategy to be taken care of by them: anintergenerational support system (Estudillo et al., 2001).
This inheritance pattern equals the lifetime wealth level between sons and daughters. However, otherstudies imply that this pattern would be preserved across generations, which is undesirable for gender equality
in education. Okabe (2015), for example, argued that maternal education level is associated with that of both
her daughters and sons, while paternal education level is dominantly favorable to their sons. This result
signifies boys would be stuck in a vicious cycle of low educational attainment.
Yamauchi & Tiongco (2013) explained the educational investment pattern from a different point of view.
They found that women in the Philippines still suffer from the total penalty in wages relative to men, which isunrelated to their human capital in the labor market. Therefore, they argue that schooling investment in females
is an optimal response to this labor market discrimination.
Some research tries to identify the factors that affect their educational choice behaviors, where females
are likely to get more educational attainment than males. This study, mainly focusing on their perceived returnto education, also contributes to this matter.

29

2.3 Policy Practice: K-12 Program
To equalize the disparity in educational attainment between men and women, the “K-12 Program” is adopted
in primary education in the Philippines. The K-12 Program is a basic education program based on the Enhanced
Basic Education Act of 2013. In addition to compulsory preschool education in kindergartens, a total of 12
years has been set as the basic education period, including six years of primary education, four years of
secondary school, and two years of high school (DepEd, 2019). Until then, basic education in the Philippines
was ten years, including six years of primary education and four years of secondary education.
Various factors led to the implementation of the K-12 program. The primary purpose is to cultivate
information, media, and technology skills, learning and innovation skills, and communication skills, which arenecessary for the 21st century through the implementation of this program (DepEd, 2019). In addition, thedecline in basic academic ability in the Philippines has also become a significant problem. One of the reasonsfor this is that dropouts have occurred due to the crammed education of 10 years of basic education. Thus, thePhilippines is currently reforming its basic education program.
In the Philippines, which is undergoing such reforms in basic education programs, the gender gap between
boys and girls has not yet been closed. David (2009) suggested closing the gender gap in 2009, but he points
out that the gap was not completely closed by 2018, nine years later (David, 2018). The cause of this gender
gap is the existence of out-of-school children, and David argues that the lack of schooling by the child, the costof education, and illness or disability are involved. Although the K-12 program is expected to solve these
problems, no specific interventions were carried out to address the unique challenges faced by boys.

3. Data and Methodology
3.1 Data
This study combines the World Bank STEP Skills Measurement Household Survey 2015-2016 data andprimary data collected online using Qualtrics, an online survey tool, to collect primary data in the Philippines.
The World Bank’s STEP Skills Measurement Program is the first-ever initiative to measure skills in low andmiddle-income countries. It gathers data that enables policymakers to have a better understanding of skill
requirements in the labor market, backward linkages between skills acquisition and educational achievement,
personality, and social background, and forward linkages between skills investment and living standards,
reductions in inequality and poverty, social inclusion, and economic growth.
We conducted online field-data collection using Qualtrics, a state-of-the-art online tool that enables
researchers to efficiently and reliably collect online data. Fields data remains one of the most direct andeffective means of gathering critical information about people’s actual situations. The questionnaire had three
sections: individual characteristics, time preference, and locus of control. This study took place in September
2021 and included 233 participants from rural and urban Philippines. See appendix A for the full version of
our questionnaire.

30

3.2 Sampling
Participants were selected through a randomized sampling method. Due to the study being conducted during
the COVID-19 pandemic, it could only be implemented online. Only those aged 18-25 were allowed toparticipate in the survey to improve accuracy due to the nature of the questions. Most of the questions required
logical thinking, which would challenge other age groups. Since age was a critical variable, the questionnaire
included two age filter questions. The first one was a YES/NO question that required the participant to indicate
if they belonged to the 18-25 age group. The second question asked participants to input the actual age. This
helped us identify inconsistent respondents who were later removed, remaining with 198 valid responses.

3.3 Variables
We constructed the expected returns to education by combining information from our survey and the WorldBank STEP-data in 2015 in the Philippines. The STEP data collected actual earnings segregated by level of
education. Two questions were asked to quantify expected returns to education: respondent’s expected returns
and other people’s expected returns to education, assuming they completed the next level of education. This
study, however, used data from the question on expected returns to education for others instead of their
expected returns to education. As confirmed by Jensen (2010), own expected returns suffer a problem of
optimism bias, a mistaken belief that fewer chances of experiencing an adverse event are lower than that ofone’s peers.
The next step was to standardize the variable by subtracting actual returns (obtained in STEP data 2015)
from expected returns to education collected from the survey, as shown in Equation 1. The rationale forstandardizing the variable was to reduce the differences in expected returns and actual returns to education.
ExpectedReturn′ 𝑖 =𝑋𝑖−mean(RealWage)………………….(1)mean(RealWage)

Where Xi is the expected return from primary data, and mean (RealWage) is an average real return from STEP
data.
Figure 2 is skewed to the right showing that many respondents had lower expected returns than actual
earnings. We used the density graph shown in Figure 2 to identify the group with lower expected earnings. The
graph for males is to the right and above the graph for women when we move towards the left, showing thatmost males had lower expected returns.

31

Figure 2: Expected Returns to Education (others)

Figure 3: Expected Returns to Education of Male and Female (others)

32

We also collected other important variables, including risk, discount, willingness to share, donation, andindividual personality. The risk variable is generated by asking, “Imagine that you have a choice between thefollowing two options: Option 1 – Receive 1,000 pesos for sure. OR Option 2 – Flip a coin and receive 0 if it’s
tailor 3,000 pesos if it’s head. Which option would you take?” The discount variable is based on a question
such as “Now I am going to propose to you two different options. Imagine that you have a choice between thefollowing two options: Option 1 – Receive 10,000 pesos today. OR Option 2 – receive 15,000 pesos for sure
one year from now. Which option would you take?” The variable, willingness to share, means “How would
you assess your willingness to share with others without expecting anything in return.” The donation camefrom the question of “Imagine the following situation: Today you unexpectedly received 10000 pesos. How
much of this amount would you donate to charity?” The question of “How well explains the variable ofindividual personality does the following statement describe you as a person?” I do not understand why people
spend a lifetime fighting for a cause that is not beneficial to them (On a scale from 0 to 10). – Scale.”

3.4 Descriptive Analysis
Table A.1 shows descriptive statistics for our sample, disaggregated by gender (See Appendix B). In our data,
perceived returns to education by women were higher than for men, as shown in Figure 4 below. This indicates
why women pursue further education than men in the Philippines.
Figure 4: Box Plot of Perceived Returns

333.5 Methods
Our study has two research objectives. The first objective was to investigate a gender gap in perceived returns
to education. We achieved this objective by using the Ordinary Least of Squares (OLS) method to estimate thegender gap in perceived returns to education. The study employs a Mincerian wage estimation equation,
relating wage to schooling level, work experience, and other demographic factors (Biltagy 2014). However, asJensen (2010) suggested, perceived returns influence schooling decisions, not actual returns obtained from
earnings data. Therefore, we used perceived returns in our equation instead of actual wages. Independent
variables included in the gender gap estimation regression include gender, age, schooling level (for both
respondent and parents), and location.
ExpectedReturn𝑖 = α + βfemale𝑖 + γX ′ 𝑖 + ε …… (2)Where female is a dummy variable for gender, X'i is a vector of individual characteristics, and ε is the errorterm.
The second objective was to examine factors that explain the gender gap in the perceived returns to
education. We use the Oaxaca Decomposition to investigate factors leading to the gender gap in the perceptionof returning to education.

4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Regression Results
Table A.2 shows a regression test on the perceived monthly earnings of males aged 30 to 40. We find that thedummy variable of gender is significant at a 5% confidence level through regression analysis, with females
having higher expected returns than males. The results confirm our hypothesis that a gender gap in expected
returns may influence educational attainment; The coefficient is 0.25 higher for females than males. Adding
the control variables, namely fathers’ education, mothers’ education, age, location, and respondents’ educationlevel, the results do not change, and gender remains significant. This shows that our results were robust.
Secondary and bachelor’s degrees have negative and significant coefficients because attending further
education reduces expected returns. People tend to be more realistic with how much they wish to receive ateach level of education. Perceived returns to education also slightly increased with age.

