Igniting Performance Through Student-Led Presentations Among Bachelor of Elementary Education Students

When students take the lead in teaching, learning becomes a transformative experience. This study examined the effectiveness of Student-Led Presentations (SLP) in enhancing academic performance among 18 Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) students at a higher education institution in Ozamiz City during the 2024–2025 academic year. Utilizing a one-group pretest-posttest design, the intervention included eight sessions integrating SLP activities. Data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and paired t-tests. Results showed that before the intervention, students performed at a very poor level, but after eight sessions of SLP, their performance improved remarkably, with most reaching outstanding and very satisfactory levels. A paired t-test revealed a very significant difference between pretest and posttest scores (t = 11.69, p < 0.001), confirming that SLP had a strong positive effect on learning. The study concludes that SLP is an effective learner-centered strategy that builds confidence, strengthens communication skills, and raises achievement. It is recommended that schools adopt SLP as part of their regular practice, supported by structured rubrics, peer feedback, and communication workshops to ensure equitable benefits for all learners.

academic performance, future educators, intervention, pre-test- post-test

1. Adedoyin, O. B., et al. (2023). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1952967 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. AlOkaily, R. (2023). Learner-centered instructional design and evaluation: Principles for flexible, ubiquitous, agnostic learning in higher education (1st ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. An, Y. J., et al. (2021). Examining K-12 teachers’ feelings, experiences, and perspectives regarding online teaching during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2589–2613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-21-10020-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Examining the challenges of learner-centered education. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(4), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715593886 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Butler, Y. G., et al. (2021). Young learners’ voices: Towards a learner-centered approach to understanding language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 38(3), 429–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220959636 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cole, A., et al. (2021). Student perceptions of online active learning practices and online learning climate predict online course engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 866–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1789063 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dayagbil, F. T., et al. (2021, July). Teaching and learning continuity amid and beyond the pandemic. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 678692). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.678692 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Eli, T. (2021). Students’ perspectives on the use of innovative and interactive teaching methods at the University of Nouakchott Al Aasriya, Mauritania: English department as a case study. International Journal of Technology, Innovation and Management (IJTIM), 1(2), 90–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fabriz, S., et al. (2021). Impact of synchronous and asynchronous settings of online teaching and learning in higher education on students’ learning experience during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 733554. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.733554 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Francom, G. M., et al. (2021). Technologies, challenges and needs of K-12 teachers in the transition to distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. TechTrends, 65(4), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00609-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gros, B., et al. (2023). Future trends in the design strategies and technological affordances of e-learning. In Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 345–367). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20965-4_20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gupta, A., et al. (2021). To study the impact of Google Classroom as a platform of learning and collaboration at the teacher education level. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10313-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. McCombs, B. L., et al. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mystakidis, S., et al. (2021). Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in higher education: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences, 11(5), 2412. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ouyang, F., et al. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7893–7925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10803-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Pan, H., et al. (2023). Learner-centered teaching catalyzed by teacher learning communities: The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy and collaborative professional learning. Sustainability, 15(6), 4850. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064850 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Richmond, A. S. (2021). Initial evidence for the Learner-Centered Syllabus Scale: A focus on reliability and concurrent and predictive validity. College Teaching, 70(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1873726 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sablić, M., Mirosavljević, A., & Škugor, A. (2021). Video-based learning (VBL)—Past, present and future: An overview of the research published from 2008 to 2019. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09522-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Schmitt, E. M., Hu, A. C., & Bachrach, P. S. (2008). Course evaluation and assessment: Examples of a learner-centered approach. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 29(3), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960802397077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Suh, W., & Ahn, S. (2022). Utilizing the metaverse for learner-centered constructivist education in the post-pandemic era: An analysis of elementary school students. Journal of Intelligence, 10(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10010017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Tai, J., et al. (2022). The impact of a virtual reality app on adolescent EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 892–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1825205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Toncelli, R., & Rosa, L. (2023). On becoming online educators: Developing hybrid learning-centered pedagogy. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 7(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.26077/c6f6-5fdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tractenberg, R. E. (2020, April 21). The assessment evaluation rubric: Promoting learning and learner-centered teaching in higher education. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/bvwhn [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Tsai, Y. C. (2023). Empowering learner-centered instruction: Integrating ChatGPT Python API and Tinker Learning for enhanced creativity and problem-solving skills. In Y. M. Huang & T. Rocha (Eds.), Innovative technologies and learning. ICITL 2023. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 14099, pp. 538–551). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40113-8_52 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Vlachogianni, P., & Tselios, N. (2021). Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(3), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Wang, Y., et al. (2019). Blended learning for Chinese university EFL learners: Learning environment and learner perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1607881 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Wekerle, C., Daumiller, M., & Kollar, I. (2020). Using digital technology to promote higher education learning: The importance of different learning activities and their relations to learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1799455 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Xu, Y., et al. (2023). Spontaneous visual database for detecting learning-centered emotions during online learning. Image and Vision Computing, 136, 104739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2023.104739 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Zintgraff, T., et al. (2023). Aligning learner-centered design philosophy, theory, research, and practice. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23653-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Zitha, I. et al., (2023). Innovative strategies for fostering student engagement and collaborative learning among extended curriculum programme students. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1196. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121196 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study