Why Structured Instruction Matters: A Comparative Effect of Four Instructional Models on Mathematics Achievement in Printed Modular Distance Learning
Keywords:
Distance learning; Gagné’s nine events of instruction; instructional models; mathematics performance; printed modular learningAbstract
The COVID-19 pandemic made substantial changes in educational delivery, prompting the Philippine public school system to implement printed modular distance learning to maintain instructional continuity. Prior studies have examined modular learning outcomes; however, empirical studies comparing instructional models within a fully printed modular approach are limited. Addressing this gap, the study examined the comparative effect of four instructional models, 5A, 5E, explicit direct instruction, and Gagné’s nine events of instruction, on Grade 10 students’ mathematics achievement within a printed modular learning environment. Using a quasi-experimental design, the study involved 80 Grade 10 students from four public junior high schools in northern Cebu, Philippines. Instructional modules aligned with each model were developed and administered, followed by a summative assessment to measure students’ achievement. The results of a one-way analysis of variance revealed statistically significant differences in achievement across the instructional models (F(3, 76) = 17.40, p < .001), with post hoc results indicating that Gagné’s nine events of instruction resulted in significantly higher student performance than the other approaches. Qualitative findings from student reflections further showed that clear explanations, guided practice, and structured feedback were important in the modular context. These findings contribute theoretically by reinforcing the role of structured instructional sequencing in self-directed learning and provide practical implications for the design of printed mathematics modules in low or no-connectivity learning settings.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.3.9
References
Abuhassna, H., Adnan, M. A. B. M., & Awae, F. (2024). Exploring the synergy between instructional design models and learning theories: A systematic literature review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), ep499. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14289
Aksan, J. A. (2021). Effect of a modular distance-learning approach on academic performance in mathematics among students at Mindanao State University–Sulu senior high school during the COVID-19 pandemic. Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.37275/oaijss.v4i2.64
Ali, W. (2020). Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education studies, 10(3), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n3p16
Almomani, L. M., Halalsheh, N., Al-Dreabi, H., Al-Hyari, L., & Al-Quraan, R. (2023). Self-directed learning skills and motivation during distance learning in the COVID-19 pandemic (Case study: The University of Jordan). Heliyon, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20018
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
Bacus, J. A., Cañete, A. J., Gonzaga, L. A., Gonzaga, M. A., Muring, M. L., & Sumagang, J. (2023). Singapore mathematics approach in aiding the modular print distance learning modality in teaching mathematics. International Journal of Trends in Mathematics Education Research, 6(3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.33122/ijtmer.v6i3.212
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R.F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bhutoria, A., & Aljabri, N. (2022). Patterns of cognitive returns to information and communication technology (ICT) use of 15-year-olds: Global evidence from a hierarchical linear modeling approach using PISA 2018. Computers & Education, 181, 104447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104447
Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V.I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x
Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2015). Cronbach’s alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1960
Bustillo, E., & Aguilos, M. (2022). The challenges of modular learning in the wake of COVID-19: A digital divide in the Philippine countryside revealed. Education Sciences, 12(7), 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070449
Capinding, A. T. (2022). Impact of modular distance learning on high school students’ mathematics motivation, interest/attitude, anxiety, and achievement during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 917–934. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.2.917
Casillano, N. F. B. (2019). Challenges of implementing an e-learning platform in an internet struggling province in the Philippines. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 12(10), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2019/v12i10/137594
Cayabas Jr., J. P., & Sumeg-ang, D. A. (2023). Challenges and interventions in developing instructional materials: Perspectives of public-school teachers in basic education. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 6(4), Article 2059. https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v6i4.2059
Dejene, W. (2019). The practice of modularized curriculum in higher education institutions: Active learning and continuous assessment in focus. Cogent Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1611052
Department of Education (DepEd.). (2020). Most essential learning competencies (MELCs). Republic of the Philippines. https://www.deped-click.com/2020/05/melcs-in-mathematics-sy-2020-2021.html
Department of Education (DepEd). (2016). DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016: Policy guidelines on daily lesson preparation for the K–12 basic education program. Republic of the Philippines. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/17/do-42-s-2016-policy-guidelines-on-daily-lesson-preparation-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