34

Table A.2: Regression Result
Dependent variable: Perceived Return to Education

Female

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

0.25**

0.29**

0.25**

0.25**

0.26**

0.25**(0.13)(0.12)(0.12)(0.13)(0.13)(0.13)

Secondary-1.52***(0.42)

bachelor’s degree-0.96**(0.42)

Age

0.06**(0.03)

location

0.12(0.13)

fa_educ_secondary

0.21(0.18)

fa_educ_bachelor’s

0.21(0.19)

fa_educ_postgrad

0.34(0.32)

mo_educ_secondary-0.10(0.20)

mo_educ_bachelor’s

0.19(0.20)

mo_educ_postgrad-0.15(0.34)

Constant-0.14

1.06**-1.45**-0.33-0.33*-0.16(0.09)(0.41)(0.62)(0.21)(0.17)(0.18)

Observations

196

196

196

196

196

196

R-squared

0.02

0.16

0.04

0.02

0.03

0.04

Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

35

The margins plot in the figure provides a visual illustration of the gender gap in expected returns to
education.
Figure 5: Gender Gap in Expected Returns to Education

4.2 Oaxaca Decomposition
The OLS regression helped confirm the gender gap in perceived returns to education. However, themethodology could not explain factors influencing the gender gap in perceived returns to education. Therefore,
the study uses Blinder-Oaxaca (B-0) Decomposition to identify factors influencing the gap. As Rahimi &Hashemi Nazari (2021) argued, the B-O methodology can show how much of the difference in mean outcome
between two groups is due to group differences in the levels of observed characteristics and how much is due
to discrimination; in this study, unknown associated factors. By identifying factors influencing the gender gap
in perceived earnings, policymakers can intervene, especially on modifiable factors identified in the study.
Table A.3 is the result of Oaxaca decomposition on expected returns to education to identify the factors
affecting the gender gap (See Appendix B). The variable, employment, stands for employment status. Table
A.3 shows that all the variables are statistically insignificant. The result was insignificant, probably because
the sample size was too small. Hence, we use the magnitude of coefficients to identify variables explaining thegender gap perceived returns. The coefficients associated with the following variables have a high magnitude:
risk at -0.0364, father’s education at -0.0100, willingness to share at -0.0699, donation at -0.0055, beneficial
at -0.0293.
The result indicates that the risk, father’s education, willingness to share, donation, and individual
personality cause a gender gap of expected returns to education. Females in our sample can be considered as
risk-takers. Hence, they chose to forgo receiving money, hoping that they would earn more in the future. Suchrisky behavior influences them to pursue higher education, hoping to make more in the future. They were also36more willing to share with others without expecting anything in return, ready to donate. They had a positive
personality by understanding people’s actions of helping others without any expectation. These results indicatethat women are more eager to spend money on uncertain things that might be valuable in the future. In otherwords, these factors suggest that women consider education as an investment more than their male counterparts,
which explains why they pursue further education.

5. Conclusion and Policy Implication
This paper presents the research findings on gender discrepancy in educational achievement in the Philippines.
It examines a gender gap in the perceived educational returns and whether they may account for genderdisparities in educational attainment. We created a measure of expected returns to education by combining
information from our survey and the STEP World Bank data in 2015 in the Philippines.
The regression analysis findings support our hypothesis that a gender difference in anticipated returns
may affect educational attainment. All control factors, including fathers’ and mothers’ education levels,
location, age, and respondent’s education level, were negligible. The findings reveal that only gender was asignificant determinant in our sample’s variations in anticipated returns to schooling. The Oaxaca
decomposition reveals that risk, father’s education, willingness to share, and individual personality contributeto the gender disparity in expected returns to education.
The results gained above should prove informative to policymakers. One way to improve males’ education
attainment would be to increase risk-taking behavior among males by including subjects in the school
curriculum that emphasize taking education as an investment. Life skills centered on transforming individual
behavior such as giving to the needy, volunteering without expecting something in return would also reducethe motive of dropping out from school to get faster money. Most importantly, making information available
to students in schools about possible opportunities in the future would motivate them to pursue further
education hence, achieving the goal of gender equality in educational attainment.

37

References
Ashenfeilter, O. and Krueger, A. (1994). Estimates of the economic return to schooling from a new sample oftwins. American Economic Review, 84(5):1157–1173.
Attanasio, O. and Kaufmann, K. (2009). Educational choices, subjective expectations, and credit constraints.
Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Biltagy, M. (2014). Estimation of gender wage differentials in Egypt using the Oaxaca decomposition
technique. Topics in Middle Eastern and African Economies, 16(1):17–42.
Bleemer, Z. and Zafar, B. (2018). Intended college attendance: Evidence from an experiment on college returns
and costs. Journal of Public Economics, 157:184–211.
Card, D. (2001). Estimating the return to schooling: Progress on some persistent econometric problems.

Econometrica, 69(5):1127–1160.
Card, D. and Krueger, A. B. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education and the characteristics
of public schools in the United States. Journal of Political Economy, 100(1):1–40.
David, C., Albert, J. R., and Carreon-monterola, S. L. (2009). In pursuit of sex parity: are girls becoming moreeducated than boys?
David, C. C., Albert, J. R. G., and Vizmanos, J. F. V. (2018). Boys are still left behind in basic education.
Duflo, E. (2001). Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in Indonesia: Evidence
from an unusual policy experiment. American economic review, 91(4):795–813.
Estudillo, J. P., Quisumbing, A. R., and Otsuka, K. (2001). Gender differences in land inheritance andschooling investments in the rural Philippines. Land Economics, 77(1):130–143.
Jensen, R. (2010). The (perceived) returns to education and the demand for schooling. The Quarterly Journalof Economics, 125(2):515–548.
Masayoshi, O. (2014). Gender-preferential intergenerational patterns in primary education attainment: aquantitative analysis of a case of rural Mindanao, the Philippines. Technical report, Institute ofDeveloping Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO).
McGuigan, M., McNally, S., and Wyness, G. (2016). Student awareness of costs and benefits of educational
decisions: Effects of an information campaign. Journal of Human Capital, 10(4):482–519.
Oreopoulos, P. (2006). Estimating average and local average treatment effects of education when compulsory
schooling laws really matter. American Economic Review, 96(1):152–175.

38

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire
Section I – Individual and household characteristics
Q1 What is your age?
Q2 How many are you in your household? (people eating from the same pot)
Q3 What is the highest degree or level of education that you have completed?
○

Primary education○

Secondary education○

Bachelor’s degree○

Master’s degree○

Ph.D. degree

Q4 How can you describe the location of the school you obtained your highest degree or level of education?
○

Urban

○

Rural

Q5 What is the highest degree or level of education of your father?
○

No Schooling○Primary education○

Secondary education○

Bachelor’s degree○

Master’s degree○

Ph.D. degree

Q6 What is the highest degree or level of education of your mother?
○

No schooling○Primary education○

Secondary education○

Bachelor’s degree○

Master’s degree○

Ph.D. degree

Q7 What is your current marital status?
○

Single○Married○Divorced

○

Widow

○

Separated

Q8 What is your employment status?
○

Full-time job○

Part-time job○

Freelancer (Self-employed)○

Unemployed but looking for job○

Student
39

Q9 What is the usual task of this job? (For example: typing, keeping account books, filing, selling cars,
operating printing press, laying bricks) Please specify.
Q10 Does your work require the use of the following tasks and competencies? Answer for each (Yes or No).
○

Advanced functions in spreadsheets such as macros and complex equations○

Book-keeping, accounting or financial software○

Presentation, graphics software○

Designing websites○

Statistical analysis or other analysis○

Software programming○

Managing computer networks

Q11 Approximately how many hours do you work per week?
Q12 Approximately, which is the most close number to your household’s TOTAL average monthly income(including everyone in your household)?

