Unveiling the Strategic Planning of Teachers, Performance Task Outcome and Learning Style of Students

Unveiling the Strategic Planning of Teachers, Performance Task Outcome and Learning Style of Students

Paul Joshua E. Manuel¹, Jacklyn R. Mempin², Mary Ann C. Alde³

St. James Academy Plaridel Inc.¹

St. Paul University San Miguel²

Easy Steps Learning School of Malolos Inc.³

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.801043

Received: 21 December 2023; Accepted: 01 January 2024; Published: 30 January 2024

ABSTRACT

Setting goals, agreeing on steps to accomplish those goals, and mobilizing the resources required to carry out those activities are all parts of strategic planning. Strategic planning plays a big role in students’ performance tasks. This research aims to identify and investigate potential answers to a fantastic strategic plan for teachers that assists students in attaining greatness in their performance assignments despite various learning styles. Researchers focused on investigating the relationship between strategic planning and the performance task results of diverse students. Fifty students from Bula can State University with a Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Mathematics have partaken in this study. Pearson r correlation was used as a correlation statistic and regression analysis to see the significance of the relationship between the variables. The teaching style that is more dominant among teachers is the Learner-Centered style. Implementing teachers’ strategic planning inside the classroom as to students’ learning styles and performance tasks is well implemented. It has been revealed that the majority of the students with a course of Bachelor of Secondary Education major in mathematics are read/write learners. There is no significant relationship between career/future-ready and high-quality instruction, strategic planning, and performance tasks of diverse students. Researchers recommend teachers focusing more on high-quality instruction since career/future-ready is more dominant in the research findings.

Keywords: performance task, strategic planning, learning style

INTRODUCTION

Performance task plays an important part in assessing the student’s learning outcomes. In education, teachers are required to evaluate the performance and written outputs to complete the authentic task of the students. With that, it measures the knowledge and understanding of the students through various assessments. The implementation process of teachers is valuable in what is done in the classroom (Yildirim & Orsdemir, 2013). Students must produce a piece of art and oral briefing meaningfully, such as presenting a demonstration, presenting, or writing a report (Metin, 2013). Researchers commend planning techniques before initiating the task given by facilitators. It will effectively improve student achievement of a given task result (Lindberg et al., 2019).

Strategic planning is needed for the formal institutional goals and objectives, applying various operational and administrative plans to attain and accomplish the objectives. It ensures the quality of plans and efficacy and efficiency to attain the most viable solutions (Fooladv and et al., 2015). It indicates favorable results in educational institutions such as colleges and universities, enhancing any organization’s success chances. It has seen a broad change in how higher education’s strategic planning initiative evolved (Immordino et al., 2016). In response, teachers should have sufficient time to plan before starting the task for the students to guarantee and gain knowledge in performing the task. Despite all plans and efforts to improve education, there are some reasons why students feel pressures that bring about the unplanned implementation of providing a combination of tasks that can harm student’s performance, as supported by Asgarikia (2014).

The learning style of students depends on their learning preferences. Students learn in various styles that suit their studies, such as reading and writing, solving problems, and prefer facts, evidence, and experiments to enhance and improve the student’s performance studying (Bajaj & Sharma, 2018). However, it is found that teaching and learning methods impact students’ performance because they align with their learning styles, preferences, and environment (Khalid et al., 2017). Students’ Learnings can be gained from their interest to learn, focusing on their preferred single learning style, such as writing, reading, videos, solving problems, and watching videos, based on practicality and authentic task with a valuable intention to learn. However, when the teaching styles and methods match the preferred learning styles of students, learners can be equipped with enough knowledge and skills, learn continuously, and be successful learners (Gudnason, 2017). As a result, the strategic plans of the teacher will allow the student’s performance task outcome despite various learning styles.

Learning styles-based instruction, defined by Bajaj and Sharma (2018), students learn in different ways depending on their learning preferences. It is critical to determine these to adjust online learning or traditional schooling. Students learn in a variety of methods. Others like concepts and theories while prefer facts, evidence, and experiments. Some people like to read written material, while others prefer to solve problems. Various learning models and artificial intelligence tools determine students’ learning styles. It will select the most appropriate one for a setting that allows for the quick and easy identification of learning styles.

