ONLINE LEARNING CHALLENGES AND

READINESS OF MARITIME STUDENT

FROM LYCEUM INTERNATIONAL
MARITIME ACADEMY

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Lyceum International

Maritime Academy

Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Completion

of the Third-Year Curriculum of Bachelor of
Science in Marine Transportation

By
Jhewel Aaron V. Catibog
Darwin De Leon Jr.
Symon Zyren Dolor
Ronnie Ferrancullo
Mark Erick F. Lualhati
Bryan Jef O. Paña

2022
 APPROVAL SHEET

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of

Science in Marine Transportation, this study titled “ONLINE LEARNING

CHALLENGES AND READINESS OF MARITIME STUDENT FROM

LYCEUM INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ACADEMY

” is submitted by and is hereby recommended for an oral examination.

ADELAIDA MAPALAD
Research Adviser

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Defended in an oral examination before a duly constituted panel with a

grade of __________.

CHIEF MATE JOHN EDWARD L. UMALI

Chairperson

2ND MATE ANGELO PALMA LOURDES PANALIGAN PhD

Member Member

SWEETZEL BARRO - PUNZALAN

Member

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of the

third academic curriculum of Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation.

___________________

Date CAPT. ALEXANDER A. GONZALES, PhD

 Dean, LIMA
THESIS ABSTRACT

Title : Online Learning Challenges and Readiness of Maritime

Student from Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Authors : Catibog, Jhewel Aaron V.

De Leon Jr. Darwin M.
Dolor, Symon Zyren
Ferrancullo,Ronnie F.
Lualhati, Mark Erick F.
Paña, Bryan Jef O.

No. of Pages : 168

Institution : Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Degree : Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation

School Year : 2021-2022

Research Adviser: Adelaida Mapalad

This study focused on determining the challenges and readiness of

maritime cadets of Lyceum International Maritime Academy in utilizing e-learning

system. The study was a descriptive quantitative research, involving 301 BS

Marine Transportation and BS Marine Engineering students, who were

determined through the use of purposive sampling. Survey questionnaires were

distributed through Google Forms; collected, tallied and interpreted. Statistical

measures such as frequency, weighted mean, Independent t-Test and Mann-

Whitney Test were utilized for data analysis. The study revealed that the biggest

challenging factor that maritime cadets experienced in e-learning was they

lacked technical assistance and they found this new normal system too costly.
On the other hand, the level of readiness of the cadets showed that they are well

prepared and ready for online learning. Moreover, the study found that there are

significant differences in the challenges of the cadets in e-learning when grouped

according to program when the respondents were classified as to year level,

when grouped as to the type of internet access and when the respondents were

classified as to the place of residence.

With this, the researchers proposed an action plan to address the online

challenges and readiness of the cadets.

Keywords: Online Learning; Online Learning Challenges, Readiness in Online

learning
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Each proponent of this research paper has enough contributions

throughout the whole course; however, the completion of this undertaking could
have not been possible without the kind support and assistance of many
individuals whose names may not all be enumerated, but certainly, all their
efforts are sincerely appreciated and gratefully acknowledged:
Their Parents who supported them emotionally and provided financial
assistance needed for this study, encouraging them in all of their pursuits to
reach their goals; and for their unconditional love, the researchers send their
deepest gratitude;
Their Relatives and Friends who gave their support, may it be morally,
intellectually, or physically, the researchers appreciate it a lot;
Fellow Cadets, for exerting their time in cooperating and answering the
questionnaires for the study;
The Panelists, 2/M John Edward Umali, Capt. Angelo Palma, and Mrs.
Lourdes Panaligan, for ensuring the quality of the research paper by providing
constructive comments and valuable suggestions for the further improvement of
this research paper;
The statistician, Prof. Aida Castillo, for helping the researchers in the
validation of the instrument; statistical treatment of data and further improvement
of the paper;
The research adviser, Adelaida Mapalad, for her guidance and
supervision throughout the completion of the research; and
Above all, to the Great Almighty, the author of knowledge and wisdom, for
His countless love and blessings.

The Researchers
 DEDICATION

To

God Almighty

Our parents, relatives, and friends

The Maritime Student of LIMA

The LIMA School Administration

The Maritime Students in the Philippines and the World

Bryan Jef
Jhewel Aaron
Darwin
Symon Zyren
Ronnie
Mark Erick
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Title Page i
Approval Sheet ii
Thesis Abstract iii
Acknowledgment v
Dedication vi
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables viii
List of Appendices ix

Introduction 1
Objectives of the Study 3
Review of Literature 4
Method 16
Research Design 16
Participants 16
Instrument 17
Data Gathering Procedures 18
Data Analysis 18
Ethical Considerations 19
Results and Discussion 19
Conclusions 34
Recommendations 35
References 34
Appendices 36
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page

1 Profile Distribution of the Respondents 19

2 Mean Distribution of Challenges for E-Learning of the

Respondents 21

3 Mean Distribution of Readiness for E-Learning of the

Respondents 26

4 Comparison of the Challenges and Readiness for

E-Learning when Grouped according to Profile Variables 29

5 Relationship between the Challenges and Readiness

to e-learning 30

6 Proposed Plan of Action to Address the Difficulties and

Preparedness in Online learning of Maritime Cadets
in the Lyceum International Maritime Academy. 31
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Questionnaire 39

Appendix B Statistical Output 43

Appendix C Turnitin Result 49

Appendix D Curriculum Vitae 50

INTRODUCTION
Every individual's destiny is heavily influenced by their education. It offers

a diverse set of chances for people to become productive members of a civilized

society by learning all of the necessary skills in a learning environment. The

COVID-19 outbreak, which first appeared in December 2019, has significantly

impacted both the national and global basic education systems. It grew into a

global health crisis that affected people of all ages, genders, and socioeconomic

classes. Most countries shut down their schools, colleges, and institutions in

order to stop the epidemic from spreading. The economy as a whole was

impacted by the crisis in addition to the health and education sectors. Classes

were still in session when the Philippine government declared that all educational

institutions would be closing, so the disruptions were unexpected. As the virus

spread, schools began to offer distance learning as a viable substitute. The

immediate action and approach are designed to keep the school open while still

providing high-quality education.

Ancheta's study (2020) claims that the abrupt move to online education in

the Philippines created a heated discussion that brought attention to the pupils'

inadequate living conditions. The gap between those who can afford the

resources required to use the new education platform and those who cannot,

claims Magsambol (2020), is obvious. Despite the DepEd's slogan, "no kid left

behind," the public education system as a whole sends a message of inequity.

One of the most common issues Kasrekar (2020) encountered was the fact that

lessons continued to be held notwithstanding the closure order. Because in-

person classes are more likely to catch on, teaching and learning online is the
most practical approach. This platform will be hard for both professors and

students since it exposes them to something new. The transition to online

learning happened far too rapidly, but academic institutions must get ready for

the future by developing innovative teaching strategies. The question of whether

or not schools are technologically prepared is still open for debate. Due to the

high cost of reopening schools at this time, educational institutions have been

obliged to adopt more drastic steps to guarantee that they can continue to

operate in the face of the looming threat (Tanhueco-Tumapon, 2020).

E-learning, which can occur in or outside of the classroom, is

fundamentally dependent on the usage of computers and the Internet.

Synchronous lessons among nautical cadets are now available thanks to

Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and Google Meet. Synchronous learning occurs when

all pupils learn at the same time (and sometimes even in the same area), but the

teacher is at a different location. Instead of live online courses, students are

given learning assignments with deadlines, and they must then self-study.

Maritime Cadets of Lyceum of the Philippines- Batangas are conducting

synchronous and asynchronous classes.

As a result of the pandemic, which is threatened by COVID-19, many

things in the social, political, labor, and economic realms are altering. In an effort

to reduce the number of sicknesses, governments from several nations have

taken emergency policy measures, such as canceling classes and shutting

educational facilities while continuing teaching activities remotely from homes via

ICT. However, the adoption of online learning has a variety of risks, issues, and
concerns for both academics and students, particularly in higher education

institutions. This served as the main motivation for the study conducted by the

Lyceum International Marine Academy on the challenges associated with

maritime cadet training and online learning.

After the pandemic spread globally and online learning gained popularity,

a few studies regarding it were also conducted. The researchers performed the

study to ascertain and assess the marine cadets' preparation for online learning

and related concerns in order to close these gaps in the literature. This study was

also current and can assist ongoing Lyceum International Maritime Academy

studies.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The goal of this study was to identify the online challenges and readiness

of Lyceum International Maritime Academy's maritime cadets when using an e-

learning system.

The study's specific goals included describing the respondents'

demographic profile in terms of sex, program, year level, type of internet access,

and place of residence; identifying the difficulties of online learning; assessing

the readiness of maritime cadets; identifying the differences that were statistically

significant between responses to these questions about online learning

difficulties and readiness when grouped according to profile variables; and

proposing an action plan based on the study's findings.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Online Learning

Online learning has become the newly adopted earning option in this era.

Despite the numerous obstacles that teachers, especially students experience

upon using online learning in the midst of new normal, such as sluggish Internet

connections, device malfunctions owing to application incompatibility, and others,

online learning still helps students and educators acquire quality education.

According to Brittany (2015), there are three main types of online learning

environments: fully web-based, hybrid, or blended, as well as traditional courses

with online supplements. A fully web-based education system is practiced more

on online set up, without having face-to-face communication. Hybrid programs

combine online and traditional learning sessions, with different amounts of time

allotted to both according to the class nature and the instructor's discretion.

Because there is no one definition that incorporates all characteristics of online

learning settings, the final programming style, which employs online technology

to supplement conventional classroom education, is crucial to comprehending

the notion of online learning.

In the event that the government lifts the quarantine, and are prepared to

provide Courses that are all conducted online, planned face to face classes are

all options. In July 2020, DLSU authorized Lasallians Remote and Engaged

Approach for Connectivity in Higher Education, a digitally enabled alternative

teaching strategy. (R.E.A.C.H). The three delivery options offered by R.E.A.C.H.

—totally online (synchronous and asynchronous), hybrid (online and face-to-

face), and face-to-face—emphasize the importance of student-faculty connection

(when available). The university's learning management system (LMS),

AnimoSpace, organizes and makes all online academic resources available (De

La Salle University, 2020b).

There are also two sorts of online learning while taking a lesson online.

While synchronous and asynchronous online learning are commonly contrasted,

Hrastiski (2008) argues that in order for online learning to be successful,

institutions, organizations, and teachers must have a complete awareness of its

benefits and drawbacks.

In addition, any sort of learning that takes place entirely or mostly online is

referred to as online learning. A program is created to deliver the entire course to

students online, and students and instructors communicate using teleconference

tools like Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams. It's a form of distance

learning. During the epidemic, electronic learning (e-learning) took over as the

primary means of information dissemination.

Google Classroom, Messenger, Zoom, Edmodo, Facebook, and YouTube,

among other online and hybrid learning tools, should all be improved, according

to The Commission on Higher Education. (CHED, 2020). Both will use a variety

of teaching techniques, such as in-person instruction, blended learning, online

instruction, homeschooling, and other alternatives (CHED, 2020; DepEd, 2020).

 Students use paper-based, VHS, aired on television, or downloaded

online learning tools when they are not at the university. But mixed learning

combines in-person and online instruction (Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall, 2015).

However, only 0–29% of course material is available online for face-to-face

education, which includes both traditional and online courses (Allen, et al., 2013).

Allen et al. (2013)

Most of the terms (online learning, open learning, web-based learning,

computer-mediated learning, blended learning, and m-learning) have in common

the ability to use a computer connected to a network, providing the choice to

study from anywhere, anytime, in any rhythm, and with any means (Cojocariu, et

al., 2014). Online learning is a method of teaching and learning based on

technology that emphasizes the student and promotes creativity and adaptation.

These settings, which allow students to learn and interact with teachers and

other students from anywhere (independent), are described as "learning

experiences in synchronous or asynchronous contexts using a variety of devices

(e.g., mobile phones, laptop computers, etc.) with an internet connection" (Singh

and Thurman, 2019).

Zounek and Sudick (2012) identify nearly infinite access to information,

knowledge, and learning as one of the main advantages for today's learners

given the recent boom in the development of Internet and mobile technology.

Digital materials may also be saved and communicated within a learning

community, either directly to a premade cloud storage or via any sort of social

network, in order to improve student engagement, particularly while working in a

group or on a project (formal or informal). If allowed by certain copyright

constraints, various electronic learning resources may be downloaded to desktop

computers and mobile devices to enable speedy searches and information

retrieval. Comparing digital study resources to traditional paper-based study

materials, the former take up nearly no room. To suit each student's particular

learning requirements, they can also be updated (both in terms of content and

form) and assembled into personal collections and archives.

Zounek and Sudick offered more proof that learning aided by online

technology fits with the "anywhere" and "anytime" paradigm (2012).

"Personalization" and "flexibility" are two concepts that spring to mind when we

think of online learning. Choosing the exact time, they want to attend a particular

study session gives students a lot of options when creating their own learning

plans (making allowances for unrelated work and family issues, etc.). Even

though lecturers may offer the class broad guidelines and deadlines, it is

ultimately the responsibility of the students to manage their time over the

remaining weeks of the course. Based on their abilities and capabilities, students

may also manage their own rate of learning and growth. Until they are available,

students can choose study materials that are suitable for their learning styles

(such as text, audio, and video-based materials), ability levels, and personal

interests. The chance for students to take part in the process of course design

and content creation is another element of student-centered active learning that a

teacher may employ. Additionally, employing online technology might make it

easier for students and teachers to collaborate and share information, according
to the same study by Zounek and Sudick (2012). People can overcome their

social anxiety and shyness by using text-based online communication. The use

of internet technologies in this way might help pupils feel more confident. The

usage of e-tools by students improves their IT proficiency and digital literacy

(both directly and indirectly). The report was published in the Australian College

of Education's online magazine.