Section II: Availability of Jobs and benefits of schooling
Q13 How easy is it to get employed after finishing primary school○

Very easy

○

Easy

○

Difficult○

Very difficult

Q14 How easy is it to get employed after finishing secondary school○

Very easy

○

Easy

○

Difficult○

Very difficult

Q15 How easy is it to get employed after finishing high school (First Degree, Master or Ph.D.)○

Very easy

○

Easy

○

Difficult○

Very difficult

Q16 Do you think that a person has a better or worse chance of getting a job if he/she stays in education up
to age 18 compared to leaving school after Year 11? Would you say it is: much worse; worse; same;
better; much better.
○

Much worse

○

Worse

○

Same

○

Better○Much better40

Q17 Do you think that a person has a better or worse chance of getting a job if he/she goes to university
compared to leaving education at age 18? Would you say it is: much worse; worse; same; better; muchbetter.
○Much worse

○

Worse

○

Same

○

Better○Much better

Q18 If I get a higher degree, I will earn about the same no matter what subject I study: strongly agree; agree;
disagree; strongly disagree; don’t know.
○

Strongly disagree○

Disagree

○

Agree

○

Strongly agree

Q19 If I get a higher degree, I will earn about the same no matter what university I go to: strongly agree;
agree; disagree; strongly disagree; don’t know.
○

Strongly disagree○

Disagree

○

Agree

○

Strongly agree

Q20 Suppose, hypothetically, you were to complete the next degree after Q3’s answer, and then stopattending school. Think about the kinds of jobs you might be offered and that you might accept. How
much pesos do you think you will earn in a month when you are about 30 to 40 years old?
Q21 Now, we would like you to think about adult men who are about 30 to 40 years old and who havecompleted only the next degree after Q3’s answer. Think of anyone in the above age category
throughout the country (not just those you know personally). On average, how much pesos do you thinkthey earn in a month?

Section III – Time Preference Game
Q22 Imagine that you have a choice between the following two options:
Option 1 – Receive 1,000 pesos for sure. OR
Option 2 – Flip a coin and receive 0 if it’s tail or 3,000 pesos if it’s head. Which option would you take?
○Option 1 (TAKE THE SURE MONEY)○

Option 2 (FLIP THE COIN)

Q23 Now imagine that you have a choice between the following two options:
Option 1 – Receive 1,000 pesos for sure. OR
Option 2 – Flip a coin and receive 0 if it’s tail or 4,000 pesos if it’s head. Which option would you take?
○Option 1 (TAKE THE SURE MONEY)○

Option 2 (FLIP THE COIN)
41

Q24 Now imagine that you have a choice between the following two options:
Option 1 – Receive 1,000 pesos for sure. OR
Option 2 – Flip a coin and receive 0 if it’s tail or 2,000 pesos if it’s head. Which option would you take?
○Option 1 (TAKE THE SURE MONEY)○

Option 2 (FLIP THE COIN)

Q25 Now I am going to propose to you two different options. Imagine that you have a choice between thefollowing two options:
Option 1 – Receive 10,000 pesos today. OR
Option 2 – receive 15,000 pesos for sure one year from now. Which option would you take?
○Option 1 (TAKE THE MONEY TODAY)○

Option 2 (MONEY IN 1 YEAR)

Q26 Now imagine that you have a choice between the following two options:
Option 1 – Receive 10,000 pesos today. OR
Option 2 – receive 20,000 pesos for sure one year from now. Which option would you take?
○Option 1 (TAKE THE MONEY TODAY)○

Option 2 (MONEY IN 1 YEAR)

Q27 Now I am going to propose to you two different options. Imagine that you have a choice between thefollowing two options:
Option 1 – Receive 10,000 pesos today. OR
Option 2 – receive 12,000 pesos for sure one year from now. Which option would you take?
○Option 1 (TAKE THE MONEY TODAY)○

Option 2 (MONEY IN 1 YEAR)

Section IV: Social preference
Q28 For each of the following statements, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by writing in theappropriate number; 4 strongly agree, 3 agree, 2 disagree, 1 strongly disagree.
○

When I make plans, I am almost certain/guaranteed/sure to make them work○

I am usually able to protect my personal interests○

When I get what I want, it’s usually because I worked hard for it○

My life is determined by my own actions○

I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people○

My life is chiefly controlled by other powerful people○

People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they conflict withthose of more powerful people○

Getting what I want requires making those people above me (people with higher status) happy withme○

In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people who havepower over me○

To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental/chance happenings
42○Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck happenings○

When I get what I want, it’s usually/mostly because I’m lucky○

My experience in my life has been that what is going to happen will happen○

It’s not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of goodor bad fortune○

Going to university would mean waiting too long before I could earn a full-time wage

Q33 How would you assess your willingness to share with others without expecting anything in return, forexample your willingness to give to charity? (On a scale from 0 to 10).
Q34 Imagine the following situation: Today you unexpectedly received 10000 pesos. How much of thisamount would you donate to charity?
Q35 How well does the following statement describe you as a person? “I do not understand why people spend
a lifetime fighting for a cause that is not beneficial to them.” (On a scale from 0 to 10).
Q36 Imagine a 10-step stairs where on the bottom, the FIRST step, stand the low income people, and on thehighest step, the TENTH, stand the high income people. On which step do you think your household waswhen you were 15 years old?
Q37 Before you reached the age of 15, did you ever work outside the home, for money or in-kind?
○

Yes

○

No

43

Appendix B: Results

Table A.1: Variable Summary Statistics
Variable

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min

Max

ereturn2

196-0.0104952

0.8833245-1

3.734848

edulevel

196

2.464286

0.5394679

1

3

age

196

21.67347

2.194518

18

25

risk

196

1.933673

1.202855

1

4

discount

196

1.780612

1.158173

1

4

father’s edu

196

4.056122

2.244518

16

mother’s edu

196

3.785714

2.334798

1

6

employment

196

3.464286

1.216869

1

5

willingness to share

196

7.714286

2.1862041

10

donation

196

3682.1122760.512010000

individual personality

196

5.433673

2.790219010income level196

4.535714

2.312452

0

10

44

Table A.3: Oaxaca Decomposition
ereturn2

Coef.

Std. Err.

z

P>z[95% Conf.

Interval]group_1-0.1398802

0.0931611

-1.5

0.133

-0.3224726

0.0427121

group_2

0.1087419

0.0929051

1.17

0.242

-0.0733486

0.2908325

difference-0.2486222

0.1315687

-1.89

0.059

-0.5064922

0.0092478

explained-0.1522313

0.0741634

-2.05

0.04

-0.2975889-0.0068737

unexplained-0.0963909

0.1402585

-0.69

0.492

-0.3712925

0.1785108

edulevel-0.0028685

0.0171153

-0.17

0.867

-0.0364139

0.0306769

age-0.0003918

0.0037327

-0.1

0.916

-0.0077077

0.0069241

risk-0.0364321

0.0383679

-0.95

0.342

-0.1116318

0.0387677

discount

0.0011027

0.0069668

0.16

0.874

-0.0125519

0.0147574

father’s edu-0.0100156

0.0193441

-0.52

0.605

-0.0479293

0.0278982

mother’s edu

0.0015509

0.009756

0.16

0.874

-0.0175705

0.0206723

employment

0.0006088

0.0048269

0.13

0.9

-0.0088516

0.0100693

willingness to share-0.0699071

0.0446557

-1.57

0.117

-0.1574307

0.0176165

donation-0.0055477

0.0182555

-0.3

0.761

-0.0413278

0.0302323

individual
personality
income level-0.0292843

0.0357037

-0.82

0.412

-0.0992624

0.0406937-0.0010467

0.0124296

-0.08

0.933

-0.0254082

0.0233148

edulevel-0.208906

0.6912545

-0.3

0.762

-1.56374

1.145928

age-0.6839211

1.43733

-0.48

0.634

-3.501035

2.133193

risk

0.4820285

0.23462

2.05

0.04

0.0221816

0.9418753

discount

0.3123556

0.21499

1.45

0.146

-0.1090171

0.7337284

father's edu-0.0103303

0.2821444

-0.04

0.971

-0.5633232

0.5426625

mother's edu

0.3183818

0.2396196

1.33

0.184

-0.151264

0.7880277

employment

0.1015642

0.3874874

0.26

0.793

-0.6578972

0.8610257

willingness to share

0.4841584

0.5046667

0.96

0.337

-0.5049701

1.473287

donation

0.0019988

0.1966371

0.01

0.992

-0.3834028

0.3874003

individual
personality
income level-0.3048351

0.2480522

-1.23

0.219

-0.7910086

0.1813383-0.0268735

0.2514873

-0.11

0.915

-0.5197796

0.4660326_cons-0.5620122

1.642582

-0.34

0.732

-3.781413

2.657389

Overall

explained

unexplained

45

46

Working Group 3

University Student’s Perception and Expectations
towards Flexible Learning in the Philippines