Moreover, Khalid et al. (2017) found that teaching and learning styles match and affect the students’ performance. It is pointed out that students’ learning preferences are aligned with their preferred learning styles and learning environment. It is not. It may harm students’ academic performance. Student’s academic progress can be aided by teaching and learning approaches.

Lifelong learning is gained through interest by the learners. It is said that people learn differently, have preferences for other stimuli, and that education is facilitated. Students are good at writing, reading materials, seeing images, videos, and schemes based on practicality, an authentic task with a definite purpose. It stated that focusing on their preferred single learning style to organize learning activities results in better learning (Dantas & Cunha, 2020). Gudnason (2017) believes pupils may be tested and classified while meeting each learner’s needs. When teaching methods match students’ preferred learning style, they absorb information differently and learn more successfully. There needs to be more empirical evidence and resources to support its use. It discusses that learners require different engaging and efficient instructions and use other techniques that best suit the topics.

Since learners learn according to their preferred learning styles, instructors must develop appropriate materials matching students’ learning styles and cognitive traits. Learners require educational resources that are tailored to their learning styles. When visual and auditory learners were exposed to audio-visual content, they learned the most, while kinesthetic learners learned the most when exposed to actual items (Lwande et al., 2021).

Fooladv and et al. (2015) define strategic planning as an approach that deals with planning and performance assessment of organizations with clear objectives. The school should have the necessary instruments to evaluate and ensure the plans’ quality and efficacy and efficiency in carrying out their responsibilities. It should have clear goals to achieve the objectives and operational and collaborative projects.  It assigns learners a task with sufficient time to plan before beginning the activity, resulting in improved performance (Asgarikia, 2014). Planning time has a substantial impact on personal task fluency. Indeed, having a plan before giving a task to students improves their performance, especially on learners’ fluency. However, it discusses that providing a combination of task types harms their performance, and students feel pressure causes the unplanned implementation of tasks. Added to the definition presented by Khatib and Farahanynia (2020), this pedagogical approach necessitates the teacher’s knowledge of how to manipulate various task types, tasks of varying degrees of complexity, and other types of planning to assist students in overcoming their difficulties in multiple production dimensions and developing a more balanced inter language. It significantly impacts conceptualization (fluency and complexity), allowing pupils to focus on their job better. While preparation time had little effect on learners’ accuracy or fluency, it did result in more difficult performances when they completed the unstructured assignment. Under the planned condition, task structure did not affect accuracy or complexity while increasing fluency. Planners must concentrate on the task’s meaning and prepare the task’s content (Mehrang & Rahimpour, 2010).

A performance task is defined by Yildirim and Orsdemir (2013) as an alternative assessment. It emphasizes the communicative significance of evaluation and the dedication to measuring what we value in education. As a result of this evaluation, pupils can reflect on the assignment. As a result, the instruction may be improved, and knowledge about the learner’s progress can be gained. It requires students to complete authentic tasks such as giving oral reports, writing essays, solving problems, and working in groups. The design thinking process in preparing and conducting an assessment task provides learning opportunities. The experimental group can learn how to design lessons and prepare for teaching and learning. It improves the teacher’s writing, planning, and creating skills and the resources and tactics they use in the classroom. It enhances the collaboration between students and teachers (Eisma, 2021). (Metin, 2013) defined performance tasks as tangible and authentic assessment tasks teachers give. Preparation and planning of assessment ahead of time can measure the target objectives of the lesson, and teachers ensure that it has sufficient time and enough size of students in the classroom and give feedback on every activity provided by the teacher. Lindberg et al. (2019) added that reading comprehension and writing essays with a plan effectively improve achievement and conceptual understanding and reduce students’ anxiety while doing the given task performance. Hence, researchers recommend the planning techniques before commencing the instructor’s task.