Finally, savings on a variety of costs (travel, printing, and book purchases,

for example) should be documented while assessing the overall effects of

implementing selected e-learning solutions, according to the revised study

conducted by Zounek & Sudick (2012).

Challenges of Online Learning

There are some common learning challenges right now. The most serious

issues include a poor Internet connection and online learning equipment that

must be compatible with all required software, as well as the method by which

professors offer their discussions, which may interfere with students' study.

According to Zounek and Sudick (2012), there is still a sizable gap in the

physical resources and Internet access available to students despite the rapid

advancement of communication and information technologies and the declining

costs of personal computers, laptops, cellphones, tablets, and other devices.

Even when the right technologies are readily available and usable, learners could

lack the abilities and expertise to fully utilize them to improve their learning.

This situation frequently leads to the replication of antiquated, ineffective

information and communication technology deployment tactics, and occasionally

all e-solutions are openly refused. For students in particular, using word

processing, presentations, collaboration, and other technologies for personal

learning frequently presents challenges.

In addition, some people could find that having an unfavorable attitude

about digital technology in general is a significant barrier, regardless of the

underlying causes. It is acceptable to assume that all teenagers have a basic

comprehension of internet technology and that the tools' implementation won't

generate any issues with regard to their usability, effectiveness, or general

educational aim.

According to Zounek and Sudick (2012), students who lack the motivation

and capacity to manage their workload and pursue independent study may

experience negative emotions as a result of technology-enhanced learning.

While teachers frequently expect learners to be more active, self-organized, and

independent while using e-learning tools, certain children may require teachers to

keep a close check on them while others may not. Therefore, technology may

become a cause of lower productivity and subpar academic achievement for

uninspired students with poor learning habits. Additionally, if there is a prolonged

absence of face-to-face instruction or other offline engagement, students may

feel abandoned and alone in the virtual world (i.e., "lost in cyberspace") (e.g., in

distance education programs). Another important aspect of online learning,

according to Zounek and Sudick (2012), is the problem of communication and

information overload. When there are too many connections and constant

contact across numerous services and channels, it may be difficult for students to
concentrate on their studies and problem-solving. Information overload and poor

study management may emerge from poor design and administration of training

(e.g. in blended e-learning courses). It is reasonable to assume that one of the

factors causing plagiarism and other types of technical cheating is an increase in

workload. Despite the fact that it is obvious that these techniques have been

used in educational systems for some time, contemporary technology, including

smartphone camera features, mobile Internet access, Bluetooth audio/video

transmission, etc., may have unintentionally sparked a wider proliferation of

these techniques given the variety of convenient opportunities available.

Finally, ICT-based education produces a variety of health concerns, the

most of which are related to prolonged periods of time spent in front of a

computer. Back discomfort, limited movement, eye strain, decreased mobility,

and even mental health issues might all be contributing factors.

Similar to COVID-19, it caused an abrupt change in instructional activity.

The teaching-learning process underwent a fundamental transformation when

face-to-face instruction was abruptly discontinued, as was previously stated, and

both students and instructors had to adjust (Carolan, et al., 2020). This approach

was not without problems, and there were several bottlenecks and obstacles that

cropped up along its path (Marinoni, et al., 2020). Universities need to be aware

of these possible barriers and devise practical solutions to get over them in order

to ensure a seamless shift and change. These barriers were identified through

particular study from the viewpoints of the key players in the learning process:

universities, students, and instructors.

 Furthermore, Learners reported that the most difficult component of

adjusting to E- learning was dealing with technical issues (Mishra, et al., 2020).

Online learning, according to some researchers, has the potential to deepen the

digital divide (Govindarajan and Srivastava, 2020). Schools should obtain funding

to make sure that students enjoy accessibility to a functional IT network and an

internet access, as well as technical help to handle technological issues

(Carolan, et al., 2020). Universities must be able to guarantee that less fortunate

students are not set aside in this new environment in order to foster an equal

student experience. Similar to COVID-19, a sudden change in instructional

activities was brought on by it. The teaching-learning process underwent a

fundamental transformation when face-to-face instruction was abruptly

discontinued, as was previously stated, and both students and instructors had to

adjust (Carolan, et al., 2020). This approach was not without problems, and there

were several bottlenecks and obstacles that cropped up along its path (Marinoni,

et al., 2020). Universities need to be aware of these possible barriers and devise

practical solutions to get over them in order to ensure a seamless shift and

change. These barriers were identified through particular study from the

viewpoints of the key players in the learning process: universities, students, and

instructors. Professors emphasized strong necessity for specialized capabilities

including excellence in computer, specialized communication skills for an online

set up, appropriate management of different teaching-learning technologies, as

well as the need to immediately respond to unique issues along teaching-

learning meetings are just a few examples. Academics have shown some
noteworthy ideas for overcoming barriers to quickly transition to remote

education after a time of adaptation and inquiry (Dwivedi, et al., 2020).

According to educators, the physical environment, including the lighting

and acoustics, should be conducive to online learning. The whole curriculum

should be rewritten for online instruction, and group projects should be included

to get students involved and promote cooperative learning. Academics should

ensure that students obtain great education in both contexts because most

universities are required to use a hybrid model that blends online sessions with

small face-to-face groups (Dwivedi, et al., 2020).

The human factor is also a big hindrance to technological advancement.

The transition process must include all stakeholders (faculty, students, and

technical staff), which necessitates institutional leadership and support.

Development of faculty and special regulations to enhance management

preparation for crisis and raise institutional resilience to face new crises are

necessary for the effective transformation of higher education (Marinoni et al.,

2020).

New ethical issues surrounding internet security and data privacy have

arisen as a result of the rise of digitization and access to information. Institutions

should also address these concerns by establishing behavior standards that

encourage openness and provide a safe and secure online learning environment

(Jensen, 2019).

According to study by Ochavillo (2020), seven out of ten maritime students

were ill-prepared to handle the paradigm change since they lacked a personal
computer for school, had limited internet connectivity at home, couldn't shop

online, and were usually in bad health. Out of the five, around three out of five

preferred in-person education.

Furthermore, the rapid transition to online learning will be detrimental to

long-term advancement owing to a lack of training, bandwidth restrictions, and

inadequate planning. Some students find it difficult to engage in digital learning

because they do not always have access to technology or the internet. This gap

was seen both within and between socioeconomic categories of nations (Li &

Lalani, 2020).

The ability of pupils to adapt is particularly crucial in light of the difficulties

presented by a shifting educational environment. While educational institutions

may be able to, students are unable to instantly plan for the changeover to online

learning delivery. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) discovered inconsistencies in this situation: just 34% of students in

Indonesia had access to computers for education, compared to 95% of children

in Switzerland, Norway, and Austria (WEF, 2020). This means that 6% of

students in Indonesia, 5% of students in Switzerland, Norway, and Austria, and

5% of students in Switzerland did not have access to computers for educational

reasons. While 14 million kids in the US, or 14% of students in Kajeet (2020), do

not have access to the internet at home.

READINESS FOR ONLINE LEARNING

 How well-prepared are students and instructors for online learning given

that the COVID -19 epidemic has pushed them to adapt to this state-of-the-art

educational system? The seamless shift from in-person education to online

learning required a teaching team with various levels of preparation and the

capacity to employ a variety of tactics and talents (Marinoni et al., 2020).

There may be a generational divide between instructors who have

depended on old techniques and have never utilized the internet and those who

are more accustomed to utilizing modern technologies. Some teachers may not

feel comfortable employing technology in an online context (Govindarajan and

Srivastava, 2020).

During the COVID-19 era, Alipio's research (2020) provides solid evidence

of Filipino learners' readiness for eLearning. Surprisingly, the lower middle class,

which is defined as a household earning between PhP 15,780 and PhP 31,560

per month, makes up the majority of respondents. The poverty rate in this

Philippine cluster is two to four times greater than the national average.

Despite the dichotomous response numbers on the eLearning ready scale

being just somewhat different, the majority of respondents resoundingly said "No"

to each question. Typically, a course, program, or degree that is entirely online is

referred to as e-learning. Online learning, as defined by Alipio (2020), is "learning

using electronic technology to access educational content outside of a traditional

classroom," and respondents indicated they weren't yet prepared for it, according

to the findings. The majority of survey participants lacked access to a computer

with an Internet connection or the necessary software. According to a prior

research, Millennium's digital skills are weak. Additionally, poll results showed

that participants weren't yet ready for online learning (2020). The findings

showed that the majority of respondents did not have access to a computer with

an Internet connection or the necessary software (e.g., Microsoft Word, Adobe

Acrobat). People bemoan their inability to perform basic computer functions like

creating folders and storing files, as well as conventional Internet browsing

methods (e.g., using search engines, entering passwords). According to

anecdotal evidence, millennia’s, who formed up the bulk of the respondents,

appear to be at ease using computers, despite the fact that an earlier study found

that they have very limited digital aptitude. Despite the lack of direct age

comparisons, research shows that more than 60% of millennia’s have poor

technical skills.

METHODS

This chapter presents the research design that was used in this study and

deals with the subjects, data gathering procedures, data analysis, and ethical

considerations.

Research Design

The major goal of this study was to evaluate the difficulties and level of

preparation for online learning among marine cadets at the Lyceum of the

Philippine Batangas. The researchers employed a quantitative descriptive study

strategy to gather data in order to create an adequate interpretation and to

accomplish this goal. The aim of descriptive research, according to Valdez

(2011), is to describe the information and characteristics of a population. The

goal is to gather accurate, trustworthy, and methodical data that may be applied

to statistical calculations such as averages and frequencies. Since descriptive

research concentrates on naturally occurring events rather than controlled

conditions, experimentation is rarely used in this type of study.

Participants

The Lyceum International Maritime Academy has 1367 maritime students

total, of whom 301 participated in this study. No matter their age or gender, BS

Marine Transportation and BS Marine Engineering students of all levels were

selected to participate in the study. Raosoft was also utilized to determine the

respondents' sample size. A sample size of 301 was created with a 5% margin of

error, a 95% confidence level, and a 50% response distribution. The respondents

were picked using a method of deliberate random selection. An intentional

sample, sometimes referred to as a judgment or expert sample, is a

nonprobability sample, according to SAGE Publication (2018). A purposive

sample's primary goal is to offer a sample that may be regarded as

representative of the population. This is often accomplished by leveraging

knowledge of the population to choose a sample of components in a non-random

way that reflects a cross-section of the population.

Instrument
 In addition to the now-confirmed Berge & Muilenburga paper from 2005,

Student Barriers to Online Learning: A Factor Analytic Study, the researchers

used a survey questionnaire from Alipio (2020)'s study, "Education during

COVID-19 era: Are learners in a less-economically developed country ready for

e-learning." The questionnaire has three sections. The survey's first section

concentrated on personal data including sex, program, year level, internet access

type, and area of residence. The second and third sections looked at the

difficulties of online learning for marine students and assessed how well-

prepared they were for it. According to a four-point Likert scale, the items were

rated.

Data Gathering Procedures

The names of the cadets enrolled in the Bachelor of Science in Marine

Transportation and Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering programs were

included in lists of LPU-B maritime cadets that were put together by the

researchers with assistance from the university's Registrar's office.

A survey was conducted online using Google Forms to acquire the data

needed for the investigation. The researchers emailed the link to the Google

forms to the respondents' personal emails and Facebook accounts. The

questionnaires were developed and adjusted from previous studies in the field.

The researchers followed up with the respondents via email to achieve the best

possible response rate. A total of 301 forms were sent, and they were all

retrieved.
Data Analysis

The frequency distribution and ranking of descriptive data were used to

ascertain the demographics of the respondents. The preparedness and

challenges of marine students for online learning were identified and evaluated

using a weighted mean. Online learning challenges and readiness were two

factors that were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When responses were

divided into categories based on profile criteria, the independent T-test was

performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the

responses. The relationship between the two variables, online learning difficulties

and preparation, was examined using the Mann-Whitney test. All of the data

were processed and looked at using SPSS 70.

Ethical Considerations

An informed consent form was used to ensure that research involving

human subjects was carried out ethically. In the informed consent statement, the

researchers requested permission to collect and store data for research

purposes.

The participants' rights were also outlined in the informed consent form.

This includes the right to request the termination of the data collection as well as

the confidentiality of the information. In addition, the right to withdraw and refuse

to respond to questions was claimed. It was stressed that participation in the

study is fully voluntary. Before they can actually answer the survey
 questionnaire on Google forms developed by the researchers, the participant

must first read the note for informed consent and agree.