Group Members:
Andrea Dyah Rahandini*
Bilqis Oktaviani Putri
Darleen May Claro
Jie Zhu

Advisor:Dr. Carlos Mendez* Group Leader

47

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
1.2 Literature Review
1.3 Research Objective
1.4 Research Questions
1.5 Conceptual Framework
1.6 Significance of Research
2. Methodology
2.1 Research Method
2.2 Research Site Selection
2.3 Respondents
2.4 Sampling Design
2.5 Research Instrument for Data Collection
3. Respondents’ Demographics
4. Data Results
4.1 Gender-based Perceptions and Expectations
4.1.1 Gender-Based Perceptions Analysis
4.1.2 Gender-based Expectation Analysis
4.2 Major-based Perceptions and Expectations
4.2.1 Major-based Perceptions Analysis
4.2.2 Major-based Expectations Analysis
4.3 Location-based Perceptions and Expectations
4.3.1 Location-based Perception Analysis
4.3.2 Location-based Expectation Analysis
4.4 Income-based Perceptions and Expectations
4.4.1 Income-based Perception Analysis
4.4.2 Income-based Expectation Analysis
5. Conclusions
6. Recommendations
6.1 Areas of Improvement
6.2 Improvement Strategies
6.2.1 Poor Internet Connection
6.2.2 Financial Issues
6.2.3 Academic-Related Issues
References
Appendix: Survey Questions48

1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
The COVID-19-Pandemic has forced humanity into a new normal and ushered in changes that most societies
are ill-equipped to deal with. The education sector has been hit the hardest, and the implementation of remotelearning has come with considerable challenges. The Philippine government has been heavily criticized
regarding its policies and measures in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, University students are
voicing their discontent with flexible learning through social media and street rallies. They believe that they
are not learning enough and that remote learning amidst the challenges of the pandemic is an added burden to
the students and their families (University Student Councils Call for Suspension of Online Classes amid
COVID-19 Community Quarantine, 2020; UNESCO 2020).
The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is an agency under the Office of the President that“Formulates and recommends development plans, policies, priorities, and programs on higher education”
among others (CHED: Power and Functions, n.d.). The CHED has issued Memorandum Order No. 4 series of2020, which sets the Guidelines on the Implementation of Flexible Learning on September 20, 2020. The
memorandum defined flexible learning as “a pedagogical approach allowing flexibility of time, place, andaudience, including but not solely focused on the use of technology; commonly uses the delivery methods of
distance education and facilities of education technology” (CHED MO 4-2020). The Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) shall have the academic freedom to implement available distance learning, e-learning, andother alternative modes. The Memo also gives HEIs the discretion to decide how to design their curriculum
based on the institution’s capacity. However, the memorandum was not well-received by the students, withsome student activists calling for an academic break (Mendoza, 2020). According to student activists, flexible
learning is an added burden to students who are already struggling during the pandemic. To that, CHED
Commissioner Prospero de Vera III said that the students do not understand flexible learning. There seems to
be a gap between Government policy intentions and the practical applications of the flexible learning System.
This study will examine how university students perceive flexible learning. Moreover, the authors would
also like to understand the expectations of university students regarding the flexible learning mechanisms that
their universities currently utilize.

1.2 Literature Review
The Philippine government has implemented one of the longest lockdowns in the world as a policy responseto the COVID 19 Pandemic (Hapal, 2021). As part of these lockdowns, schools closed down. According to
Tria (2020), physical distancing measures have forced the implementation of online learning, resulting indifferent problems for students and teachers. One of the significant policies implemented in schools anduniversities is online learning or virtual classrooms. Learning online may be difficult for the Philippines, whereinternet connectivity is the lowest in Asia and internet access and electronic devices are inaccessible to poor
households.
Flexible learning (FL) has no universal definition, but most literature agrees that the center of FL is thestudents’ choice on how they want their learning experience to proceed (Li, 2014). FL is a paradigm shift from49

traditional learning where the teachers or institution solely decides the method of instruction and curriculum
design. A study by Barrera et al. has explained eight principles on how to do flexible learning (2020). Flexible
access, where learners decide whether they can work individually, attend class or combine both. Recognitionof prior learning means recognizing formal and non-formal education. Flexible content is under a problemsbased curriculum that allows learners to adapt to the curriculum at their most suitable level. Flexible
participation is learners having a choice on how to participate in class; it could be scheduled or on-demand.
Flexible learning and teaching methods mean that the delivery mode is set according to the needs and capacitiesof the teachers and the students. Flexible resources mean that university resources should be accessible tostudents inside and outside the campus. Flexible assessment means assessment based on what competencies
the learner has earned and not solely on the number of requirements they have submitted. Lastly, ongoingevaluation means formative and overview assessments should be regularly checked and updated so thecurriculum could be changed in time for changes in the needs of the students.
Furthermore, the study by Barrera et al. concludes that their respondents, students, and teachers from St.
Michael College of Caraga, a private college in the Philippines, are ready for flexible learning because they
have relatively easy access to the devices necessary for online learning. Barrera et al. recommended that HEIs
have their official learning platforms and systems to allow a more engaging educational exchange. It was alsosuggested that teachers be trained to maximize the use of online platforms.
It is apparent that education has been transformed because of the health measures. In an empirical study
by Khan et al. (2020), the authors reveal an increasingly positive attitude by both students and teachers towarde-learning. However, several factors could affect this perception. These factors are age, gender, and computer
literacy. College students have a positive perception and full acceptance towards e-learning as a new learning
system to substitute offline teaching. Zabadi and Al-Alawi (2016) explored determinants of students’ attitudes
towards e-learning. Gender, technology usage, and students’ skills have a significant impact on the attitudes ofstudents towards e-learning. Additionally, e-learning serves valuable opportunities for educational
improvement regardless of economic status, spatial, and social barriers. Rhema and Miliszewska (2014), in
particular the case of Engineering students in Libya, student attitudes and beliefs towards e-learning related todemographic characteristics and access to technology. Moreover, levels of access to several technologies, suchas better access to technology and strong internet speed, generate significant positive attitudes.
Moreover, qualitative research done on 32 university students in the Philippines showed that factors suchas technological infrastructure, inadequate learning resources, conflict with home responsibilities, overloaded
lesson activities, and financial problems are some of the challenges that make FL more challenging (Rotas &Cahapay, 2020).

1.3 Research Objective
This survey seeks to identify university students’ perceptions of and expectations regarding flexible learning,
especially under the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. First, this survey aims to identify the university
students’ perception of this new learning model, including increased use of technology, different class structure,
new teaching methodology, etc. The second aim is to compare perceptions and expectations of different groupsof students in terms of various variables such as major, gender, economic background, and locations. Finally,50

policy improvement strategies for the Philippine government shall be identified.

1.4 Research Questions
To achieve the above research objectives, this survey focuses on the following research questions accordingly.
First, what are university students’ perceptions towards the current flexible learning system in their university?
Second, how do the different variables such as major, gender, economic background, and location affectuniversity students’ perceptions and expectations of flexible learning? Finally, what are the suggestions for
improvement this survey can put forward to the government, thereby achieving a better flexible learning
system for university students in the Philippines?