Moreover, they can generate their content based on personal knowledge or experiences. Planning before task performance helps learners attend to the propositional content and enhance the complexity and accuracy of the learners. However, Time frame and unplanned structure are some reasons for delayed and insufficient learners’ learning. Information and efficient results of students’ performance will enhance if the task of Performance Preparation has been assigned. The efficacy of pre-task planning improves the learners’ complexity and accuracy (Saeideh, 2012).

Strategic Planning is defined by (Immordino et al. (2015) as a deliberate leadership strategy for determining future organizational orientation in a dynamic context through a process that evaluates and, ideally, engages key stakeholders. It stated that strategic planning had been implemented in universities and colleges. It shows a positive result in the development of its institution and continues to grow across educational institutions. It has also been practiced in an educational context and many private and public institutions. Added to Babaoglan (2015), strategic planning is necessary for the organization’s mission, vision, and development. It helps to adapt to the changing environment and think systemically to understand the school stakeholders’ planning process. The Effectiveness of Strategic Planning requires a thorough analysis of the values in the organization’s operational plan and effective communication among stakeholders. Also, educational leaders must prioritize and support strategic planning to understand it.

Furthermore, Gordon et al. (2015) state that strategic planning is a potent management strategy that can improve any organization’s success chances. Chance and Williams (2009) discovered that the universities they examined had a strong start but a sour finish to the strategic planning process. They made specific reference to a trend of evaluation neglect. A further in-depth review of University G indicates that Strategic Planning is motivated by accreditation visits. Private industry strategies for increasing effectiveness and efficiency might be applied to higher education but must be more frequently understood (Comm & Mathaisel, 2005). While higher education sometimes shuns corporate practices, Rowley, Lujan, and Dolence (1997) believe universities are no longer immune to outside influences. Strategic planning is an essential tool for mapping a path to success. A strategic strategy can aid in the institutional culture’s establishment. If the plan does not include a mechanism for tracking progress or a system for monitoring and corrective action, Even if unintentionally, a culture of impunity can be formed. Mustafa (2013) expressed that the teacher’s physical and technological opportunities for implementing classroom performance assessments needed improvement. One of the most consequential issues teachers encounter is not determining the appropriate performance tasks for students’ levels due to investigating performance tasks developed by teachers. It was seen that teachers needed to be more specific about the content of the performance task. Development is believed to effectively change teaching methods and strategies in learning activities and measurement and assessment procedures in the curriculum evaluations component.

Renza Ahmado et al. (2014) also uncovered the impact of unguided pre-task and content-focused strategic planning on syntactic complexity and lexical variety measures as the primary indices of difficulty in narrative written tasks. Learners with a high degree of proficiency would benefit more from pre-task planning than those with a low ability level.

 According to Abdia (2012) before performing a task, learners appear to be more likely to pay attention to propositional Information and its organization, resulting in increased fluency. Other functions (personal and narrative) can be utilized in conjunction with decision-making tasks to examine if different task types affect oral performance. It has been shown that student performance tasks were based on the content and approach they adopted and applied. Individual learning styles refer to the learning methods or styles utilized during the learning process. Learning styles demonstrate that learning involves cognitive, affective, and behavioral qualities based on seeing, engaging, and responding to learning methods. Learning styles can be characterized as styles or individual learning techniques that interact with their environment to process, interpret, and receive knowledge, experiences, or desired abilities (Klement, 2014). Individual characteristics such as sex, age, and personality, such as heritage, race, and environmental influences, such as parental education, society, community, and school, are also considered.

Gudnason (2017) confirms that educational methods based on learning types have been a prevalent feature of education for many decades. Researchers have defined a learning style as “the concept that different people prefer to process information in unique ways” (Cuevas, 2016, p. 2). When teaching approaches match students’ preferred learning styles, they perform better. Gardner’s concept of individuation in education is similar to scholars’ description of learning styles-based instruction, which states that students should be taught and assessed according to their preferred learning styles (Cuevas, 2016). Learning style-based education promotes the idea that students can be evaluated and classified while meeting each learner’s unique needs. Each individual has a unique way of acquiring and processing Information and resolving challenges in everyday life. Understanding one’s learning style can accelerate learning and improve weak areas for the student. Individuals are the sum of their cultural experiences and upbringing (Sywelem et al., 2012). According to numerous research, a person’s preferred learning method is determined by their cultural background. Culture can influence how people absorb, interpret, and respond to information and experiences and learn from them.