Distribution of Respondents' Profile

Profile Frequency Percentage
Sex
Male 295 98.0
Female 6 2.0
Program
BSMarE 68 22.6
BSMT 233 77.4
Year Level
First Year 115 38.2
Second Year 73 24.3
Third 113 37.5
Year
Type of Internet Access
WiFI 208 69.1
Mobile Data 93 30.9
Place of Residence
Within Batangas City 51 16.9
Within Batangas Province 188 62.5
Outside Batangas Province 62 20.6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data gathered on the Online Learning

Challenges and Readiness of Maritime Cadets and their analysis and

interpretation.
 The distribution of 301 respondents' profiles is shown in Table 1, with 233,

or 77.4%, of the respondents coming from the BS Marine Transportation program

and 68, or 22.6%, from the BS Marine Engineering program. This demonstrates

that BS Marine Transportation received the greatest number of responders

compared to BS Marine Engineering, which had the lowest number of students.

According to prior studies from the same university, such as "Students'

Awareness on the New Curriculum of Lyceum International Maritime Academy,"

Barcelona, et al. (2015), the number of BS Marine Transportation cadets

outnumbers BS Marine Engineering cadets.

According to year level, the bulk of respondents (38.2%) are first-year

students, followed by third-year students (37.5%) and 113 respondents. Students

in their second year represented the smallest percentage (24.3%). This

demonstrates that senior cadets make up the majority of respondents.

As to sex, it shows that 297 or 98.0 percent were males and 6 or 2.0

percent of the total population were females. This proves that male respondents

dominated the participants of this study. Since most of the cadets are males, they

are definitely the ones the respondents of the study. Gender gap is highly evident

in maritime schools and in the seafaring profession. The delay in opening

schools to female students is to blame for the gender disparity in marine schools.

Before and after WWII, a number of marine schools admitted male students. For

decades, and in the instance of one government institution, almost two centuries,

limiting enrollment to males perpetuated the perception that maritime studies

were only for men (Tangi, 2016).

 Regarding the type of Internet Access, it shows that most of the

respondents were using WiFI, having 208 or 69.1% of the respondents, while 93

or 30.9% were using Mobile Data.

With regard to the place of residence, most of the respondents lived within

Batangas province, with 62.5 percent or 188 of the total respondents. Followed

by the outside Batangas province with 20.6 percent or 62 respondents. The least

percentage, 16.9 percent, lived within Batangas City.

Table 2
Mean Distribution of Challenges for E-Learning of the Respondents
N =301
Factors Mea Interpretation Rank
n
1. Lower quality materials/instruction online 2.22 Disagree 19

2. Instructors do not know how to teach 2.10 Disagree 20

online
3. Students' lack of 2.27 Disagree 18
interaction/communication
4. Lack of student collaboration 2.35 Disagree 17

5. Prefer to learn in person 2.88 Agree 3

6. Lack of reading skills for online learning 2.44 Disagree 9

7. Lack of writing skills for online learning 2.41 Disagree 10

8. Lack of language skills for online learning 2.40 Disagree 11.5

9. Lack of communication skills for online 2.37 Disagree 16

learning
10. Lack of typing skills for online learning 2.38 Disagree 14.5

11. Lack of online learning software skills 2.38 Disagree 14.5

12. Fear computers and technology 2.39 Disagree 13

13. Shy or lack confidence in online learning 2.46 Disagree 7

14. Unfamiliar with online learning technical tools 2.40 Disagree 11.5

15. Online learning cuts into my personal time 2.45 Disagree 8

16. Lack support from family, and friends 2.47 Disagree 6

17. Lack of adequate Internet access 2.85 Agree 4

18. Online learning technology costs too 2.84 Agree 5

much
19. Needed technology is not available 2.91 Agree 2

20. Lack of technical assistance 2.93 Agree 1

COMPOSITE MEAN 2..49 Disagree

Legend:3.50-4.00=Strongly Agree;2.50-3.49=Agree;1.50-2.49=Disagree;1.00-1.49=Strongly Disagree

Table 2 shows that the composite mean of the E-learning challenges of

maritime students resulted in 2.49, with an interpretation of disagree being

experienced as a whole. Furthermore, Roper (2007) discovered that students

rarely regard the online class as demanding in his research. On the other side,

adult learners discover that the ease and flexibility of online learning suit their

hectic schedules and learning goals. Adult learners have benefited from the

expansion of online degree programs, courses, and virtual institutions during the

past 10 years. Even if it is simple for students to choose an online course or

degree program that is convenient and accessible, they may have significant

difficulties developing a new set of skills for this type of learning.

The table demonstrates that the biggest obstacle the maritime student had

during e-learning was a "lack of technological assistance." According to Bayuca's

survey from the year 2021, the majority of learner-respondents rated their

experiences as challenging due to their own learning challenges, a lack of

resources, the instructors' meager assistance, the difficulty of conducting

research, and the complexity of understanding English. Additionally, it is advised

that the assistance program developed be put into place and closely followed to

fully reinforce the continuity of learning despite the difficulties faced throughout

the academic year. Technical support is essential to resolve issues, enhance

performance, and produce outcomes (Niepes, 2004).

With a calculated mean of 2.91, the next difficulty for the cadets is that

"required technology is not accessible." A research by Sree (2020) found that

lack of access to technology is a significant factor in pupils' absence from class.

Less than half of students at government schools in rural regions report taking

online courses.

Prefer to learn in person or face to face was ranked as the third greatest

problem by the students; despite a significant shift in the educational system from

face-to-face to distant learning, Lyceum International Maritime cadets still prefer

a face-to-face educational system.

According to a research by Ochavillo (2020), almost three out of five

pupils preferred face-to-face instruction. Additionally, switching to online learning

has been difficult for students all over the world, and this tension may be seen in

them in a variety of ways. Many students have expressed disinterest in the new

class style as a result, which could result in subpar academic performance

throughout the semester. According to others, this impact may be caused by a

number of variables, such as the fact that e-learning offers less direction than

traditional classroom instruction (Turner, 2020). This is followed by “lack of

adequate internet access,” being in the rank four and having 2.85 as the

weighted mean. The absence of internet access and computers in rural homes

hampers the growth of online learning (DePaul, 2020).

The cadets are then confronted with the difficulty of "online learning

technology costs too much," which equals 2.85. Online education could require a

significant upfront fee (Queiros & de Villiers, 2016). The high cost of ICT

equipment deters students from pursuing online education (Sinha & Bagarukayo,

2019). The cost of the devices and technology required for effective education

can have a big impact on how online learning works (Srichanyachon, 2014). As a

result of a shortage of funding, institutions might not be able to offer online

learning (Bean et al., 2019). Online education is more expensive to produce and

provide than traditional classroom learning (Turk & Cherney, 2016).

The verbal interpretation of "missing support from family, friends,

employer" was Disagree, and it came in sixth place with a weighted mean of

2.47. This indicates that during online classes, students experience their families'

support. The next problem, "shy or lack of confidence for online learning,"

received a calculated mean of 2.46. The eighth challenge, "online learning cuts

into my personal time," had a mean of 2.45. Some students are hesitant to

communicate with their professors and peers as a result of the new learning

methodology. It could result from a lack of interest, app or video-related technical

issues, or the inability to interact by live chat, email, or text message (Anu, 2021).

As a result, the least six and seven issues were also found, with "Lack of

communicationn skills for online learning" coming in second with a mean of 2.37
and "Lack of online learning software skills" coming in third with a calculated

mean of 2.38.

“Lack of student collaboration” was the fourth least challenging factor, with

a weighted mean of 2.35. In online classes, virtual collaboration activities have

the ability to maintain student interest, foster a sense of community, and give

students the chance to experience and hone their virtual cooperation abilities.

Teachers frequently struggle to modify their lesson plans for the internet

environment. In a traditional classroom setting, group work and collaborative

activities are excellent teaching strategies that are frequently used. Interaction is

viewed as essential to learning experiences from the constructivist learning

perspective (Vygotsky, 2018). Additionally, social learning, or learning in a group,

is essential for students to practice teamwork and advance their knowledge of

co-construction abilities (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2019). Effective teamwork

is a talent needed to work in the job.

The second challenge, "Students' lack of interaction/communication," had

a computed mean of 2.27 and a verbal interpretation of disagreed; it was

followed by "Lower quality materials/instruction online," which had a weighted

mean of 2.22 and a verbal interpretation of disagreed. The least mean of 2.22

and the verbal interpretation of rarely on the challenge of "Instructors do not

know how to teach online" shows that participants are not challenged in terms of

online teaching by instructors and teachers who are knowledgeable about

teaching online. Professors were pressured to swiftly adapt to new online

strategies, which some found to be stressful (Dwivedi et al., 2020). It was also
shown that academics do not think they are well prepared to teach online.

However, defining the skills needed to prepare faculty to teach online is still a top

priority since doing so will allow us to make suggestions on how to accomplish so

(Lichoro, 2015).

Table 3

Mean Distribution of Readiness for E-Learning of the Respondents

N =301
Indicators WM VI Rank
2.70 Often 20
1. Access to a computer with an Internet connection
2. Access to a computer with adequate software 2.78 Often 16
(e.g., Microsoft Word, Adobe, Acrobat).
3. Basic skills to operate a computer (e.g., saving files, 2.77 Often 17.5
creating folders)
4. Basic skills for finding my way around the Internet 2.82 Often 14.5
(e.g., using search engines, entering passwords)
2.83 Often 11.5
5. Send an email with a file attached
6. Comfortable using a computer several times a week 2.76 Often 19
to participate in a course
7. Communicate effectively with others using online 2.82 Often 13.5
technologies (e.g., email, chat)
 8. Use online tools (e.g., email, chat) to work on 2.86 Often 8
assignments with students who are in different time
zones
9. Schedule time to provide timely responses to other 2.85 Often 10
students and/or the instructor
2.77 Often 17.5
10. Ask questions and make comments in clear writing
11. Remain motivated even though the instructor is not 2.83 Often 11.5
online at all times
12. Complete my work even when there are online 2.86 Often 8
distractions (e.g., friends sending emails or Websites
to surf)
13. Complete my work even when there are distractions 2.89 Often 6
in my home (e.g., television, children, and such)
2.79 Often 15
14. Take notes while watching a video on the computer
15. Understand course-related information when items 2.90 Often 4.5
are presented in video formats
16. Carry on a conversation with others using the 2.86 Often 8
Internet (e.g., Internet chat, instant messenger)
17. Follow along with an online conversation (e.g., 2.92 Often 1.5
Internet chat, instant messenger) while typing
18. Regular contact with the instructor is important to my 2.92 Often 1.5
success in online coursework
19. Prior experiences with online technologies (e.g., 2.90 Often 4.5
email, Internet chat, online readings) are important to
my success with online course
20. Access to a fairly new computer (e.g., 2.91 Often 3
enough RAM, speakers, CD-ROM)
COMPOSITE MEAN 2.84 Often
Legend: 3.50-4.00=Always;2.50-3.49=Often;1.50-2.49=Sometimes;1.00-1.49=Never

The readiness for e-learning of maritime pupils is shown in Table 3 with a

composite mean of 2.98 and a verbal interpretation of "Often," indicating that

maritime cadets are well-prepared for e-learning. This is in contrast to the survey

results from Alipio (2020), which indicated that most respondents were not yet

prepared for e-learning because they answered "No" to every question on

readiness.

The majority of respondents, with a mean of 2.91, are prepared,

knowledgeable, and ready to communicate when it comes to the statements

"Regular contact with the instructor is important to my success in online

coursework" and "Follow along with an online conversation (e.g., Internet chat,

instant messenger) while typing." This demonstrates that participants are

prepared to engage in communication, group projects, and learning activities

using a variety of online resources. Learners and teachers interact through online

material while using electronic technology and media to offer, support, and

enhance teaching and learning (Baticulon et al., 2021). During the pandemic,

distance learning—in which a program is created to bring the lesson to students

fully through the internet—became the primary teaching method in the

curriculum. Students and the instructor meet through the internet using a

teleconference application like Zoom, Google Meet, or MS Teams.

Next, with a mean of 2.91, was "Access to a fairly new computer (e.g.,

enough RAM, speakers, CD-ROMs)," then "Prior experiences with online

technologies (e.g., email, Internet chat, online readings)," "Understand course-

related information when items are presented in video formats," and "Understand

course-related information when items are presented in written formats." Studies

show that processing and memory recall are improved with shorter video parts.

Videos have a big audience because of its appealing visual and aural elements,

which also make it easy for viewers to absorb information. In a nutshell, videos

make good teachers. (Bevan, 2020). The use of films in teaching and learning

benefits not only students but also teachers, the organizations to which they are

affiliated, and the overall educational system. A 2015 study by the software start-

up Kaltura found that 93% of teachers believe using educational films in the
classroom improves student learning. Additionally, they destroy previously

impenetrable borders like student and campus locations.

With a mean of 2.79 and a linguistic interpretation of regularly, "Take

notes when viewing a film on the computer" was the fifth least sign as a result.

According to note-taking research, taking notes helps students learn.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of studies demonstrate that taking notes during

lectures improves students' memory of the material (Bling, 2020). Students who

take notes fare better than those who don't on both immediate and delayed

assessments of memory and synthesis (Kiewra et al., 2019). Additionally,

students who take more notes typically remember more and do better on

examinations (Johnstone & Su, 2018). In conclusion, taking notes makes it

easier to remember specific information and to synthesize and apply new

knowledge, especially when the notes are examined before tests.

The indicator with the lowest mean score is "Access to a computer with

adequate software (e.g., Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat)," which received a

mean of 2.78. Next in line were "Ask questions and make comments in clear

writing" and "Basic skills to operate a computer (e.g., saving files, creating

folders)," which both received the same mean of 2.77. This indicates that

participants have the basic computer skills and are willing to seek advice from

instructors. The lowest sign has a mean of 2.70 and is "Access to a computer

with an Internet connection," while the second-lowest indicator is "Comfortable

using a computer many times a week to participate in a course." Many instances

of Internet access from a cell phone during the study, according to Nylander et al.
(2019), naturally occurred since participants did not have access to a PC.