1.5 Conceptual Framework
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

To identify students’ perceptions and expectations toward flexible learning, we have selected four variables as
our conceptual framework; Gender, University Major, Living Location, and Economic Background. We
believe each variable has an effect on students’ experience with flexible learning. With gender, we would liketo see whether female students have different perceptions and expectations towards flexible learning comparedto male students. With the university major, we would like to see whether certain majors have more difficulties
studying under flexible learning and therefore have different perceptions and expectations. With the living
51

location, we would like to see whether students in rural areas have more difficulties studying under flexible
learning compared to those living in urban areas. Last but not least, with the economic background, we would
like to see if different income levels affect students’ experience with flexible learning.

1.6 Significance of ResearchThis research will contribute to providing a general view and feedback to the government on possible
improvements for the flexible learning system. In addition to, it serves several ways of making the systemapplication easier for students to participate in, especially when the government is planning to continue theprogram. By understanding the perceptions and expectations among different groups of students towards theincreased use of technology for learning, it enriches the scientific development for the policymakers, especiallyin educational policy resilience strategy amidst erratic global dynamics.

2. Methodology
2.1 Research Method
For the research design, we decided to use a quantitative research method and created an online survey
questionnaire. The online survey questions are divided into three sections; the first section asks about thecommon background and demographic questions, the second section asks about the main questions which
incorporated our conceptual framework of the different variables such as Major, Gender, Economic
Background, and Urban/Rural Classification to identify how they affect the respondents’ perceptions andexpectation with flexible learning. In the third and final section, using a five-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree,
Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree), we asked the respondents to rate our proposal regarding flexible
learning. Ideally, we would like our respondents to be currently participating in flexile learning. However, toanticipate several respondents who might not be participating, we have prepared a different set of questions inorder to identify the reason why they are not participating and how do they manage their studies during the
pandemic.

2.2 Research Site Selection
For the 2021 Overseas Field Work (OFW), Nagoya University has chosen the Philippines as the place toconduct our research.

2.3 Respondents
For the online survey, we focused on undergraduate students who are currently enrolled in a university/college
in the Philippines as our target respondents. In collaboration with LUCID, an online research market company,
we used their survey sampling platform called LUCID Marketplace to distribute our online questionnaire
survey to the target respondents.
52

2.4 Sampling Design
To gather up our respondents, we used one of the non-probability sampling methods, convenience sampling,
to target undergraduate students who are currently enrolled in a university/college in the Philippines. As partof our screening process, we also set a quota to make sure we received an equal ratio of students from urban
and rural areas.

2.5 Research Instrument for Data Collection
Ideally, part of the Overseas Field Work (OFW) in GSID is to travel to other countries and collect the data
directly from the research site. However, due to the travel restrictions caused by Covid-19, we have switched
to doing an online survey this year. Using Qualtrics as our online survey platform, we created an online
questionnaire survey to identify the perceptions and expectations of university students towards the flexible
learning system within their university. For our second research instrument, we used Deepnote, an online
platform where the team members can collaborate to analyze and process our survey data. This includes
validating, documenting, and profiling our survey data.

53

3. Respondents’ Demographics
Figure 2: Demographics of Respondent

As shown in figure 2(a) on gender, 142 respondents are female, 87 respondents are male, and four respondents
preferred not to specify their gender. As can be seen in figure 2(b) on age, 76 respondents are between the ages
16 - 20, 123 respondents are between the ages 21 - 30, 28 respondents are between the ages 31 - 40, 5
respondents are between the ages 41 - 50, and 1 respondent is between the ages 51 - 55. As shown in figure2(c) on marital status, 202 of our respondents are single, 30 respondents are married, and one respondent isseparated. As shown in figure 2(d) on living companions, 19 respondents live alone, 163 live with theirparents/siblings, 5 live with their spouse, 27 live with their spouse and children, and 12 live with theirroommates.
54

4. Data Results
4.1 Gender-based Perceptions and Expectations
In this section, using the gender variable and the survey data, we will discuss whether gender has any influenceon the respondents’ perceptions towards flexible learning.
Figure 3: Gender-Based Perception & Expectation(a)Gender-based Perceptions(b)

Gender-based Expectations

4.1.1 Gender-Based Perceptions Analysis(1) Female
According to the results shown in Figure 3(a), 60.09% of the respondents are female, and out of 142 female
55respondents, 25 respondents’ answers (17.6%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they
have never participated in flexible learning. Our data analysis found out that 37.6% of valid respondents havean average score below 3.0, which means they have unfavorable perceptions about flexible learning. 46.2% ofvalid respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat
favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. 16.2% of valid respondents have an average score between
4.0 - 4.9 which means they tend to have favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. Besides, we foundout that the data shows a median of 3.00 which means they have a “neutral” perception towards flexible
learning.
(2) MaleAccording to the results shown in Figure 3(a), 37.03% of the respondents are male, and out of 87 male
respondents, 18 respondents’ answers (20.7%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they
have never participated in flexible learning. Our data analysis found out that 21.7% of valid respondents havean average score below 3.0, which means they have unfavorable perceptions about flexible learning. 46.4% of
valid respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat
favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. 31.9% of valid respondents have an average score between
4.0 - 4.9 which means they tend to have a favorable perception towards flexible learning. The data shows a
median of 3.28 which means they have a “neutral” with a tendency of “somewhat favorable” perceptions
towards flexible learning.
(3) Prefer not to say
Referring to Figure 3(a), 1.07% of the respondents are female, and out of four respondents who preferred not
to disclose their gender, one respondent’s answer (25%) is considered invalid for this specific question because
they have never participated in flexible learning. Our data analysis found out that 33.3% of valid respondents
have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat favorable perceptions
towards flexible learning. 66.7% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means
they tend to have a favorable perception towards flexible learning. The data shows a median of 3.96 whichmeans they tend to have favorable perceptions towards flexible learning.
4.1.2 Gender-based Expectation Analysis(1) Female
Referring to Figure 3(b), 60.09% of the respondents are female, and out of 142 female respondents, 25
respondents’ answers (17.6%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they have neverparticipated in flexible learning. Our data analysis found out that 1.7% of valid respondents have an averagescore between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they have low expectations towards flexible learning. 47.0% of valid
respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat highexpectations towards flexible learning. 49.6% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9
which means they have ‘high’ expectations towards flexible learning. 1.7% of valid respondents have an
average score of 5.0 which means they have very high expectations towards flexible learning. Also, we found56

out that the data shows a median of 3.86 which means they have a tendency to have a “somewhat high”
expectation towards flexible learning.
(2) Male
Referring to Figure 3(b), 37.03% of the respondents are male, and out of 87 male respondents, 18 respondents’answers (20.7%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they have never participated in
flexible learning. Our data analysis found out that 2.8% of valid respondents have an average score between
2.0 - 2.9 which means they have low expectations towards flexible learning. 43.5% of valid respondents havean average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have ‘neutral’ to ‘somewhat high’ expectations towards
flexible learning. 52.2% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they have‘high’ expectations towards flexible learning. 1.5% of valid respondents have an average score of 5.0 whichmeans they have very high expectations towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that the data shows a
median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency to have a “somewhat high” expectation towards flexible
learning.
(3) Prefer not to say
Referring to Figure 3(b), 1.07% of 4 respondents who preferred not to disclose their gender, one respondent’s
answers (25%) is considered invalid for this specific question because they have never participated in flexible
learning. Our data analysis found out that 100% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9
which means they have ‘high’ expectations towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that the data showsa median of 4.14 which means they have a “high” expectation towards flexible learning.