The present researcher believed in a fantastic strategic plan for teachers that assists students in attaining greatness in their performance assignments despite various learning styles. There is a need for further investigation into the relationship between the two variables and the considerable difference in learning styles. Hence, the researcher will correlate diverse students’ teachers’ strategic planning and performance task results.

Research Questions

This study will examine the relationship between strategic planning and student performance task scores, regardless of learning style. It will specifically respond to the following questions:

1. How may the teachers’ strategic planning style be described in terms of:

1.1. high-quality instruction

1.2. career/future-ready.

2. How may the teachers’ teaching method be described in terms of:

2.1. teacher-centered

2.2. learner-centered

3. How may the students be described in terms of:

3.1. Visual Learners

3.2. Auditory Learners

3.3. Read/Write Learners

3.4. Kinesthetic Learners

4. What is the level of implementation of teachers’ strategic planning inside the classroom:

4.1. students’ performance task?

4.2. students’ learning style?

5. Is there a significant relationship between strategic planning and the performance task result of diverse students?

Hypotheses of the Study

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between teachers’ strategic planning and diverse students’ performance task results.

Alternative Hypothesis:  There is a significant relationship between teachers’ strategic planning and diverse students’ performance task results.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The main research questions in this study were concentrated on investigating the relationship between strategic planning and the performance task results of diverse students. This study used a quantitative research design to find out the relationship between strategic planning and performance task results despite the different learning styles of students. Quantitative research quantifies and analyzes to obtain results. It also refers to gathering numerical data to comprehend situations and happenings (Oberiri  Apuke, 2017).

This study utilized a descriptive–correlational design to examine the relationship between strategic planning and student performance task scores, regardless of learning styles. When the goal is to investigate the relationships between two or more random variables within the same population or between the same variables in two different populations, a quantitative descriptive–correlational study, also known as a non-experimental research design, is required to answer research questions.  (Curtis et al., 2016; Lem boye, O., 2019)

A quantitative descriptive – correlation is a design that is appropriate to the problem that we are investigating. Using this particular design, researchers would achieve the result they are aiming for in the study. A survey design will be utilized in addition to descriptive – correlation. The data was gathered using a survey design based on the findings of the questionnaires given to the respondents. Before collecting data, the researcher conducted ethical consent to obtain and gather information.

Respondents and Sampling Design

The respondents of this study are 50 students of Bulacan State University taking up the Bachelor of Secondary Education major in mathematics. Gathering and evaluating data can be time-consuming; hence only 50 students from the population were selected. The main reason for choosing them is because they are future teachers, and they are equipped with knowledge regarding strategic planning, teaching style, and learning style. Hence they can understand and appreciate the problem being studied for this research. Bulacan State University is the chosen location for conducting surveys as the researchers are students of this university. It is more convenient to gather the necessary data for the study. The researcher selected 50 respondents with a Bachelor of Secondary Education major in mathematics through stratified random sampling.

Instrument and Validation

The following duties were to identify and develop the data collection technology for the study based on the research topic and study objectives.