However, they also had access to a computer in 51% of the instances where

they used their phones to browse the Web. Even though there was a computer

available, speed and convenience were the most frequently cited reasons (24%).

This justification was particularly prevalent when mobile Internet connection

occurred at homes and all users had access to computers. . Additionally,

because they kept their phones close at hand and frequently had the page they

required bookmarked, the study's participants discovered that performing

particular tasks on the phone was quicker and simpler. In this manner, people

could accomplish their goals with minimal effort and few keystrokes. Participants

frequently stated that using a computer would have required them to pull it out of

a backpack and start it up, which was thought to be excessively laborious and

slow.

Table 4

Difference of Responses on Online Learning When Grouped According to

Profile

Profile Variables λ2 c / U p-value Interpretation

Online Learning Challenges

Sex 812.500 0.729 Not Significant

Program 6307.000 0.010 Significant

Year Level 62.814 0.000 Highly Significant

Type of Internet Access 8303.500 0.048 Significant

Place of Residence 3.480 0.175 Not Significant

Readiness on Online Learning

Sex 627.000 0.219 Not Significant

Program 6331.500 0.011 Significant

Year Level 35.887 0.000 Highly Significant

Type of Internet Access 8253.000 0.041 Significant

Place of Residence 8.210 0.016 Significant

Legend: Significant at p-value<0.05

Table 4 displays the variation in answers for online learning when grouped

by profile. The table demonstrates that there were statistically significant

variations in the difficulties (p=0.010) and preparedness (p=0.011) when the data

were grouped by program. This implies that the replies from BSMarE and BSMT

students are very different, with BSMarE students scoring higher on online

learning preparedness and BSMT students scoring higher on online learning

hurdles.

Likewise, there was statistically significant difference on challenges

(p=0.000), and readiness (p=0.000) when the respondents were classified as to

year level. Post hoc test revealed that there was significant difference of

responses on challenges between first year and second year and between third

year and second year while there was significant difference of responses on

readiness between second year and first year, and between third year and first
year. The results showed that second year students have higher assessment on

online learning challenges while the first-year student have higher assessment

on readiness on online learning.

When categorized according to the type of internet connection, there was

also a statistically significant difference in the challenges (p=0.048) and

preparedness (p=0.041). This indicates that depending on the sort of internet

connectivity utilized for online learning, the replies vary dramatically. While

mobile data users had greater assessments of online learning problems, Wi-Fi

users have higher assessments of their preparation for online learning.

Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in preparation

(p=0.016) according to the respondents' residences. Inhabitants of Batangas City

were much more prepared for online learning than residents of other areas,

according to the results of a post hoc analysis of the replies between residents of

Batangas City and residents of Batangas Province.

Table 5
Proposed Plan of Action to Address the Difficulties and Preparedness in
Online learning of Maritime Cadets in Lyceum International Maritime
Academy
KEY Result Areas Success Indicators Persons Involved
1. Motivate marine ● In this "new normal" setup ● LIMA
cadets to adapt to period, continuously Instructors/
online learning encourage marine cadets Professors
by setting goals and
plotting progress.

2. Support online ● Create a program to assist ● School

learning for students in obtaining more Administration
marine cadets. up-to-date simulators,
computers, and a more
reliable internet connection
 for their online studying.

3. To motivate ● Bringing in motivational

maritime cadets and competent presenters ● LIMA
to participate in that may hold effective Instructors/
webinars. Professors
webinars will increase
participants' understanding
of the benefits of online
learning and the best
practices for online
learning.

4. To assess the ● Survey student’s background ● LIMA

marine cadet's and capacity for online Instructors/
readiness for learning. Professors
online education

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the following are the conclusions

drawn by the researchers:

1. Majority of the respondents are male first-year students of Bachelor of

Science in Marine Transportation.

2. The major problem with online learning for maritime cadets is that there is

still a lack of technical support infrastructure and that they think the price

of online technology is too exorbitant.

3. The readiness of maritime cadets for online learning is shown in their

readiness.
 4. There are significant differences in the challenges of the cadets in e-

learning when grouped according to program, when the respondents were

classified as to year level, when grouped as to the type of internet access

and when the respondents were classified as to the place of residence.

5. An action plan to address the online challenges and readiness of maritime

cadets has been proposed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Constant motivation shall be provided by instructors to maritime cadets to

be more open to adapting to online learning as a face-to-face setup may

not yet be possible.

2. The school administration may consider developing a program to assist

students in acquiring more updated simulators, computers, and a more

stable internet connection for their online learning.

3. Maritime students may be asked to join a webinar that would enrich their

understanding of the advantages of online learning and learn the tips for

successful online learning.

4. Maritime professors may track not only cadets' academic success, but

also their capacity for online learning, and pay special attention to those

cadets who struggle with the new way of learning, especially people living

in rural areas who face the greatest challenges in e-learning.

5. Future researchers may consider conducting a further evaluation of online

learning at LIMA.

REFERENCES
Alcantara, F., Deligero, J., Laguador J. (2015). PROFILE ASPIRATIONS OF
MARITIME STUDENTS IN ONE HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE
Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.google.com /url?sa=t&source
=web&rct=j&url=https ://research.ubatangas.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/
2015/06/AJBAS-PROFILE-ASPIRATIONS-OF-MARITIME-STUDENTS-
IN-ONE-HIGHER-EDUCATION-IN-THE-PHILIPPINES.pd

Alipio, M. M (2020). Education during COVID-19 era: Are learners in a less-

economically developed country ready for e-learning? Retrieved
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/216098/1

Ancheta, R., & Ancheta, B. (2020). The New Normal in Education: A Challenge
to the Private Basic Education Institutions in the Philippines? International
Journal Educational Management and Development Studies, Volume 1,
Issue 1. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/344267052

Anu, V., (2021). Online learning Challenges & how to overcome these problems
Retrieved from: https://www.embibe.com/ exams/ online-learning-
challenges-and-solutions/

Barcelona, M. et. al (2015). Students’ Awareness on the New Curriculum of

Lyceum International Maritime Academy. Retrieved from https://www
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://research.lpubatangas.
edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/APJME-2015-004-Mosca-Level-of-
Awareness-on-the-New-Curriculum-of-LIMA.pdf&

Baticulon, R. et. al (2021). Barriers to Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19:

A National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://link.sprin
ger.com/article

Carolan, C., et. al. (2020). COVID 19: disruptive impacts and transformative
opportunities in undergraduate nurse education. Nurse Educ. Pract.
46:102807. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102807

Cojocariu Dhawan, S. (2014, June 20). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time
of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. DePaul,
M. (2020). Poor Internet connection leaves rural students behind.
Retrieved from https://www.google.com/ url?
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:// msutoday.msu.edu/news/2020/poor-
internet-connection-leaves-rural-students-behind
Chang, C., Hurst, B., & McLean, A. (2016). How fast is fast enough? Education
students’ perceptions of email response time in online courses. Journal of
Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 9(1), 1–11.
Dwivedi, Y., et. al. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information
management research and practice: Transforming education, work and
life. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 55:102211. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102211

Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall, 2015. What is Distance Education. IGI Global. (n.d.).
Retrieved from https://www.igi-global.com/ dictionary/ distance-education/
7981.

Fleming, N. et. al (2020). In Rural and Urban Communities, Kids Still Struggle to
Get Online. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/ url?
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.edutopia.org/article/rural-and-
urban-communities-kids-still-cant-get-online&ved=2ahUKEwjB4_GB5cnxAh
ULv5QKHR-MBhoQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2VaguBAxQZ48
RMUH7Ops53

Hrastinski, J., (2008). Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning. Retrieved

from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-
synchronous-elearning

Jensen, T. (2019). Higher Education in the Digital Era: The Current State of

Transformation Around the World. International Association of Universities
(IAU). Retrieved from https://www.iau-aiu.net/ IMG/ pdf/
technology_report_2019.pdf

Johnstone, A. H., & Su, W. Y. (1994). Lectures— a learning experience?

Education in Chemistry, 31 (1), 75-76, 79. Retrieved from
https://crlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource_files/CRLT_no16.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR0XEQfmuSelQEelh_SKjGnWe0chVSYkYnHmbvPx04av6fByg
DwenTbIVE4

Kaymak, D. et al. (2013). Relationship between Online Learning Readiness and

Structure and Interaction of Online Learning Students. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1017736.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0wtmZ5snxAhWcxYsBHRbTBH4QFjABeg
QIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1Ig4sXS5u8q7UgnpCihLpi

Kasrekar, A. (2020). Virtual Learning: The ‘New Normal’ in Imparting Lessons to

the Students, Available online at www.indianexpress.com, Date Accessed,
16 August 2020

Kiewra, K. A. (2019). Students’ notetaking behaviors and the efficacy of providing

the instructors’ notes for review, Contemporary Educational Psychology,
14 (3), 110-117.
Liang S. W., et al. (2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic
on Guangdong College students: the difference between seeking and not
seeking psychological help. Front. Psychol. 11:2231.
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02231

Li, C. & Lalani, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education
forever Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-
covid19-online-digital-learning/
Lichoro, D, M., (2015). Faculty preparedness for transition to teaching online
courses in the Iowa Community College Online Consortium. Retrieved
from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=5383&context=etd

Magsambol, B. (2020). No student left behind? During pandemic, education ‘only

for those who can afford’. Rappler. Available online at
https://rappler.com/newsbreak/indepth/education-only-for-people-who-
can-afford-coronavirus-pandemic. Date Accessed, 24 June 2020.

Magsambol, B. (2020). Over 200,000 students transfer from private to public

schools amid pandemic. Rappler. Available online at
https://rappler.com/nation/students-privateschools-transfer-to-public-
coronavirus-pandemic. Date Accessed, 18 July 2020.

Marinoni, G.,et..al. (2020). The Impact of Covid-19 on Higher Education Around

the World. IAU Global Survey Report. Retrieved from: https://www.iau-
aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau_covid19_and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf

Mishra, L., Gupta, T., Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher

education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266637402030012
1?via%3Dihub

Mishra, L., et.al. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during

lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374020300121

Muilenburg, L. & Berge Z. (2018). Student Barriers to Online Learning: A Factor

Analytic Study. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247662298_Student_Barriers_to
_Online_Learning_A_Factor_Analytic_Study

Ochavillo, G. S., (2020). A Paradigm Shift of Learning in Maritime Education

amidst COVID-19 Pandemic. Retrieved from
http://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/ijhe/article/view/18605
Queiros, D. R., & de Villiers, M. R. (2016). Online learning in a south African
higher education institution: Determining the right connections for the
student. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 17(5).

Roper, A. (2007). How Students Develop Online Learning Skills. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://er.educau
se.edu/ articles/ 2007/ 1/ how-students-develop-online-learning-
skills&ved=2ahUKEwipqI2x1cnxAhVpHKYKHe5FAIYQFjAAegQIARAC&u
sg=AOvVaw0-8eG-IVJMMjkY_eP7YmvR
Singh, V., Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A
systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018).
American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289–306.

Sinha, E.& Bagarukayo, K. (2019). Online Education in Emerging Knowledge

Economies:Exploring factors of motivation, de-motivation and potential
facilitators; and studying the effects ofdemographic variables. Retrieved
from https://www.google.com/ url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://
www.researchgate.net/figure/Potential-Facilitators-of-Online-Education_
tbl2_334205445/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjr9Zru1snxAhWJPZQKHexQCXsQFj
AAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw3FiXC6zffK_pYVFu7dThh7&ampcf=1

Sage Publication (2018). Purposive Sample. Retrieved from

https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-
methods/n419.xml

Sree, C. (2020). Digital divide proves to be challenge for online education in rural
areas. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/ url?
sa=t&source=web&rct= j&url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/ states/
andhra-pradesh/ 2020/ sep/14/digital-divide-proves-to-be-challenge-for-
online-education-in-rural-areas-
2196525.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjngdeq28nxAhV-y4sBHYm5CP4QFj
AAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw1N6oRHvZEGpAo7jTy6G-cj&ampcf=1

Srichanyachon, N. (2014). The Barriers and Needs Of Online Learners.

Retrieved from https://www.google.com/ url? sa= t&source =web&rct
=j&url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 276839765_ The_
Barriers_
And_Needs_Of_Online_Learners&ved=2ahUKEwiokJPv18nxAhUPxZQK
Ha6_AXIQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0McFEEvfHxTzPsImt412mk

Tangi, L. (2016). Empowering Filipino Women Seafarers in the Maritime Sector.

Retrieved from https://www.google.com/ url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=
https://cids.up.edu.ph/ wp-content/ uploads/ Empowering-Women-
Seafarers-in-the-Maritime-Sector-vol.15-no.2-2016.pdf&ved= 2ahUKEwi
 vvpfJlcnxAhXpxYsBHWNMBe0QFjAEegQIIxAC&usg=AOvVaw1T8Pg4Pic
LMnHEyr596C-J
Written by Tanghueco Cathy Li, H. of M. (n.d.). The COVID-19 pandemic has
changed education forever. This is how. World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-
covid19-online-digital-learning/.