Egara, F.O., Mosimege, M. Effect of blended learning approach on secondary school learners’ mathematics achievement and retention. Educ Inf Technol 29, 19863–19888 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12651-w
Faber, T. J. E., Dankbaar, M. E. W., van den Broek, W. W., Bruinink, L. J., Hogeveen, M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2024). Effects of adaptive scaffolding on performance, cognitive load and engagement in game-based learning: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 24, Article 943. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05698-3
Ferreira, R., Canesche, M., Jamieson, P., Neto, O. P. V., & Nacif, J. A. M. (2024). Examples and tutorials on using Google Colab and Gradio to create online interactive student-learning modules. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22729
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gürel, Z. Ç. (2025). Indication of scaffolding in mathematical modeling. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(7), 2597–2628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10576-5
Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S. (2009). Explicit direct instruction (EDI): The power of the well-crafted, well-taught lesson. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218977
Hricko, M. (2008). Gagné’s nine events of instruction. In L. A. Tomei (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration (pp. 353–356). IGI Global eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-881-9.ch058
Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of computers in education, 2(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0
Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance: Effects of Guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Lim, W. K. (2023). Problem-based learning in medical education: Handling objections and sustainable implementation. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 1453–1460. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S444566
Loughlin, C., Lygo?Baker, S., & Lindberg?Sand, Å. (2021). Reclaiming constructive alignment. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1816197
Lu, Y., & Wang, H. (2023). A study of students’ emotional engagement in blended learning in the post-epidemic era—A case study of college English course. In W. Hong & Y. Weng (Eds.), Computer science and education. ICCSE 2022: Communications in computer and information science, 1813, 317–327). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2449-3_30
Mallari, M. D., & Tayag, J. R. (2022). Situational interest and engagement of public junior high school science students in modular distance learning. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15332a
Mahmuti, A., Hamzi?, D. K., & Thaqi, X. (2025). The impact of contextual teaching and learning on improving student achievement in economics and mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(3), em0833. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16233
Means, B., & Neisler, J. (2021). Teaching and learning in the time of COVID: The student perspective. Online Learning, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2496
Mukhithi, A., Phahlane, M., & Malungana, L. (2025). Diffusing student performance in using blended learning models in higher learning. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1655941. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1655941
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane?Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self?regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Ojo, A. O., Ravichander, S., Tan, C. N. L., Anthonysamy, L., & Arasanmi, C. N. (2024). Investigating students’ motivation and online learning engagement through the lens of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(5), 2185–2198. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2023-0445
Opitz, B., Ferdinand, N. K., & Mecklinger, A. (2011). Timing matters: The impact of immediate and delayed feedback on artificial language learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00008
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Santoso, H., Harjati, P., Sujarwanta, A., Achyani, A., & Sutanto, A. (2025). Unveiling research gaps in biology teaching materials for secondary science education: A bibliometric review of Scopus (2000–2024). International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(6), 689–709. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.6.32
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
Talimodao, A. J. S., & Madrigal, D. V. (2021). Printed modular distance learning in Philippine public elementary schools in time of COVID-19 pandemic: Quality, implementation, and challenges. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(3), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.52006/main.v4i3.391
van Nooijen, C. C. A., de Koning, B. B., Bramer, W. M., Isahakyan, A., Asoodar, M., Kok, E., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2024). A cognitive load theory approach to understanding expert scaffolding of visual problem-solving tasks: A scoping review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09848-3
Zuo, M., Kong, S., Ma, Y., Hu, Y., & Xiao, M. (2023). The effects of using scaffolding in online learning: A meta-analysis. Education Sciences, 13(7), 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070705
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Quennie Rose Hinaloc Abao, Gerly Angtiampo Alcantara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