A structured questionnaire was adapted from a reliable and valid research instrument to analyze the relationship between teachers’ strategic planning and the performance task results of diverse students. The Moosa poor teaching style questionnaire was adapted to assess the teaching style. The learning style questionnaire by O’Brien (1985) was also adapted to develop the whole instrument. The focus group discussion questions were treated the same way. After reviewing the relevant literature, the tools were designed and built. The instrument was developed using the findings of other academics working on the same topic, the researchers’ own experiences, and informal and formal debates. The researcher used a standardized questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale. Each item has five options: never, seldom, sometimes, often, and always. If a data collection instrument or technique delivers results that match what the study was designed to examine or measure, it has content validity. The data-gathering tool’s content validity was determined by compiling and selecting questionnaires with similar themes and purposes. In order to validate the instrument, the researchers sought the advice of a professor and statistician who is an authority in instrument validation. Researchers conducted several meetings with their content validators and got their approval for their research instrument.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data-gathering method commenced on the study table after the validators approved the proposal and its instruments. Research ethics were crucial before the study was carried out. The researchers obtained permission from the Dean of the College of Education before conducting the research and administering the survey. The Dean of the College of Education received a request letter to perform the research and collect the relevant data with inclusive dates in the study’s chosen location. The respondents attested to informed consent before participating in the study. The study’s goal, its design, the voluntary nature of their involvement, and the fact that they might withdraw at any moment were all explained to the respondents before the data collection; none of the respondents were under any coercion. Ensuring them that all the collected data was only shared between the researchers and the respondents indicated that their confidentiality was maintained and that no individual was named in any publication deriving from the study. The data collected by researchers was collated and analyzed through Microsoft Excel Data Analysis Tool pack.

Treatment of Data

The researchers used the following statistical approach; Pearson correlation, R square, and regression to interpret the survey respondents’ data. The Pearson r correlation is the most widely used correlation statistic for measuring how closely two linearly related variables are related. R-squared represents the proportion of a dependent variable’s variance explained by an independent variable or factors in a regression model. R-squared defines how much the variation of one variable explains the variance of the other, as opposed to correlation, which explains the strength of the relationship between an independent and dependent variable. Regression analysis is an excellent statistical technique for investigating the relationship between two or more variables of interest.

For the statement of problem 1, Strategic planning is high-quality instruction and career/future-ready depending on the highest computed average. For the statement of problem 1, Depending on the highest computed average, the teaching method is teacher-centered and learner-centered. For the statement of problem 1, Depending on the highest computed average, the learning style is among visual, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic learners.

For the statement of the problem 4, Depending on the average, the implementation level of teachers’ strategic planning inside the classroom as to students’ performance tasks and learning styles will be determined.

RESULTS

There are twelve (12) tables presented in this chapter. The results are organized and given relative to the researcher’s specific problem.

1. Table 1 provides data regarding the Teacher’s Strategic Planning Style In Terms Of High-Quality Instruction.

Table 1. Teacher’s Strategic Planning Style In Terms Of High-Quality Instruction

Table 1 presents the teacher’s strategic planning style described in high-quality instruction. Statement 1, “My instructor required us to do real-world output.” has a mean of 3.86, which can be represented as evident. Statement 2, “My instructor monitors our daily learning through individual recitation.” has a mean of 4.08, which can be defined as evident. Statement 3, “My instructor used different teaching materials to make the lesson more interesting.” has a mean of 4.12, which is evident. Statement 4, “My instructor allows us to discuss ideas about the lesson before they start the discussion.” has a mean of 4.06, which can be evident. Statement 5, “My instructor required us to make songs, dances, and poems about the lesson that has to be performed in front of the class.” has a mean of 2.7, representing moderately evident. The table further presents that the total average of teachers’ strategic planning style described in terms of high-quality instruction registered a total mean of 3.76, which could be interpreted as evident.

2. Table 2 provides data regarding the Teacher’s Strategic Planning Style In Terms Of Career/Future Ready.

Table 2. Teacher’s Strategic Planning Style In Terms Of Career/Future Ready

Table 2 presents the teacher’s strategic planning style described in Career/Future Ready. Statement 1, “My instructor asks us to do activities according to our interests.” has a mean of 3.32, representing moderately evident. Statement 2, “My instructor always relates things in our discussion that make us future-ready.” has a mean of 4.4, which can be represented as evident. Statement 3, “My instructor allows us to discover things that we want in the future.” has a mean of 4.22, which can be represented as evident. Statement 4, “My instructor requires us to present our reports professionally.” has a mean of 4.22, which can be represented as evident. Statement 5, “My instructor requires us to tell and show what we want to be in the future.” is a mean of 4.14, representing as evident. The table further presents that the total average of teachers’ strategic planning style described in terms of career/future-ready registered a total mean of 4.06, which could be interpreted as evident. Since career/future-ready strategic planning has the highest mean, teachers’ strategic planning is more career/future-ready.