Turk, S. E., & Cherney, I. D. (2016). Perceived online education barriers of

administrators and faculty at a U.S. university in Lebanon. Creighton
Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 2(1), 15–31.

Turner, S. (2020). Many students lack motivation for online learning. Retrieved
from https://granitebaytoday.org/distance-learning-presents-challenges-to-
student-education/

Zounek, J., & Sudický, P. HEADS IN THE CLOUD: PROS AND CONS OF

ONLINE LEARNING. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

311807840_Heads_in_the_Cloud_Pros_and_Cons_of_Online_Learning

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE

Online Learning Challenges And Readiness Of Maritime Student From

Lyceum International Maritime Academy
Dear Respondents:

Good day!

We, the Researchers from BSMT SIV- Bravo are currently working on a
research study titled “Online Learning Challenges And Readiness Of
Maritime Student From Lyceum International Maritime Academy``,” which
aims to determine the challenges and readiness of maritime student of the
Lyceum International Maritime Academy in utilizing e-learning system.

To achieve the success of the foregoing study, we humbly ask for your
honest response and utmost cooperation in answering this questionnaire. It will
be highly appreciated. Rest assured that all information will be treated with
utmost confidentiality.

The Researchers

Part 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

General Directions: Kindly put a check mark (✔) inside the box that
corresponds to your answer. Please do not leave any item unanswered.

1. Sex
Male
Female

2. Program
Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation
Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering

3. Year Level
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
 4. TYPE OF INTERNET ACCES
WiFi
Mobile Data

5. Place of Residence

Within Batangas City

Within Batangas Province

Outside Batangas Province

Part II. Challenges for e-learning

Directions: Kindly put a check mark (✔) on the column that corresponds to your answer.
The responses and its verbal interpretation are
4 (Strongly Agree)
3 (Agree)
2 (Disagree)
1 (Strongly Disagree).

Factors 4 3 2 1

1. Lower quality materials/instruction online

2. Instructors do not know how to teach online
3. Students' lack of interaction/communication
4. Lack of student collaboration
5. Prefer to learn in person
6. Lack of reading skills for online learning
7. Lack of writing skills for online learning
8. Lack of reading skills for online learning
9. Lack of communication skills for online learning
10. Lack of typing skills for online learning
11. Lack of online learning software skills
12. Fear computers and technology
13. Shy or lack confidence for online learning
14. Unfamiliar with online learning technical tools
15. Online learning cuts into my personal time
16. Lack support from family, friends
17. Lack adequate Internet access
18. Online learning technology costs too much
19. Needed technology is not available
20. Lack technical assistance
Part III. Readiness for e-learning
Directions: Kindly put a check mark (✔) on the column that corresponds to your
answer. The responses and its verbal interpretation are:
4 (Always)
3 (Very Frequent)
2 (Rarely)
1 (Never)

Factors 4 3 2 1
1. Access to a computer with an Internet connection
2. Access to a computer with adequate software
(e.g., Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat).
3. Basic skills to operate a computer (e.g., saving
files, creating folders)
4. Basic skills for finding my way around the Internet
(e.g., using search engines, entering passwords)
5. Send an email with a file attached
6. Comfortable using a computer several times a
week to participate in a course
7. Communicate effectively with others using online
technologies (e.g., email, chat)
8. Use online tools (e.g., email, chat) to work on
assignments with students who are in different
time zones
9. Schedule time to provide timely responses to other
students and/or the instructor
10. Ask questions and make comments in clear writing
11. Remain motivated even though the instructor is not
online at all times
12. Complete my work even when there are online
distractions (e.g., friends sending emails or
Websites to surf)
13. Complete my work even when there are
distractions in my home (e.g., television, children,
and such)
14. Take notes while watching a video on the
computer
15. Understand course related information when items
presented in video formats
16. Carry on a conversation with others using the
Internet (e.g., Internet chat, instant messenger)
17. Follow along with an online conversation (e.g.,
Internet chat, instant messenger) while typing
18. Regular contact with the instructor is important to
my success in online coursework
19. Prior experiences with online technologies (e.g.,
email, Internet chat, online readings) are important
to my success with online course
20. Access to a fairly new computer (e.g., enough
RAM, speakers, CD-ROM)

APPENDIX B
Statistical Output

Table: PROGRAM
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid BSMarE 68 22.6% 22.6% 22.6%
BSMT2 233 77.4% 77.4% 100.00%
Total 301 100.00% 100.00%

Table: YEAR LEVEL

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
 Percent Percent
Valid First Year 115 38.2% 38.20% 38.20%
Second Year 73 24.3% 24.30% 62.50%
Third Year 113 37.5% 37.50% 100.00%
Total 301 100.00%

Table: TYPE OF INTERNET

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid WiFI 208 69.10% 69.10% 69.1%0
Mobile Data 93 30.90% 30.90% . 100.00%
Total 301 100.00% 100.00%

Table: SEX
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 295 98.00% 98.00% 98.00%
Female 6 2.00% 2.00% 100.00%
Total 301 100.00%

Table: Residence
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Within
Batangas
Valid City 51 16.90% 16.90% 16.90%
Within
Batangas
Province 188 62.50% 62.50% 79.40%
Outside
Batangas
Province 62 20.06% 20.06% 100.00%
Total 301 100.00% 100.00%
Table: area

Table: Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

C1 301 2.2159 .58584 1 4

C2 301 2.0997 .51965 1 4

C3 301 2.2691 56922 1 4

C4 301 2.3488 63868 1 4

C5 301 2.8837 59141 1 4

C6 301 2.4352 69758 1 4

C7 301 2.4086 67512 1 4

C8 301 2.3987 71684 1 4

C9 301 2.3721 68392 1 4

C10 301 2.3754 .69899 1 4

C11 301 2.3821 68084 1 4

C12 301 2.3887 72000 1 4

C13 301 2.4618 69477 1 4

C14 301 2.3987 66873 1 4

C15 301 2.4452 73108 1 4

C16 301 2.4684 69510 1 4

C17 301 2.8472 65567 1 4

C18 301 2.8439 69680 1 4

C19 301 2.9070 68165 1 4

C20 301 2.9336 64465 1 4

amean 301 2.7010 70496 1 4

R1 301 2.7807 69649 1 4

R2 301 2.7741 70389 1 4

R3 301 2.8173 69029 1 4

R4 301 2.8306 69029 1 4

R5 301 2.7575 67419 1 4

R6 301 2.8173 69112 1 4

R7 301 2.8638 66571 1 4

R8 301 2.8472 66571 1 4

R9 301 2.7741 66687 1 4

R10 301 2.8339 66073 1 4

R11 301 2.8571 66073 1 4

R12 301 2.8904 68468 1 4

R13 301 2.7907 63165 1 4

R14 301 2.8970 64513 1 4

R15 301 2.8571 .63083 1 4

R16 301 2.9236 72987 1 4

R17 301 2.9203 62515 1 4

R18 301 2.8970 63268 1 4

R19 301 2.9070 62665 1 4

R20 301 2.2159 61480 1 4

bmean 301 2.98 0.57 1 4

Valid N (listwise) 301

Table: Group Statistics

Std.
Group N Mean Deviation S.E. Mean
amean 1 246 2.46 0.59 0.04
2 60 2.49 0.55 0.07
bmean 1 246 2.96 0.57 0.04
2 60 3.03 0.56 0.07

Table: Independent Samples

Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of T-Test for Equality of
Variances Means
95%
Sig. Confidence
(2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
variances
amean assumed 0.09 0.768 -0.34 304 0.736 -0.03 0.08 -0.19 0.14
Equal variances not
assumed -0.35 95.47 0.724 -0.03 0.08 -0.19 0.13
 Equal
variances
bmean assumed 0.02 0.892 -0.73 304 0.464 -0.06 0.08 -0.22 0.1
Equal variances not
assumed -0.74 91.2 0.46 -0.06 0.08 -0.22 0.1

Table: Group Statistics

Std. S.E.
Group N Mean Deviation Mean
amean 1 290 2.47 0.59 0.03
2 16 2.34 0.5 0.13
bmean 1 290 2.98 0.57 0.03
2 16 2.98 0.61 0.15

Table: Independent Samples

Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of T-Test for Equality of
Variances Means
Sig. 95%
(2- Mean Std. Error Confidence
tailed Differenc Differenc Interval of the
F Sig. t df ) e e Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
amea variances
n assumed 1.85 0.174 0.89 304 0.373 0.13 0.15 -0.16 0.43
Equal variances not
assumed 1.02 17.33 0.32 0.13 0.13 -0.14 0.41
Equal
bmea variances
n assumed 0.29 0.588 -0.01 304 0.991 0 0.15 -0.29 0.29
Equal variances not
assumed -0.01 16.5 0.991 0 0.16 -0.33 0.33

Table: Group Statistics

Std. S.E.
Group N Mean Deviation Mean
amean 1 142 2.56 0.6 0.05
2 164 2.38 0.55 0.04
bmean 1 142 2.95 0.58 0.05
2 164 3 0.57 0.04

Table: Independent Samples

Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of T-Test for Equality of
Variances Means
Sig. 95%
(2- Confidence
tailed Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df ) Difference Difference Difference
 Lower Upper
Equal
amea variances 2.7
n assumed 3.17 0.076 7 304 0.006 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.31
Equal variances not 2.7
assumed 6 289 0.006 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.31
Equal -
bmea variances 0.8
n assumed 0.26 0.609 5 304 0.394 -0.06 0.07 -0.18 0.07
-
Equal variances not 0.8
assumed 5 295.64 0.394 -0.06 0.07 -0.19 0.07

Table:
Descriptives
Std. Std.
Deviatio Erro 95% Confidence
N Mean n r Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
year Bound Upper Bound
amean 1 39 2.37 0.6 0.1 2.17 2.56 1 3.35
2 76 2.56 0.61 0.07 2.42 2.7 1 4
3 190 2.44 0.56 0.04 2.36 2.52 1 3.95
Tota
l 305 2.46 0.58 0.03 2.4 2.53 1 4
bmean 1 39 3.12 0.61 0.1 2.93 3.32 1 4
2 76 2.91 0.56 0.06 2.78 3.04 1.15 4
3 190 2.97 0.57 0.04 2.89 3.05 1.3 4
Tota
l 305 2.98 0.57 0.03 2.91 3.04 1 4

Table: ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
amean Groups 1.17 2 0.59 1.74 0.177
Within Groups 101.37 302 0.34
Total 102.54 304
Between
bmean Groups 1.19 2 0.6 1.83 0.162
Within Groups 98.31 302 0.33
Total 99.51 304

Table:
Descriptives
95%
Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for
N Mean Deviation Error Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
age Bound Upper Bound
amean 1 11 2.4 0.52 0.16 2.05 2.74 1.45 3.15
2 130 2.42 0.56 0.05 2.33 2.52 1 3.5
3 159 2.52 0.6 0.05 2.43 2.61 1 4
4 6 2.02 0.65 0.27 1.34 2.71 1 3
Tota
l 306 2.46 0.58 0.03 2.4 2.53 1 4
bmean 1 11 3.02 0.59 0.18 2.63 3.42 2.05 4
2 130 2.99 0.66 0.06 2.87 3.1 1 4
3 159 2.96 0.49 0.04 2.88 3.04 1.45 4
4 6 3.06 0.61 0.25 2.42 3.69 2.1 4
Tota
l 306 2.98 0.57 0.03 2.91 3.04 1 4

Table: ANOVA
Sum of
Square Mean
s df Square F Sig.

amean Between Groups 1.9 3 0.63 1.89 0.132

Within Groups 101.34 302 0.34

Total 103.24 305

bmean Between Groups 0.12 3 0.04 0.12 0.95

Within Groups 99.39 302 0.33

Total 99.51 305

Table: Descriptives
95%
Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for
N Mean Deviation Error Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
income Bound Upper Bound
amean 1 108 2.49 0.58 0.06 2.38 2.6 1 4
2 114 2.55 0.55 0.05 2.45 2.65 1.3 3.75
3 46 2.27 0.66 0.1 2.08 2.47 1 3.2
4 27 2.36 0.56 0.11 2.13 2.58 1.25 3.95
5 11 2.38 0.5 0.15 2.05 2.71 1.55 3.05
Total 306 2.46 0.58 0.03 2.4 2.53 1 4
bmean 1 108 3.01 0.57 0.05 2.9 3.12 1.95 4
2 114 2.99 0.52 0.05 2.89 3.08 1.15 4
3 46 2.91 0.72 0.11 2.69 3.12 1 4
 4 27 2.92 0.58 0.11 2.69 3.15 1.45 4
5 11 2.93 0.39 0.12 2.67 3.19 2.05 3.65
Total 306 2.98 0.57 0.03 2.91 3.04 1 4

Table: ANOVA
Sum of
Square Mean
s df Square F Sig.
amean Between Groups 3.06 4 0.76 2.3 0.059
Within Groups 100.18 301 0.33
Total 103.24 305
bmean Between Groups 0.51 4 0.13 0.38 0.82
Within Groups 99 301 0.33
Total 99.51 305
EXAMINE VARIABLES=Challenges Readiness BY Sex
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.