4.2 Major-based Perceptions and Expectations
By analyzing major-based variables, we investigated whether the respondents’ major background influences
their perceptions and expectations of flexible learning. Out of 233 respondents, 44 respondents’ answers (18%)
are considered invalid for this specific question because they have never participated in flexible learning. The
major-based variable is identified into four prevalent branches of major, namely Social Science (Business
Administration, Management, Political Science, etc.), Formal Science (Mathematics, Computer Science,
Statistics, etc.), Natural Science (Biology, Chemistry, Agriculture, etc.), Applied Science (ElectricalEngineering, Medical, Nursing, etc.), and others. These classifications are produced with close consideration
to the learning nature of each major, whether in content or practical context.

57

Figure 4: Major-Based Perception& Expectation(a) Major-based Perceptions(b) Major-based Expectations

4.2.1 Major-based Perceptions Analysis(1) Social Science
Referring to Figure 4(a), our data analysis found out that 39.1% of valid respondents have an average scorebelow 3.0, which means they have unfavorable perceptions about flexible learning. 41.4% of valid respondents
have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat favorable perceptions
towards flexible learning. 19.5% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means
58they tend to have favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in Social Science,the data shows a median of 2.97 which means they have an almost ‘neutral’ perception towards flexible
learning.
(2) Formal Science
Referring to Figure 4(a), our data analysis found out that 8.7% of valid respondents have an average scorebelow 3.0, which means they have unfavorable perceptions about flexible learning. 47.8% of valid respondents
have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat favorable perceptions
towards flexible learning. 43.5% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means
they tend to have favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in Formal Science,the data shows a median of 3.53 which means they have a “neutral” with a tendency of “somewhat favorable”
perceptions towards flexible learning(3) Natural Science
Referring to Figure 4(a), our data analysis found out that 42.9% of valid respondents have an average scorebelow 3.0, which means they have unfavorable perceptions about flexible learning. 42.9% of valid respondents
have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat favorable perceptions
towards flexible learning. 14.2% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means
they tend to have favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in Natural Science,the data shows a median of 2.8 which means there is a tendency to have a ‘neutral’ perception towards flexible
learning.
(4) Applied Science
Referring to Figure 4(a), our data analysis found that 33.3% of valid respondents have an average score below
3.0, which means that they have unfavorable perceptions about flexible learning. 50.0% of valid respondents
have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat favorable perceptions
towards flexible learning. 16.7% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means
they tend to have favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in Applied Science,the data shows a median of 3.22 which means they have a “neutral” with a tendency of “somewhat favorable”
perceptions towards flexible learning.
(5) Others
Referring to Figure 4(a), our data analysis found out that 64.7% of valid respondents have an average score
between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat favorable perceptions towards flexible learning.
35.3% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they tend to have favorable
perceptions towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in ‘Others,’ the data shows a median of 3.11
which means they more or less have a “neutral” perception towards flexible learning.

59

4.2.2 Major-based Expectations Analysis(1) Social Science
Referring to Figure 4(b), our data analysis found out that 1.2% of valid respondents have an average score
between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they have low expectations towards flexible learning. 44.8% of valid
respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat highexpectations towards flexible learning. 53.0% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9
which means they have ‘high’ expectations towards flexible learning. 1.2% of valid respondents have an
average score of 5.0 which means they have very high expectations towards flexible learning. Also, we foundout that in Social Science, the data shows a median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency to have a“somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.
(2) Formal Science
Referring to Figure 4(b), our data analysis found out that 47.8% of valid respondents have an average score
between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat high expectations towards flexible learning.
52.2% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they have ‘high’ expectations
towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in Formal Science, the data shows a median of 3.86 whichmeans there is a tendency to have a “somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.
(3) Natural Science
Referring to Figure 4(b), our data analysis found out that 7.1% of valid respondents have an average score
between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they have low expectations towards flexible learning. 50.0% of valid
respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat highexpectations towards flexible learning. 42.9% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9
which means they have ‘high’ expectations towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in Natural
Science, the data shows a median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency to have a “somewhat high”
expectation towards flexible learning.
(4) Applied Science
Referring to Figure 4(b), our data analysis found out that 4.2% of valid respondents have an average score
between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they have low expectations towards flexible learning. 43.7% of valid
respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat highexpectations towards flexible learning. 50.0% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9
which means they have ‘high’ expectations towards flexible learning. 2.1% of valid respondents have an
average score of 5.0 which means they have very high expectations towards flexible learning. Also, we foundout that in Applied Science, the data shows a median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency to have a“somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.
(5) Others
Referring to Figure 4(b), our data analysis found out that 41.2% of valid respondents have an average score60

between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral to somewhat high expectations towards flexible learning.
52.9% of valid respondents have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they have ‘high’ expectations
towards flexible learning. 5.9% of valid respondents have an average score of 5.0 which means they have very
high expectations towards flexible learning. Also, we found out that in ‘Others.’ The data shows a median of
3.71 which means there is a tendency to have a “somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.

4.3 Location-based Perceptions and Expectations
Using this variable, we would like to know whether the respondents currently live influences their perceptions
and expectations of flexible learning. Using the categorization of Philippine cities and municipalities, weclassified locations into either urban or rural.
Figure 5: Location-based Perception & Expectation(a) Location-Based Perceptions(b)

Location-based Expectations

61

4.3.1 Location-based Perception Analysis(1) Urban
Referring to Figure 5(a), 53.65% of the respondents were from urban areas, and out of 125 respondents, 22
respondents’ answers (17.6%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they have neverparticipated in flexible learning. Referring to Figure 9, our data analysis found out that 37.9% of valid
respondents who live in urban areas have an average score below 3.0, which means they have an unfavorable
perception of flexible learning. 40.8% of them have an average score of 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have aneutral to a somewhat favorable perception of flexible learning. While 21.3% of respondents from urban areas
scored 4.0 - 4.9, which means they have a favorable perception of flexible learning. Subsequently, we foundout that data shows a median of 3.00 which means they have a “neutral” perception towards flexible learning.
(2) Rural
Referring to Figure 5(a), 46.35% of the respondents were from rural areas, and out of 108 respondents, 22
respondents’ answers (20.4%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they have neverparticipated in flexible learning. Referring to Figure 9, our data analysis found out that 23.3% of valid
respondents have an average score below 3.0, which means they have an unfavorable perception of flexible
learning. 52.3% of valid respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have neutral
to somewhat favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. 24.4% of valid respondents have an averagescore between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they tend to have a favorable perception towards flexible learning.
Subsequently, we found out that data shows a median of 3.14 which means they have a “neutral” perception
towards flexible learning.
4.3.2 Location-based Expectation Analysis(1) Urban
Referring to Figure 5(b), 53.65% of the respondents were from urban areas, and out of 125 respondents, 22
respondents’ answers (17.6%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they have neverparticipated in flexible learning. Referring to Figure 19, our data analysis found out that 1.9% of valid
respondents have an average score between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they have a low expectation towards flexible
learning. 46.6% of valid respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have ‘neutral’to ‘somewhat high’ expectations towards flexible learning. 49.6% of valid respondents have an average score
between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they have a ‘high’ expectation towards flexible learning. 1.9% of valid
respondents have an average score of 5.0 which means they have very high expectations towards flexible
learning. Subsequently, we found out that data shows a median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency tohave a “somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.
(2) Rural
Referring to Figure 5(b), 46.35% of the respondents were from rural areas, and out of 108 respondents, 22
respondents’ answers (20.4%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they have neverparticipated in flexible learning. Referring to Figure 19, our data analysis found out that 2.3% of valid
62

respondents have an average score between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they have a low expectation towards flexible
learning. 43.0% of valid respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they have ‘neutral’to ‘somewhat high’ expectations towards flexible learning. 53.5% of valid respondents have an average score
between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they have a ‘high’ expectation towards flexible learning. 1.2% of valid
respondents have an average score of 5.0 which means they have very high expectations towards flexible
learning. Subsequently, we found out that data shows a median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency tohave a “somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.