3. Table 3 provides data regarding the Teachers’ Teaching Method In Terms Of Teacher-Centered.

Table 3. Teachers’ Teaching Method In Terms Of Teacher-Centered

Table 3 presents the teacher’s teaching method described in terms of Teacher-Centered. Statement 1, “The teacher is the epicenter of learning and is in charge of instruction.” has a mean of 3.92, which is evident. Statement 2, “We, as students, are used to passively receiving knowledge.” has a mean of 3.8, which can be represented as evident. Statement 3, “Instead of using computers, the teacher relies on textbooks and worksheets,” has a mean of 2.86, which is moderately evident. Statement 4, “In many circumstances, assessments are only summative rather than formative evaluations.” has a mean of 3.16, representing Moderately Evident. Statement 5, “The teacher expresses more ideas than the students.” has a mean of 3.56, which is evident. This could be explained by the fact that the teacher’s teaching method in terms of Teacher-Centered has an overall mean of 3.46, which can be represented as moderately evident. The overall mean result of Table 3 is lower compared to Table 4; the findings that teachers are more learner-centered in their teaching style are supported by the study conducted by (Khandaghi & Farasat, 2011)

4. Table 4 provides data regarding the Teachers’ Teaching Method In Terms Of Learner-Centered.

Table 4. Teachers’ Teaching Method In Terms Of Learner-Centered

Table 4 presents the teacher’s teaching method described in terms of Learner-Centered. Statement 1, “The teacher acts as a role model for the students, who engage with one other and with the instructor.” has a mean of 4.46, which is evident. Statement 2, “Depending on the goal of the exercise, students work in pairs, groups, or alone.” has a mean of 4.52, which can be represented as evident. Statement 3, “When questions arise, the teacher provides feedback/correction without constant instructor supervision.” has a mean of 4.26, which is evident. Statement 4, “Students assess their progress.” has a mean of 4.28, which is evident. Statement 5, “The emphasis is on both the pupils and the educator.” has a mean of 4.42, which is evident. This could be explained by the fact that the teacher’s teaching method described in terms of Learner-Centered has an overall mean of 4.38, which is evident. Since learner-centered teaching methods have the highest mean, teachers’ teaching methods are more learner-centered. This finding that teachers are more learner-centered in their teaching style is supported by the study conducted by Khandaghi & Farasat, 2011.

5. Table 5 provides data as regards the Visual Learning Style of the Students.

Table 5. Visual Learning Style of the Students

Table 5 presents those students who are described as visual learners. Statement 1, “When trying to remember someone’s telephone number or something new like that, it helps me get a picture of it in my mind,” has a mean of 3.92, which can be evident. Statement 2, “I think the best way to remember something is to picture it in my mind,” has a mean of 4.34, which can be represented as evident. Statement 3, “I like to write things down or take notes for visual review.” has a mean of 4.38, which can be represented as evident. Statement 4, “Using flashcards helps me retain material for tests.” has a mean of 3.84, which can be represented as evident. Statement 5, “I enjoy doodling, and even my notes have lots of pictures and arrows.” has a mean of 3.52, which is evident. The table further presents that the average learning style described in terms of visual learners registered a total mean of 4, which could be interpreted as evident. This could be defined by the fact that some major mathematics students are visual learners.

6. Table 6 provides data regarding the Auditory Learning Style of the Students.

Table 6. Auditory Learning Style of the Students

Table 6 presents those students who are described as auditory learners. Statement 1, “I can remember best by listening to a lecture that includes information, explanations, and discussions.” has a mean of 4.06, which can be represented as evident. Statement 2, “I require explanations of diagrams, graphs, or visual directions.” has a mean of 4.12, which can be represented as evident. Statement 3, “I would rather listen to a good lecture or speech than read about the same material.” has a mean of 3.8, which is evident. Statement 4, “I would rather listen to a good lecture or speech than read about the same material.” has a mean of 3.78, which is evident. Statement 5, “I follow oral directions better than written ones.” has a mean of 3.6, which can be represented as evident. The table further presents that the total average learning style described in terms of auditory learners registered a total mean of 3.87, which could be interpreted as evident. This could be explained by the fact that some major mathematical students are auditory learners.