Explore

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:30:52
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for
dependent variables are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
dependent variable or factor
used.
Syntax EXAMINE
VARIABLES=Challenges
Readiness BY Sex
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF
NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:05.61
Elapsed Time 00:01:10.90

[DataSet0]

Sex

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex N Percent N Percent N Percent
Challenges Male 295 100.0% 0 0.0% 295 100.0%
Female 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%
Readiness Male 295 100.0% 0 0.0% 295 100.0%
Female 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Descriptives
Sex Statistic Std. Error
Challenges Male Mean 2.4961 .02789
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.4412
Mean Upper Bound 2.5510
5% Trimmed Mean 2.4774
Median 2.3500
Variance .230
Std. Deviation .47908
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .60
Skewness .628 .142
Kurtosis .886 .283
 Female Mean 2.4000 .11547
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.1032
Mean Upper Bound 2.6968
5% Trimmed Mean 2.3944
Median 2.4250
Variance .080
Std. Deviation .28284
Minimum 2.05
Maximum 2.85
Range .80
Interquartile Range .46
Skewness .447 .845
Kurtosis .315 1.741
Readiness Male Mean 2.8307 .03095
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.7698
Mean Upper Bound 2.8916
5% Trimmed Mean 2.8167
Median 2.9500
Variance .283
Std. Deviation .53162
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .55
Skewness .103 .142
Kurtosis .147 .283
Female Mean 3.1417 .19253
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.6467
Mean Upper Bound 3.6366
5% Trimmed Mean 3.1157
Median 2.9500
Variance .222
Std. Deviation .47161
Minimum 2.75
Maximum 4.00
Range 1.25
Interquartile Range .69
Skewness 1.518 .845
 Kurtosis 1.996 1.741

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Sex Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Challenges Male .161 295 .000 .938 295 .000
Female .195 6 .200* .952 6 .755
Readiness Male .138 295 .000 .946 295 .000
Female .244 6 .200 *
.832 6 .111
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Challenges

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Sex= Male

Frequency Stem & Leaf

4.00 Extremes (=<1.3)

.00 1 .
8.00 1 . 66777777
4.00 1 . 9999
39.00 2 . 000000000000000000000000000111111111111
98.00 2 .
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
22222222223333333333333333
40.00 2 . 4444444444444444444455555555555555555555
16.00 2 . 6666666666677777
32.00 2 . 88888888888888888999999999999999
31.00 3 . 0000000000000000000000000011111
7.00 3 . 2222223
6.00 3 . 445555
5.00 3 . 66777
 5.00 Extremes (>=3.9)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Sex= Female

Frequency Stem & Leaf

4.00 2 . 0144
2.00 2 . 58

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
Readiness

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Sex= Male

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.00)

3.00 19 . 055
36.00 20 . 000000000000000000000000000000555555
5.00 21 . 00055
4.00 22 . 0555
17.00 23 . 00000000055555555
8.00 24 . 05555555
10.00 25 . 0000000555
 17.00 26 . 00000000055555555
14.00 27 . 00000000005555
19.00 28 . 0000000555555555555
23.00 29 . 00000000005555555555555
74.00 30 .
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005555
55
12.00 31 . 000000005555
11.00 32 . 00000555555
4.00 33 . 0005
6.00 34 . 000555
2.00 35 . 05
5.00 36 . 00555
4.00 37 . 0555
20.00 Extremes (>=3.85)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Sex= Female

Frequency Stem & Leaf

3.00 2 . 788
2.00 3 . 03
1.00 4 . 0

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
EXAMINE VARIABLES=Challenges Readiness BY Program
 /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.

Explore

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:32:42
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for
dependent variables are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
dependent variable or factor
used.
Syntax EXAMINE
VARIABLES=Challenges
Readiness BY Program
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF
NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:03.23
 Elapsed Time 00:00:02.69

Program

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Program N Percent N Percent N Percent
Challenges BSMarE 68 100.0% 0 0.0% 68 100.0%
BSMT 233 100.0% 0 0.0% 233 100.0%
Readiness BSMarE 68 100.0% 0 0.0% 68 100.0%
BSMT 233 100.0% 0 0.0% 233 100.0%

Descriptives
Program Statistic Std. Error
Challenges BSMarE Mean 2.6434 .06527
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.5131
Mean Upper Bound 2.7737
5% Trimmed Mean 2.6296
Median 2.5500
Variance .290
Std. Deviation .53823
Minimum 1.25
Maximum 3.85
Range 2.60
Interquartile Range .75
Skewness .262 .291
Kurtosis -.299 .574
BSMT Mean 2.4506 .02935
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.3928
Mean Upper Bound 2.5085
5% Trimmed Mean 2.4333
 Median 2.3000
Variance .201
Std. Deviation .44802
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .50
Skewness .725 .159
Kurtosis 1.673 .318
Readiness BSMarE Mean 2.7228 .06319
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.5967
Mean Upper Bound 2.8489
5% Trimmed Mean 2.6984
Median 2.7750
Variance .272
Std. Deviation .52108
Minimum 1.90
Maximum 4.00
Range 2.10
Interquartile Range .70
Skewness .368 .291
Kurtosis -.196 .574
BSMT Mean 2.8702 .03479
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.8016
Mean Upper Bound 2.9387
5% Trimmed Mean 2.8610
Median 3.0000
Variance .282
Std. Deviation .53108
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .50
Skewness .031 .159
Kurtosis .362 .318
 Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Program Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Challenges BSMarE .150 68 .001 .955 68 .015
BSMT .166 233 .000 .929 233 .000
Readiness BSMarE .121 68 .015 .949 68 .007
BSMT .142 233 .000 .940 233 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Challenges

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Program= BSMarE

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 1 . 2
1.00 1 . 9
30.00 2 . 000000001112222222222233334444
15.00 2 . 555688888899999
15.00 3 . 000000000122234
6.00 3 . 555788

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Program= BSMT

Frequency Stem & Leaf

3.00 Extremes (=<1.30)

2.00 16 . 05
 6.00 17 . 055555
.00 18 .
3.00 19 . 555
20.00 20 . 00000000000055555555
10.00 21 . 0000055555
71.00 22 .
00000000005555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
12.00 23 . 000000555555
18.00 24 . 000005555555555555
18.00 25 . 000000000055555555
10.00 26 . 0000000055
5.00 27 . 05555
12.00 28 . 000005555555
10.00 29 . 0000055555
17.00 30 . 00000000000000055
4.00 31 . 0000
3.00 32 . 555
.00 33 .
1.00 34 . 5
8.00 Extremes (>=3.55)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
Readiness

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Program= BSMarE

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 1 . 9
21.00 2 . 000000000000133333344
26.00 2 . 55566666677788888899999999
14.00 3 . 00000000122234
5.00 3 . 66699
1.00 4 . 0

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Program= BSMT

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.00)

2.00 19 . 55
24.00 20 . 000000000000000000000555
4.00 21 . 0055
4.00 22 . 0555
11.00 23 . 00000555555
6.00 24 . 055555
7.00 25 . 0000055
11.00 26 . 00000005555
12.00 27 . 000000005555
15.00 28 . 000005555555555
15.00 29 . 000000055555555
67.00 30 .
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005555555
11.00 31 . 00000005555
8.00 32 . 00005555
4.00 33 . 0005
5.00 34 . 00555
 2.00 35 . 05
2.00 36 . 55
4.00 37 . 0555
18.00 Extremes (>=3.85)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
EXAMINE VARIABLES=Challenges Readiness BY Year_Level
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.

Explore

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:33:10
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
 Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for
dependent variables are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
dependent variable or factor
used.
Syntax EXAMINE
VARIABLES=Challenges
Readiness BY Year_Level
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF
NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:03.73
Elapsed Time 00:00:03.15

Year_Level

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Year_Level N Percent N Percent N Percent
Challenges First Year 115 100.0% 0 0.0% 115 100.0%
Second Year 73 100.0% 0 0.0% 73 100.0%
Third Year 113 100.0% 0 0.0% 113 100.0%
Readiness First Year 115 100.0% 0 0.0% 115 100.0%
Second Year 73 100.0% 0 0.0% 73 100.0%
Third Year 113 100.0% 0 0.0% 113 100.0%
 Descriptives
Year_Level Statistic Std. Error
Challenges First Year Mean 2.3291 .04288
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.2442
Mean Upper Bound 2.4141
5% Trimmed Mean 2.3035
Median 2.2500
Variance .211
Std. Deviation .45983
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .20
Skewness 1.153 .226
Kurtosis 3.788 .447
Second Year Mean 2.8884 .05638
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.7760
Mean Upper Bound 3.0007
5% Trimmed Mean 2.8906
Median 2.9000
Variance .232
Std. Deviation .48172
Minimum 1.70
Maximum 3.85
Range 2.15
Interquartile Range .48
Skewness -.200 .281
Kurtosis .158 .555
Third Year Mean 2.4075 .03053
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.3470
Mean Upper Bound 2.4680
5% Trimmed Mean 2.4041
Median 2.3500
Variance .105
Std. Deviation .32453
 Minimum 1.30
Maximum 3.00
Range 1.70
Interquartile Range .40
Skewness .224 .227
Kurtosis .202 .451
Readiness First Year Mean 3.0209 .04624
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.9293
Mean Upper Bound 3.1125
5% Trimmed Mean 3.0329
Median 3.0000
Variance .246
Std. Deviation .49586
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .05
Skewness -.338 .226
Kurtosis 2.539 .447
Second Year Mean 2.6452 .05330
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.5390
Mean Upper Bound 2.7515
5% Trimmed Mean 2.6105
Median 2.6000
Variance .207
Std. Deviation .45538
Minimum 2.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 2.00
Interquartile Range .57
Skewness .918 .281
Kurtosis 1.332 .555
Third Year Mean 2.7735 .05242
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.6696
Mean Upper Bound 2.8773
5% Trimmed Mean 2.7548
Median 2.8500
Variance .311
 Std. Deviation .55726
Minimum 1.90
Maximum 4.00
Range 2.10
Interquartile Range .80
Skewness .147 .227
Kurtosis -.721 .451

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Year_Level Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Challenges First Year .281 115 .000 .814 115 .000
Second Year .140 73 .001 .956 73 .013
Third Year .117 113 .001 .930 113 .000
Readiness First Year .273 115 .000 .830 115 .000
Second Year .095 73 .172 .927 73 .000
Third Year .106 113 .003 .949 113 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Challenges

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Year_Level= First Year

Frequency Stem & Leaf

13.00 Extremes (=<1.95)

.00 20 .
8.00 20 . 55555555
3.00 21 . 000
.00 21 .
 1.00 22 . 0
57.00 22 .
555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
1.00 23 . 0
1.00 23 . 5
2.00 24 . 00
6.00 24 . 555555
3.00 25 . 000
4.00 25 . 5555
.00 26 .
1.00 26 . 5
15.00 Extremes (>=2.70)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Year_Level= Second Year

Frequency Stem & Leaf

2.00 Extremes (=<2.0)

6.00 2 . 000001
3.00 2 . 223
4.00 2 . 4555
6.00 2 . 666677
20.00 2 . 88888888888999999999
16.00 3 . 0000000000001111
6.00 3 . 222223
3.00 3 . 445
4.00 3 . 6777
3.00 Extremes (>=3.9)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Year_Level= Third Year

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.30)

15.00 20 . 000000000000055
9.00 21 . 005555555
22.00 22 . 0000000055555555555555
13.00 23 . 0000000055555
13.00 24 . 0000005555555
 11.00 25 . 00000005555
6.00 26 . 000005
2.00 27 . 55
5.00 28 . 00555
6.00 29 . 005555
10.00 30 . 0000000000

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
Readiness

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Year_Level= First Year

Frequency Stem & Leaf

27.00 Extremes (=<2.900)

2.00 295 . 00
.00 295 .
.00 296 .
.00 296 .
.00 297 .
.00 297 .
.00 298 .
 .00 298 .
.00 299 .
.00 299 .
58.00 300 .
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
28.00 Extremes (>=3.050)

Stem width: .01

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Year_Level= Second Year

Frequency Stem & Leaf

11.00 2 . 00000000011
12.00 2 . 222333333333
10.00 2 . 4445555555
13.00 2 . 6666666667777
14.00 2 . 88888889999999
6.00 3 . 000000
3.00 3 . 223
4.00 Extremes (>=3.8)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Year_Level= Third Year

Frequency Stem & Leaf

3.00 1 . 999
23.00 2 . 00000000000000000000111
7.00 2 . 2333333
6.00 2 . 444555
12.00 2 . 666667777777
20.00 2 . 88888888999999999999
18.00 3 . 000000000011111111
9.00 3 . 222222333
5.00 3 . 44455
5.00 3 . 66777
3.00 3 . 899
2.00 4 . 00

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)
Normal Q-Q Plots
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
EXAMINE VARIABLES=Challenges Readiness BY Type
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.

