Balancing Online Theory and Face-to-Face Laboratory Learning: Support Strategies and Barriers in a Philippine Bachelor of Industrial Technology Program

This qualitative phenomenological study examined how stakeholders in a Bachelor of Industrial Technology (BIndTech) program in the northern Philippines perceived the possible sustained adoption of online lecture delivery while preserving face-to-face laboratory learning. Fourteen participants were purposively selected: four administrators, three core faculty members, and seven first-year student leaders, all of whom had direct experience with the program and its existing Flexible Learning Mode. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and a focus group discussion and analyzed through an iterative thematic process involving familiarization, initial coding, category development, cross-stakeholder comparison, theme review, and selection of representative excerpts. Findings showed a pattern of conditional acceptance. Online lecture delivery was considered useful for theory-oriented content and continuity of learning, but participants associated it with risks to discipline, interaction, and engagement. Barriers included unstable internet connectivity, device and financial constraints, uneven participation, increased faculty workload, assessment concerns, and the inability of online delivery to reproduce hands-on laboratory competencies. Participants recommended low-bandwidth and multi-channel materials, clearer communication and feedback, faculty development, infrastructure and device support, and differentiated alternatives for learners with limited access. Interpreted through Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory and Prosser’s vocational education principles, the findings support a differentiated blended model in which online delivery is used selectively for theory while laboratory competencies remain anchored in supervised face-to-face practice. The study contributes context-sensitive evidence for flexible learning policy and instructional design in technical-vocational higher education.

flexible learning; online lecture delivery; technical-vocational higher education; blended learning; transactional distance; laboratory learning; Philippines

1. Abuhassna, H., & Alnawajha, S. (2023). The transactional distance theory and distance learning contexts: Theory integration, research gaps, and future agenda. Education Sciences, 13(2), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020112 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2023). COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863-875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chen, L. (2023). Transactional distance and college students’ learning engagement in online learning: The chain mediating role of social presence and autonomous motivation. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 2085-2101. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S409294 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chen, Z., Jalaludin, N. A., & Rasul, M. S. (2024). A systematic review on the improving strategies and influencing factors of vocational students’ learning engagement in blended teaching environment. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(11), 538-564. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.11.28 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Commission on Higher Education. (2020). CMO No. 4, s. 2020: Guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Commission on Higher Education. (2021). CMO No. 31, s. 2021: Guidelines on the conduct of laboratory-based learning experience (LBLE) in limited face-to-face set up of Industrial Technology Program. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Commission on Higher Education. (2022). CMO No. 6, s. 2022: Sustaining flexible learning in higher education: An addendum to CMO No. 4, s. 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, T., Felix, A., Gachago, D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kabuza, H., Pallitt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, K., Strydom, S., Swanepoel, M., Waghid, F., & Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and COVID-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 946-967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. EDCOM II. (2024). Miseducation: The failed system of Philippine education - Year One Report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fabito, B. S., Trillanes, A. O., & Sarmiento, J. R. (2020). Barriers and challenges of computing students in an online learning environment: Insights from one private university in the Philippines. International Journal of Computing Sciences Research, 5, 441-458. https://doi.org/10.25147/ijcsr.2017.001.1.51 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hu, J., & Xiao, W. (2025). What are the influencing factors of online learning engagement? A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1542652. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1542652 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Potoy, M. H. S., Cantina, J. M., & Banquiao, Q. M. (2023). Teaching during pandemic years: Faculty experiences from government-funded universities in the Philippines. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(2), 652-662. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.02.31 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Prosser, C. A., & Quigley, T. H. (1949). Vocational education in a democracy. American Technical Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sala, R., Maffei, A., Pirola, F., Enoksson, F., Ljubić, S., Skoki, A., Zammit, J. P., Bonello, A., Podržaj, P., Žužek, T., Priarone, P. C., Antonelli, D., & Pezzotta, G. (2024). Blended learning in the engineering field: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(3), e22712. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22712 [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