4.4 Income-based Perceptions and Expectations
By analyzing income variables, we would like to know whether the respondents’ economic backgroundinfluences their perceptions and expectations of flexible learning. Out of 233 respondents, 50 respondents’answers (27.3%) are considered invalid for this specific question because they have never participated in
flexible learning or did not specify their income. According to the criteria announced by the Philippines
government, we divided our respondents into three income groups. For a family of 5, families with a monthly
family income of less than 19,040 PHP are considered low income. Monthly family income ranges from 19,040
to 114,240 PHP are defined as middle-income family, and monthly income higher than 114,240 PHP are
regarded as high-income groups.
Figure 6: Income-Based Perception & Expectation(a) Income-based Perceptions

63

(b) Income-based Expectations

4.4.1 Income-based Perception Analysis(1) Low-Income Group
Referring to Figure 6(a), 28.7% of respondents have an average score below 3.0, which means they have an
unfavorable perception of flexible learning. 46.0% of them have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 whichmeans they have a neutral to somewhat favorable perception towards flexible learning. While 25.3% of them
have an average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they tend to have a favorable perception towards flexible
learning. Subsequently, we found out that data shows a median of 3.17 which means there is a tendency tohave a “neutral” perception towards flexible learning.
(2) Middle-Income Group
Referring to Figure 6(a), 35.5% have an average score below 3.0, which means they have an unfavorable
perception of flexible learning. 46.2% of them have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means they haveneutral to somewhat favorable perceptions towards flexible learning. 18.3% of valid respondents have an
average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they tend to have a favorable perception towards flexible learning.
Subsequently, we found out that data shows a median of 3.11 which means there is a tendency to have a“neutral” perception towards flexible learning.
(3) High-Income Group
Referring to Figure 6(a), 33.3% of our respondents have an average score below 3.0, which means they havean unfavorable perception of flexible learning. 66.7% of them have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 whichmeans they have a neutral to somewhat favorable perception towards flexible learning. Subsequently, we foundout that data shows a median of 2.75 which means there is a tendency to have an “unfavorable” perception
towards flexible learning.
64

4.4.2 Income-based Expectation Analysis(1) Low-Income Group
Referring to Figure 6(b), 4.6% of respondents have an average score between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they havea low expectation towards flexible learning. 42.5% of them have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 whichmeans they have a neutral to somewhat high expectation towards flexible learning. 51.7% of them have an
average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they have a high expectation towards flexible learning. And 1.2%of them have an average score of 5.0 which means they have a very high expectation towards flexible learning.
Subsequently, we found out that data shows a median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency to have a“somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.
(2) Middle-Income Group
Referring to Figure 6(b), 2.3% of the respondents have an average score between 2.0 - 2.9 which means they
have a low expectation towards flexible learning. 43.0% of them have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9
which means they have a neutral to somewhat high expectation towards flexible learning. 53.5% of them havean average score between 4.0 - 4.9 which means they have a high expectation towards flexible learning. 1.2%of them have an average score of 5.0 which means they have a very high expectation towards flexible learning.
Subsequently, we found out that data shows a median of 3.86 which means there is a tendency to have a“somewhat high” expectation towards flexible learning.
(3) High-Income Group
Referring to Figure 6(b), 100% of valid respondents have an average score between 3.0 - 3.9 which means
they have a neutral to somewhat high expectation towards flexible learning. Subsequently, we found out thatdata shows a median of 3.64 which means there is a tendency to have a “somewhat high” expectation towards
flexible learning.

5. Conclusions
Whether the respondents live in a rural or urban area, the location did not affect perceptions and expectations
toward flexible learning. Both have a neutral perception but a somewhat high expectation towards flexible
learning. There is no significant difference in the median scores of respondents based on their income. However,it was shown that the higher the income level, the higher the tendency to have a “somewhat unfavorable”
perception and “high expectations” towards flexible learning. For gender, male respondents have a higher
tendency to “somewhat favorable” perceptions towards flexible learning, while respondents who did notdisclose their gender have a highly favorable towards flexible learning. Both male and female respondents
have somewhat high expectations towards flexible learning. Respondents from the Formal Science major havethe highest favorable perception towards flexible learning, while respondents from the Natural Sciences havethe lowest perception of flexible learning. However, respondents from all majors agree that they expect morefrom flexible learning.
Generally speaking, data collected shows that respondents see flexible learning as somewhat favorable,
65

contrary to what student activists contend that most students want an academic freeze because they are notlearning through the flexible learning schemes. Respondents see flexible learning as the only viable way tocontinue their education. However, respondents’ data shows that they have “somewhat high” expectations
towards flexible learning. In the end, university students care about their education and they are willing toaccept flexible learning as part of the new normal. However, the added burden of flexible learning should not
be solely carried by the students. flexible learning is necessary for the new normal, but students expect morefrom their universities to do better in implementing the new flexible learning curriculum.

6. Recommendations
6.1 Areas of Improvement

Figure 7: Areas of Improvement

According to our respondents who answered the open-ended question on “How can flexible learning be
improved?” we were able to categorize several important areas of improvement for the implementation offlexible learning.
(1) Internet, Gadget, and Financial Support
This area covers internet signal and access, affordability of the learning equipment, tuition fee reduction, andany other financial support to bolster the learning process. Internet connection is indeed a major problem in
the Philippines. Apart from expensive internet costs, the average connection speed in the Philippines isclassified in the global context as a group of countries with weak internet speeds (Salac and Kim, 2016). It islinear with the data illustrated by 45 respondents who mention their difficulties with unsupportive internet
speed amidst the full dependence of the learning process and coordination on the internet.
66

(2) Professor Consideration and Flexibility
This category encompasses professors’ online teaching capability and competence, consideration, andavailability for queries and clarification. Online teaching has completely different challenges relating to
instructional time and space, virtual management techniques and communication, as well as the ability toengage with students during and after class, particularly on compound courses and assignments (Martin andWang, 2019). Compared to traditional learning, technology adaptability and the emotional sensitivity ofprofessors have become important requirements in online teaching.
(3) Platforms and Materials Access and Class Engagement
This issue encompasses the need for convenient resources and materials that are easier to access and understand,in addition to adequate learning platforms and the availability of recorded lectures for all students. It addresses
the attention to the bigger actor in the flexible learning implementation, such as universities that are responsiblefor implementing a particular domestic policy for their own educational domain.
(4) Lessen the Online Class and Assignment’s Deadlines Flexibility
This issue encompasses demand for a flexible deadline on assignments, a rational number of tasks, a sensibleamount, and the length of the online class. In addition to expanding class discussion, balancing synchronousand asynchronous learning was also highlighted. The length, amount, and deadline for assignments present an
inseparable role between Professor as an in-class educator and the university as a policymaker inaccommodating and ensuring the assessment is appropriate enough to reach the goals of learning amidst the
turbulence of a pandemic.
(5) Mental Health and Student Adaptability
This encompasses the demand to notice students’ mental health amidst tough and rapid change in the learning
experience and put more consideration into students’ adaptability. There is a growing demand for this issue,
particularly in developing countries like the Philippines, which are constrained by unstable or slow internet
speeds and unpreparedness for educational infrastructure. The demographic location and internet access ofcollege students are significant determinants of students’ anxiety during the Covid-19 pandemic (Cleofas andRocha, 2021).

6.2 Improvement Strategies
Considering the wide range of issue diversity, this research provides the top three issues from the survey data
analysis as feedback on possible improvements for the flexible learning system.
6.2.1 Poor Internet Connection
1.

Government should improve the internet quality both in rural and urban areas in order to provide equalinternet access for all students.

2.

Government should regulate universities in order to establish the enlargement of the asynchronous67

class portions.
3.

Government should encourage universities to increase the lecturer’s awareness regarding theirstudent’s status of internet connection by giving more chances to students to provide valid reasons andproof when they failed to submit assignments/attend class.

6.2.2 Financial Issues
1. Government should provide more financial support to students who cannot afford decent mobile data
and adequate PC/smartphone.
2. Government should cooperate with data providers to provide affordable/cheap internet packages forstudents.
3. Universities should give tuition reductions to students who face economic difficulties.
4. Government and universities should provide free access to online libraries/materials needed by thestudent.
6.2.3 Academic-Related Issues
1. Government should provide capacity-building training for teachers on how to maximize the use of
online equipment to use for flexible learning.
2. Universities should set up a reasonable curricula structure and schedule based on the students’ needs.
3. Professors should take the impact of pandemics into consideration when assigning tasks and deadlines.