Explore

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:33:32
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
 Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for
dependent variables are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
dependent variable or factor
used.
Syntax EXAMINE
VARIABLES=Challenges
Readiness BY Type
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF
NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:02.48
Elapsed Time 00:00:02.41

Type

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Type N Percent N Percent N Percent
Challenges WiFI 208 100.0% 0 0.0% 208 100.0%
Mobile Data 93 100.0% 0 0.0% 93 100.0%
Readiness WiFI 208 100.0% 0 0.0% 208 100.0%
Mobile Data 93 100.0% 0 0.0% 93 100.0%
 Descriptives
Type Statistic Std. Error
Challenges WiFI Mean 2.4558 .03078
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.3951
Mean Upper Bound 2.5164
5% Trimmed Mean 2.4388
Median 2.2750
Variance .197
Std. Deviation .44387
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .55
Skewness .719 .169
Kurtosis 1.514 .336
Mobile Data Mean 2.5801 .05529
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.4703
Mean Upper Bound 2.6899
5% Trimmed Mean 2.5668
Median 2.5500
Variance .284
Std. Deviation .53320
Minimum 1.25
Maximum 3.85
Range 2.60
Interquartile Range .67
Skewness .402 .250
Kurtosis .150 .495
Readiness WiFI Mean 2.8736 .03835
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.7980
Mean Upper Bound 2.9492
5% Trimmed Mean 2.8659
Median 3.0000
Variance .306
Std. Deviation .55303
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
 Interquartile Range .55
Skewness -.007 .169
Kurtosis .182 .336
Mobile Data Mean 2.7548 .04901
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.6575
Mean Upper Bound 2.8522
5% Trimmed Mean 2.7337
Median 2.8000
Variance .223
Std. Deviation .47268
Minimum 2.00
Maximum 3.95
Range 1.95
Interquartile Range .60
Skewness .323 .250
Kurtosis .140 .495

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Type Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Challenges WiFI .179 208 .000 .922 208 .000
Mobile Data .130 93 .000 .962 93 .009
Readiness WiFI .150 208 .000 .940 208 .000
Mobile Data .105 93 .013 .949 93 .001
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Challenges

Stem-and-Leaf Plots
Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for
Type= WiFI

Frequency Stem & Leaf

2.00 Extremes (=<1.3)

.00 1 .
7.00 1 . 6677777
2.00 1 . 99
27.00 2 . 000000000000000000011111111
76.00 2 .
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222333333
3333
30.00 2 . 444444444444444444445555555555
10.00 2 . 6666666777
20.00 2 . 88888888888889999999
23.00 3 . 00000000000000000000001
4.00 3 . 2223
2.00 3 . 55
1.00 3 . 6
4.00 Extremes (>=3.8)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Type= Mobile Data

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.3)

1.00 1 . 3
3.00 1 . 799
38.00 2 . 00000000011111222222222222222233333344
30.00 2 . 555555555556666778888899999999
13.00 3 . 0000111122244
7.00 3 . 5567888

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
Readiness

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Type= WiFI

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.00)

3.00 19 . 055
24.00 20 . 000000000000000000000555
4.00 21 . 0055
1.00 22 . 5
10.00 23 . 0000055555
6.00 24 . 055555
6.00 25 . 000055
7.00 26 . 0000555
9.00 27 . 000000555
12.00 28 . 000005555555
18.00 29 . 000000005555555555
56.00 30 .
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000555
8.00 31 . 00000005
8.00 32 . 00055555
5.00 33 . 00055
4.00 34 . 0055
2.00 35 . 05
4.00 36 . 0055
3.00 37 . 055
1.00 38 . 5
16.00 Extremes (>=3.90)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Type= Mobile Data

Frequency Stem & Leaf

13.00 2 . 0000000000001
 10.00 2 . 2223333333
6.00 2 . 445555
16.00 2 . 6666666666777777
14.00 2 . 88888888899999
23.00 3 . 00000000000000000001111
3.00 3 . 222
2.00 3 . 44
2.00 3 . 67
4.00 Extremes (>=3.9)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
EXAMINE VARIABLES=Challenges Readiness BY Residence
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.

Explore

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:33:53
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
 Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for
dependent variables are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
dependent variable or factor
used.
Syntax EXAMINE
VARIABLES=Challenges
Readiness BY Residence
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF
NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:02.23
Elapsed Time 00:00:02.16

Residence

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Residence N Percent N Percent N
Challenges Within Batangas City 51 100.0% 0 0.0% 51
Within Batangas Province 188 100.0% 0 0.0% 188
Outside Batangas Province 62 100.0% 0 0.0% 62
Readiness Within Batangas City 51 100.0% 0 0.0% 51
Within Batangas Province 188 100.0% 0 0.0% 188
Outside Batangas Province 62 100.0% 0 0.0% 62
 Descriptives
Residence Statistic Std.
Challenges Within Batangas City Mean 2.3745
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.2603
Mean Upper Bound 2.4888
5% Trimmed Mean 2.3771
Median 2.2500
Variance .165
Std. Deviation .40625
Minimum 1.30
Maximum 3.25
Range 1.95
Interquartile Range .40
Skewness .186
Kurtosis .097
Within Batangas Province Mean 2.5165
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.4449
Mean Upper Bound 2.5881
5% Trimmed Mean 2.4962
Median 2.3000
Variance .248
Std. Deviation .49785
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .64
Skewness .661
Kurtosis .708
Outside Batangas Province Mean 2.5250
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.4103
Mean Upper Bound 2.6397
5% Trimmed Mean 2.5013
Median 2.5000
Variance .204
Std. Deviation .45175
 Minimum 1.25
Maximum 4.00
Range 2.75
Interquartile Range .61
Skewness .657
Kurtosis 1.824
Readiness Within Batangas City Mean 2.9245
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.7959
Mean Upper Bound 3.0531
5% Trimmed Mean 2.9179
Median 3.0000
Variance .209
Std. Deviation .45710
Minimum 2.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 2.00
Interquartile Range .25
Skewness .056
Kurtosis .993
Within Batangas Province Mean 2.8566
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.7825
Mean Upper Bound 2.9308
5% Trimmed Mean 2.8413
Median 2.9750
Variance .265
Std. Deviation .51522
Minimum 1.90
Maximum 4.00
Range 2.10
Interquartile Range .55
Skewness .206
Kurtosis -.049
Outside Batangas Province Mean 2.7048
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.5484
Mean Upper Bound 2.8612
5% Trimmed Mean 2.6928
Median 2.7500
Variance .379
 Std. Deviation .61589
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .77
Skewness .204
Kurtosis .176

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Residence Statistic df Sig. Statistic df
Challenges Within Batangas City .209 51 .000 .924 51
Within Batangas Province .177 188 .000 .931 188
Outside Batangas Province .144 62 .003 .941 62
Readiness Within Batangas City .258 51 .000 .877 51
Within Batangas Province .119 188 .000 .943 188
Outside Batangas Province .106 62 .079 .953 62
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Challenges

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Residence= Within Batangas City

Frequency Stem & Leaf

2.00 Extremes (=<1.7)

3.00 1 . 779
31.00 2 . 0000012222222222222222222334444
9.00 2 . 556888999
5.00 3 . 00001
 1.00 Extremes (>=3.3)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Residence= Within Batangas Province

Frequency Stem & Leaf

2.00 Extremes (=<1.3)

.00 1 .
5.00 1 . 66777
3.00 1 . 999
24.00 2 . 000000000000000011111111
63.00 2 .
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222233333333
24.00 2 . 444444444444445555555555
9.00 2 . 666677777
22.00 2 . 8888888888899999999999
18.00 3 . 000000000000001111
5.00 3 . 22223
6.00 3 . 445555
3.00 3 . 777
4.00 Extremes (>=3.9)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Residence= Outside Batangas Province

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.3)

11.00 2 . 00000001111
14.00 2 . 22222222333333
13.00 2 . 4444555555555
6.00 2 . 666666
5.00 2 . 88889
8.00 3 . 00000000
1.00 3 . 2
.00 3 .
2.00 3 . 66
1.00 Extremes (>=4.0)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
Readiness

Stem-and-Leaf Plots

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Residence= Within Batangas City

Frequency Stem & Leaf

6.00 Extremes (=<2.35)

1.00 24 . 5
1.00 25 . 0
3.00 26 . 005
2.00 27 . 05
3.00 28 . 005
4.00 29 . 0055
22.00 30 . 0000000000000000000000
 1.00 31 . 0
2.00 32 . 05
6.00 Extremes (>=3.50)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Residence= Within Batangas Province

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 19 . 0
22.00 20 . 0000000000000000055555
2.00 21 . 05
3.00 22 . 055
11.00 23 . 00000555555
5.00 24 . 55555
6.00 25 . 000055
13.00 26 . 0000005555555
8.00 27 . 00000005
11.00 28 . 00005555555
12.00 29 . 000005555555
49.00 30 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000555555
9.00 31 . 000000555
9.00 32 . 000055555
4.00 33 . 0005
4.00 34 . 0055
1.00 35 . 5
4.00 36 . 0055
1.00 37 . 5
13.00 Extremes (>=3.90)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot for

Residence= Outside Batangas Province

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.0)

2.00 1 . 99
20.00 2 . 00000000011123333344
23.00 2 . 55567777788888889999999
9.00 3 . 000011344
5.00 3 . 67899
 2.00 4 . 00

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
EXAMINE VARIABLES=Challenges Readiness
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.

Explore

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:34:20
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
 Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for
dependent variables are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
dependent variable or factor
used.
Syntax EXAMINE
VARIABLES=Challenges
Readiness
/PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF
NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:01.17
Elapsed Time 00:00:01.25

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Challenges 301 100.0% 0 0.0% 301 100.0%
Readiness 301 100.0% 0 0.0% 301 100.0%

Descriptives
Statistic Std. Error
Challenges Mean 2.4942 .02743
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.4402
Mean Upper Bound 2.5482
5% Trimmed Mean 2.4752
Median 2.3500
 Variance .226
Std. Deviation .47586
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .60
Skewness .637 .140
Kurtosis .926 .280
Readiness Mean 2.8369 .03064
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.7766
Mean Upper Bound 2.8972
5% Trimmed Mean 2.8234
Median 2.9500
Variance .283
Std. Deviation .53157
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Range 3.00
Interquartile Range .50
Skewness .105 .140
Kurtosis .161 .280

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Challenges .158 301 .000 .939 301 .000
Readiness .137 301 .000 .946 301 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Challenges

Challenges Stem-and-Leaf Plot

Frequency Stem & Leaf

 4.00 Extremes (=<1.3)
.00 1 .
8.00 1 . 66777777
4.00 1 . 9999
41.00 2 . 00000000000000000000000000001111111111111
98.00 2 .
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
22222222223333333333333333
43.00 2 . 4444444444444444444444555555555555555555555
16.00 2 . 6666666666677777
33.00 2 . 888888888888888888999999999999999
31.00 3 . 0000000000000000000000000011111
7.00 3 . 2222223
6.00 3 . 445555
5.00 3 . 66777
5.00 Extremes (>=3.9)

Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)
Readiness

Readiness Stem-and-Leaf Plot

Frequency Stem & Leaf

1.00 Extremes (=<1.00)

3.00 19 . 055
36.00 20 . 000000000000000000000000000000555555
5.00 21 . 00055
4.00 22 . 0555
17.00 23 . 00000000055555555
8.00 24 . 05555555
10.00 25 . 0000000555
17.00 26 . 00000000055555555
15.00 27 . 000000000055555
21.00 28 . 000000055555555555555
23.00 29 . 00000000005555555555555
75.00 30 .
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005555
555
12.00 31 . 000000005555
11.00 32 . 00000555555
5.00 33 . 00055
6.00 34 . 000555
2.00 35 . 05
5.00 36 . 00555
4.00 37 . 0555
21.00 Extremes (>=3.85)

Stem width: .10

Each leaf: 1 case(s)
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Sex Program Year_Level Type Residence
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:34:35
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases
with valid data.
Syntax FREQUENCIES
VARIABLES=Sex Program
Year_Level Type Residence
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

Statistics
Sex Program Year_Level Type Residence
N Valid 301 301 301 301 301
Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Frequency Table

Sex
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 295 98.0 98.0 98.0
Female 6 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 301 100.0 100.0

Program
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid BSMarE 68 22.6 22.6 22.6
BSMT 233 77.4 77.4 100.0
Total 301 100.0 100.0
 Year_Level
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid First Year 115 38.2 38.2 38.2
Second Year 73 24.3 24.3 62.5
Third Year 113 37.5 37.5 100.0
Total 301 100.0 100.0

Type
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid WiFI 208 69.1 69.1 69.1
Mobile Data 93 30.9 30.9 100.0
Total 301 100.0 100.0

Residence
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Within Batangas City 51 16.9 16.9 16.9
Within Batangas Province 188 62.5 62.5 79.4
Outside Batangas Province 62 20.6 20.6 100.0
Total 301 100.0 100.0

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 R1 R2
R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

Descriptives
 Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:35:04
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Cases Used All non-missing data are used.
Syntax DESCRIPTIVES
VARIABLES=C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20
R1 R2
R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17
R18 R19 R20
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV
MIN MAX.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.01

Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
C1 301 1.00 4.00 2.2159 .58584
C2 301 1.00 4.00 2.0997 .51965
C3 301 1.00 4.00 2.2691 .56922
C4 301 1.00 4.00 2.3488 .63868
C5 301 1.00 4.00 2.8837 .59141
C6 301 1.00 4.00 2.4352 .69758
C7 301 1.00 4.00 2.4086 .67512
C8 301 1.00 4.00 2.3987 .71684
C9 301 1.00 4.00 2.3721 .68392
C10 301 1.00 4.00 2.3754 .69899
C11 301 1.00 4.00 2.3821 .68084
C12 301 1.00 4.00 2.3887 .72000
C13 301 1.00 4.00 2.4618 .69477
C14 301 1.00 4.00 2.3987 .66873
C15 301 1.00 4.00 2.4452 .73108
C16 301 1.00 4.00 2.4684 .69510
C17 301 1.00 4.00 2.8472 .65567
C18 301 1.00 4.00 2.8439 .69680
C19 301 1.00 4.00 2.9070 .68165
C20 301 1.00 4.00 2.9336 .64465
R1 301 1.00 4.00 2.7010 .70496
R2 301 1.00 4.00 2.7807 .69649
R3 301 1.00 4.00 2.7741 .70389
R4 301 1.00 4.00 2.8173 .69029
R5 301 1.00 4.00 2.8306 .67419
R6 301 1.00 4.00 2.7575 .69112
R7 301 1.00 4.00 2.8173 .66571
R8 301 1.00 4.00 2.8638 .66687
R9 301 1.00 4.00 2.8472 .66073
R10 301 1.00 4.00 2.7741 .68468
R11 301 1.00 4.00 2.8339 .63165
R12 301 1.00 4.00 2.8571 .64513
R13 301 1.00 4.00 2.8904 .63083
R14 301 1.00 4.00 2.7907 .72987
R15 301 1.00 4.00 2.8970 .63720
R16 301 1.00 4.00 2.8571 .64513
R17 301 1.00 4.00 2.9236 .62515
R18 301 1.00 4.00 2.9203 .63268
R19 301 1.00 4.00 2.8970 .62665
R20 301 1.00 4.00 2.9070 .61480
Valid N (listwise) 301

NPAR TESTS
/M-W= Challenges Readiness BY Sex(1 2)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
NPar Tests

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:35:35
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each test are based
on all cases with valid data for
the variable(s) used in that test.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/M-W= Challenges Readiness
BY Sex(1 2)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.02
Number of Cases Allowed a
393216
a. Based on availability of workspace memory.

Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks
Sex N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Challenges Male 295 151.25 44617.50
Female 6 138.92 833.50
Total 301
Readiness Male 295 150.13 44287.00
Female 6 194.00 1164.00
Total 301

Test Statisticsa
Challenges Readiness
Mann-Whitney U 812.500 627.000
Wilcoxon W 833.500 44287.000
Z -.346 -1.230
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .729 .219
a. Grouping Variable: Sex

NPAR TESTS
/M-W= Challenges Readiness BY Program(1 2)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

NPar Tests

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:35:58
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each test are based
on all cases with valid data for
the variable(s) used in that test.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/M-W= Challenges Readiness
BY Program(1 2)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Number of Cases Allowed a
393216
a. Based on availability of workspace memory.

Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks
Program N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Challenges BSMarE 68 174.75 11883.00
BSMT 233 144.07 33568.00
Total 301
Readiness BSMarE 68 127.61 8677.50
BSMT 233 157.83 36773.50
Total 301

Test Statisticsa
Challenges Readiness
Mann-Whitney U 6307.000 6331.500
Wilcoxon W 33568.000 8677.500
Z -2.577 -2.535
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .011
a. Grouping Variable: Program

NPAR TESTS
/M-W= Challenges Readiness BY Type(1 2)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
NPar Tests

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:36:52
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each test are based
on all cases with valid data for
the variable(s) used in that test.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/M-W= Challenges Readiness
BY Type(1 2)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Number of Cases Allowed a
393216
a. Based on availability of workspace memory.

Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks
Type N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Challenges WiFI 208 144.42 30039.50
Mobile Data 93 165.72 15411.50
 Total 301
Readiness WiFI 208 157.82 32827.00
Mobile Data 93 135.74 12624.00
Total 301

Test Statisticsa
Challenges Readiness
Mann-Whitney U 8303.500 8253.000
Wilcoxon W 30039.500 12624.000
Z -1.976 -2.047
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .048 .041
a. Grouping Variable: Type

NPAR TESTS
/K-W=Challenges Readiness BY Year_Level(1 3)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

NPar Tests

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:38:00
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each test are based
on all cases with valid data for
the variable(s) used in that test.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/K-W=Challenges Readiness
BY Year_Level(1 3)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.03
Number of Cases Allowed a
393216
a. Based on availability of workspace memory.

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Ranks
Year_Level N Mean Rank
Challenges First Year 115 119.19
Second Year 73 218.98
Third Year 113 139.46
Total 301
Readiness First Year 115 185.92
Second Year 73 110.85
Third Year 113 141.40
Total 301

Test Statisticsa,b
Challenges Readiness
Kruskal-Wallis H 62.814 35.887
df 2 2
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Year_Level

*Nonparametric Tests: Independent Samples.

NPTESTS
 /INDEPENDENT TEST (Challenges Readiness) GROUP (Year_Level)
KRUSKAL_WALLIS(COMPARE=PAIRWISE)
/MISSING SCOPE=ANALYSIS USERMISSING=EXCLUDE
/CRITERIA ALPHA=0.05 CILEVEL=95.

Nonparametric Tests

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:38:35
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Syntax NPTESTS
/INDEPENDENT TEST
(Challenges Readiness) GROUP
(Year_Level)
KRUSKAL_WALLIS(COMPARE=
PAIRWISE)
/MISSING SCOPE=ANALYSIS
USERMISSING=EXCLUDE
/CRITERIA ALPHA=0.05
CILEVEL=95.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:01.33
Elapsed Time 00:00:03.38

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.
1 The distribution of Challenges is the Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis .000 Reject th
same across categories of Year_Level. Test
2 The distribution of Readiness is the Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis .000 Reject th
same across categories of Year_Level. Test
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .050.

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Challenges across Year_Level

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Summary
Total N 301
Test Statistic 62.814a
Degree Of Freedom 2
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .000
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties.
 Pairwise Comparisons of Year_Level
Sample 1-Sample 2 Test Statistic Std. Error Std. Test Statistic Sig. Adj. Sig.a
First Year-Third Year -20.264 11.443 -1.771 .077 .230
First Year-Second Year -99.788 12.928 -7.719 .000 .000
Third Year-Second Year 79.524 12.972 6.130 .000 .000
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same.
Asymptotic significances (2-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is .05.
a. Significance values have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.

Readiness across Year_Level

 Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test
Summary
Total N 301
Test Statistic 35.887a
Degree Of Freedom 2
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .000
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties.
 Pairwise Comparisons of Year_Level
Sample 1-Sample 2 Test Statistic Std. Error Std. Test Statistic Sig. Adj. Sig.a
Second Year-Third Year -30.553 12.984 -2.353 .019 .056
Second Year-First Year 75.068 12.939 5.802 .000 .000
Third Year-First Year 44.515 11.453 3.887 .000 .000
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same.
Asymptotic significances (2-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is .05.
a. Significance values have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
NPAR TESTS
/K-W=Challenges Readiness BY Residence(1 3)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

NPar Tests
 Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:40:15
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each test are based
on all cases with valid data for
the variable(s) used in that test.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/K-W=Challenges Readiness
BY Residence(1 3)
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.01
Number of Cases Allowed a
393216
a. Based on availability of workspace memory.

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Ranks
Residence N Mean Rank
Challenges Within Batangas City 51 131.63
Within Batangas Province 188 152.99
Outside Batangas Province 62 160.91
Total 301
Readiness Within Batangas City 51 166.80
 Within Batangas Province 188 155.57
Outside Batangas Province 62 124.15
Total 301

Test Statisticsa,b
Challenges Readiness
Kruskal-Wallis H 3.480 8.210
df 2 2
Asymp. Sig. .175 .016
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Residence

*Nonparametric Tests: Independent Samples.

NPTESTS
/INDEPENDENT TEST (Readiness) GROUP (Residence)
KRUSKAL_WALLIS(COMPARE=PAIRWISE)
/MISSING SCOPE=ANALYSIS USERMISSING=EXCLUDE
/CRITERIA ALPHA=0.05 CILEVEL=95.

Nonparametric Tests

Notes
Output Created 24-JUN-2022 20:40:45
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 301
Syntax NPTESTS
/INDEPENDENT TEST
(Readiness) GROUP
(Residence)
KRUSKAL_WALLIS(COMPARE=
PAIRWISE)
/MISSING SCOPE=ANALYSIS
USERMISSING=EXCLUDE
/CRITERIA ALPHA=0.05
CILEVEL=95.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.59
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.62

Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.
1 The distribution of Readiness is the Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis .016 Reject th
same across categories of Residence. Test
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .050.

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Readiness across Residence

Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test

Summary
Total N 301
Test Statistic 8.210a
Degree Of Freedom 2
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .016
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties.
 Pairwise Comparisons of Residence
Sample 1-Sample 2 Test Statistic Std. Error Std. Test Statistic Sig. Adj. Sig.a
Outside Batangas Province- 31.424 12.663 2.482 .013 .039
Within Batangas Province
Outside Batangas Province- 42.659 16.346 2.610 .009 .027
Within Batangas City
Within Batangas Province- 11.235 13.651 .823 .411 1.000
Within Batangas City
Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same.
Asymptotic significances (2-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is .05.
a. Significance values have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
 Appendix C
Turnitin Result
 APPENDIX D
Curriculum Vitae 

PAÑA, BRYAN JEF O.

#087 Coliat, Ibaan, Batangas
Contact Number: 09774009328
Email address: [email protected]

OBJECTIVES
To seek an opportunity to share the skill and knowledge that I can in my academic years
and also to be part of the global competitive company, enhance my ability and knowledge that I
gain in my academic years while doing my job as a deck cadet.

PERSONAL PROFILE

I am a current cadet enrolled in Lyceum International Maritime Academy studying

Bachelor of Science in Marine transportation; with my practical skills and knowledge obtained in
my academic year, I’ll reach my main goal is to provide for my family and to be a successful
captain 12 yrs. from now.

Date of Birth     August 25, 2000

Sex     Male
Civil Status     Single
Citizenship     Filipino
Age     21 yrs. Old
BMI     Normal
Height (cm.)   165 cm
Weight(kg.)   65 kg
Father’s name      Felix V. Paña
Occupation   Construction worker
Mothers’ name   Felicisima O. Paña
Occupation   House Wife

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Bachelor of Science Marine Transportation
June 2019 to Present

Dr. Juan A. Pastor Memorial National Highschool

Ibaan, Batangas

Senior High School

Attended from School Year 2017-2019

Junior High School

Attended from School Year 2012-2016

Coliat, Elementary School

Coliat Ibaan, Batangas
Attended from School Year 2006-2012

CHARACTER REFERENCES

Anna Korina M. Silang

Lyceum International Maritime Academy
On Board Training Coordinator
(041)7029991

Jasper G. Atienza 
Lyceum International Maritime Academy
Faculty member
09291194024

I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief
and ability.

               Deck C/ Paña, Bryan Jef O.

CATIBOG, JHEWEL AARON V.
New Danglayan, Bauan,
Batangas 09664528952
[email protected]

PERSONAL PROFILE

Date of Birth : December 20, 2000

Place of Birth : New Danglayan, Bauan, Batangas
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Age : 21
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

TERTIARY . Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Bachelor of Science Marine Transportation
June 2019 to 2022

SECONDARY Bauan Technical High School

Bauan, Batangas
S.Y. 2017 – 2019

ELEMENTARY West bauan, Central School .

. Aplaya Bauan Batangas
S.Y. 2007-2013
DE LEON, DARWIN JR. M.
Puerto Galera ,Oriental Mindoro
Mobile no.: 09653472989
E-mail address: [email protected]

PERSONAL PROFILE

Date of Birth : December 20, 2000

Place of Birth : New Danglayan, Bauan, Batangas
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Age : 21
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

TERTIARY . Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Bachelor of Science Marine Transportation
June 2019 to 2022

SECONDARY Puerto Galera Academy

Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro
S.Y. 2020-2019

Puerto Galera Academy

Poblacion, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro
S.Y. 2017-2020

Puerto Galera Academy

Poblacion, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro
S.Y. 2013-2017

ELEMENTARY West bauan, Central School .

. Aplaya Bauan Batangas
S.Y. 20112-201
LUALHATI, MARK ERICK F.
Talahib Pandayan, Batangas City
Mobile no: 09366054031
E-mail address: [email protected]

PERSONAL PROFILE

Date of Birth : September 13, 2000

Place of Birth : Talahib Pandayan, Batangas City
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Age : 22
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

TERTIARY . Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Bachelor of Science Marine Transportation
June 2019 to 2022

SECONDARY Senior High School

Poblacion Lobo, Batangas
S.Y. 2017-2019

Junior High School

Talahib Pandayan, Batangas
S.Y. 2013-2017

ELEMENTARY Talahib Pandayan, Elementary School

Talahib Pandayan, Batangas City
S.Y. 2007-2013
RONNIE F. FERRANCULLO JR.
Balogo,Calatrava, Romblon
[email protected]
09958202778

PERSONAL PROFILE

Date of Birth : June 19, 2000

Place of Birth : Odiongan Romblon
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Age : 22
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

TERTIARY . Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Bachelor of Science Marine Transportation
June 2019 to 2022

SECONDARY Calatrava,Senior High School

SanRoque,Caltrava,Romblon
S.Y. 2017 – 2019

ELEMENTARY Balogo Elementary School .

. San Roque,Calatrava,Romblon
S.Y. 2007-2013

Dolor Symon Zyren

Niogan, Mabini, Batangas
[email protected]
09517485260

PERSONAL PROFILE

Date of Birth : October 30, 2000

Place of Birth : Niogan, Mabini, Batangas
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Age : 21
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

TERTIARY . Lyceum International Maritime Academy

Bachelor of Science Marine Transportation
June 2019 to 2022

SECONDARY Anselmo A Sandoval Memorial National High School

P. Balibaguhan Mabini Batangas

`S.Y. 2017 – 2019

ELEMENTARY Mabini Central Elementary School .

. San Roque,Calatrava,Romblon
S.Y. 2007-2013