68References
Barrera, K., Jaminal, B., & Arcilla Jr, F. (2020). Readiness for Flexible Learning amidst COVID-19 Pandemicof Saint Michael College of Caraga, Philippines. 2, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18868/cte.02.060120.01
CHED:Power and Functions. (n.d.). CHED. Retrieved January 23, 2022, from https://ched.gov.ph/ched/
Cleofas, J.V., & Rocha, I.C.N. (2021). Demographic, Gadget and Internet Profiles as Determinants of Disease
and Consequence Related COVID-19 Anxiety Among Filipino College Students. Educ Inf Technol 26,
6771–6786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10529-9.
Hapal, K. (2021). The Philippines’ COVID-19 Response: Securitising the Pandemic and Disciplining the
Pasaway.

JournalofCurrent

Southeast

Asian

Affairs,40(2),

224–244.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1868103421994261
Khan, M. A., Vivek, Nabi, M. K., Khojah, M., & Tahir, M. (2021). Students’ Perception towards E-Learning
during COVID-19 Pandemicin India: An Empirical

Study.

Sustainability, 13(1), 57.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010057
LI, KC (2014), “How flexible do students prefer their learning to be?”, Asian Association of Open Universities
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-09-01-2014-B004
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Wang, C. (2019). Examining Faculty Perception of Their Readiness to Teach
Online. Online Learning, 23(3), 97-119. https://doi:10.24059/olj.v23i3.1555
Mendoza, K. (2020, December 26). Defending democracy: How young Filipino activists fought back in 2020.
RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/moveph/student-activism-yearend-2020/
Rhema, A. & Miliszewska, I., (2014), Analysis of Student Attitudes towards E-learning: The Case ofEngineering Students in Libya, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11.
Rotas, E. E., & Cahapay, M. B. (2020). Difficulties in Remote Learning: Voices of Philippine University
Students in the Wake of COVID-19 Crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 147-158.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4299835
Salac, R.A. & Kim, Y.S., (2016), A Study on the Internet Connectivity in the Philippines, Asia-Pacific Journalof Business Review, https://doi.org/10.20522/APJBR.2016.1.1.67
Tria, J. Z. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic through the Lens of Education in the Philippines: The New
Normal. International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning, 1(1), ep2001.
https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/8311
University student councils call for suspension of online classes amid COVID-19 community quarantine. (n.d.).
Retrieved January 23, 2022, from https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/3/25/CHED-suspensiononline-classes-coronavirus.html
Zabadi, A.M., & Al-Alawi, A.H. (2016). University Students’ Attitudes towards E-Learning: A Case Study in
University of Business & Technology (UBT)-Saudi Arabia-Jeddah: A Case Study, International Journalof Business and Management, 11(6), DOI: 10.5539/ijbm.v11n6p286

69

Appendix: Survey Questions
Part Ⅰ: Background Questions
1. What gender do you identify with?
●

Male

●

Female●Rather not specify

2. What is your age?
●

(Fill in the answer)

3. What is your marital status?
●

Single●Married●Separated

4. Which best describes who you currently live with?
●

Alone

●

Roommates●

Parents and/or siblings●

Spouse●Spouse and children●

Others (Please specify)

5. How many people are you currently living with?
●(Fill in the answer)

6. What is your major?
●(Fill in the answer)

7. Does your major require you to use specialized equipment or laboratory in the university?
●

Yes (Please specify)●

No

8. Are you enrolled in a private or public college/university?
●

Private●Public9. Which one describes you best as a student?
●

Part-time student●

Full-time student

7010. Are you currently working?
●

Yes

●

No
●

Branch question for “Yes” answer

1. What is your employment status?
●

Full-time●Part-time●Self-employed●

Other (Please specify)

11. What is your source of school allowance? (You can choose more than one)
●

Jobs

●

Family●Scholarship●

Others (Please specify)

12. On estimate, how much (in PHP) is your average family monthly income?
●(Fill in the answer)

13. On estimate, how much (in PHP) is your average family monthly expenditure?
●(Fill in the answer)

14. Which region are you currently living in and participating in Flexible Learning?
●(Choose the area from a list of 17 regions)

15. What city are you currently residing in?
●(Fill in the answer)

Part ⅠI: Main Questions
16. Are you currently engaged in online or Flexible Learning?
●

Yes

●

No, I have never participated in Flexible Learning●No, but I have participated in Flexible Learning in the past

17. Which Flexible Learning tools are applicable to your university?
●

Offline (Only Modules)●

Blended (Modules and Online)●

Online●Branch question only for “Offline (Only Modules)” answer

1. How many hours did you spend completing modules in a week?
●

0 hour

●1 - 6 hours●

7 - 18 hours●

18 - 24 hours●

24+ hours
71●

Branch question only for “Blended (Modules and Online)” answer

1. How many hours did you spend doing online classes in a week?
●

0 hour

●1 - 6 hours●

7 - 18 hours●

18 - 24 hours●

24+ hours

2. How many hours did you spend completing modules in a week?

●●

0 hour

●1 - 6 hours●

7 - 18 hours●

18 - 24 hours●

24+ hours

Branch question only for “Online” answer

1. How many hours did you spend doing online classes in a week?
●

0 hour

●1 - 6 hours●

7 - 18 hours●

18 - 24 hours●

24+ hours

2. How many hours did you spend completing homework in a week?
●

0 hour

●1 - 6 hours●

7 - 18 hours●

18 - 24 hours●

24+ hours

18. Are you taking more or fewer classes with Flexible Learning?
●

Not applicable●

Same amount of classes●

Fewer classes●

More classes

19. What kind of online learning equipment do you have?
●

Mobile phone●

Tablets●

Laptop●PC

20. Do you need to share your online learning equipment with someone else?
●

Yes

●

No
72

●

Branch question only for “Yes” answer

1. How many people do you need to share your online learning equipment with?
●

One

●

Two

●

Three or more

21. Does your university offer an online teaching platform?
●

Yes

●

No
●

Branch question only for “Yes” answer

1. If yes, what kind?
●

University-owned platform

●

Zoom

●

Messenger●

WhatsApp●

Others (Please specify)

22. How would you rate the current mechanism set up by your University/College?
(Strongly Agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly Disagree)
1. I prefer Flexible Learning to traditional learning
2. I can easily engage in the discussion during online class
3. The materials and modules provided by the university are helpful and adequate
4. My WiFi and mobile data connection are adequate for my online class needs
5. I believe that I can learn the same amount through Flexible Learning as in traditional learning
6. The university is really helpful in offering the resources we need to learn from home
7. The university’s online teaching platform is user friendly
8. Flexible learning is effective
9. Flexible learning made attending classes more frequently
10. Flexible learning has positively affected my interaction with my classmates
11. I can easily contact my teacher if I have any concerns/questions regarding my course
12. I have no problems managing my academic schedule
13. Flexible learning has increased my stress level in school
14. I spent too much of my day doing online learning
15. I could finish the modules within the given deadline
16. I have spent a lot of time reading the required materials in the modules
17. I understood most of the readings in the modules
18. At the end of the semester, the objective for each subject have been achieved

73

Part ⅠII: Final Questions
23. How would you rate the following proposal regarding Flexible Learning?
(Strongly Agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly Disagree)
1. Lectures should be posted on YouTube so students can access them anytime
2. Universities should make online libraries available to students
3. Financial support intended for acquiring gadgets and equipment needed for online learning should begiven to those who cannot afford them
4. Telecommunication infrastructure should be improved to cater for the increasing number of users
5. The length of online classes per subject should be lessened
6. There should be 15 minutes break in between 90 minutes online session
7. Willing to use Flexible Learning even the pandemic
24. Based on your experience, how can Flexible Learning be improved in your university?
(Write answer)74