7. Table 7 provides data regarding the Students’ Read/Write Learning Style.

Table 7. Read/Write Learning Style of the Students

Table 7 presents those students who are described as reading/writing learners. Statement 1, “I learn best when I am writing and rewriting information.” got the highest mean which is 4.34, and can be interpreted as evident. Statement 2, “I learn best when reading and rereading the textbooks and notes.” has a mean of 4.08 and can be represented as evident. Statement 3, “I prefer obtaining information about an exciting subject by reading about it.” has a mean of 4 and can be represented as evident. Statement 4, “I can logically support and develop my main point when writing a paragraph.” has a mean of 3.88 and can be represented as evident. Statement 5, “I can edit my writing to improve the wording, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.” has a mean of 3.88 and can be represented as evident. The table further presents that the total average of students who were described as reading/writing learners registered a total mean of 4.04, which could be interpreted as evident. This could be explained by the mathematics major students being read/write learners because it got the highest overall mean.

8. Table 8 provides data regarding the Kinesthetic Learning Style of the Students.

Table 8. Kinesthetic Learning Style of the Students

Table 8 presents those students who are described as kinesthetic learners. The statement 1, “I learn best when I am shown how to do something; and I have the opportunity to do it.” got the highest mean which is 4.42, and can be interpreted as evident. Statement 2, “I think better when I have the freedom to move around.” has a mean of 4.22 and can be represented as Evident. Statement 3, “I tend to solve problems through a trial-and-error approach rather than a step-by-step method,” has a mean of 3.64 and can be represented as evident. Statement 4, “Before I follow directions, it helps me see someone else do it first.” has a mean of 3.84 and can be represented as evident. Statement 5, “I don’t like to read directions; instead, I just start doing,” has a mean of 2.4 and can be represented as inevident. This could be explained by the fact that some mathematics major students are kinesthetic learners.

9. Table 9 provides data regarding the Level Of Implementation Of Teachers’ Strategic Planning Inside The Classroom As To Students’ Performance Tasks.

Table 9. Level Of Implementation Of Teachers’ Strategic Planning Inside The Classroom As To Students’ Performance Tasks

Table 9 shows the Level of Implementation of Teachers’ strategic planning inside the classroom in terms of Students’ performance tasks. Regarding the findings, it could be obtained on the same table that respondents consider statement 1, “My instructor uses a range of classroom assessments to monitor students’ learning progress,” whose mean value of 4.18 is interpreted as well implemented. Statement 2 “My instructor uses observations to assess students’ academic performance and behavior,” whose mean value of 4.3 is interpreted as well implemented. Statement 3, “My instructor uses educational games to assess students’ learning,” whose mean value of 3.5, is interpreted as well implemented. Statement 4 “My instructor considers whether technology is an appropriate way to assess classroom tasks,” whose mean value of 4.34 is interpreted as well implemented. Statement 5 “My instructor asks students to create journals for their learnings,” whose mean value of 3.02 is interpreted as implementing to experience such condition utilized by the instructor as their strategic plans to assess the Students ‘performance task. The implementation of strategic planning regarding performance tasks can be interpreted as well implemented since it has an overall mean of 3.87. These findings of well-implemented strategic planning are in line with the study conducted in a previous study (Okwako et al., 2020).

10. Table 10 provides data as regards the Level Of Implementation Of Teachers’ Strategic Planning Inside The Classroom As To Students’ Learning Style

Table 10. Level Of Implementation Of Teachers’ Strategic Planning Inside The Classroom As To Students’ Learning Style

Table 10 shows the Level of Implementation of Teachers’ strategic planning inside the classroom regarding Students’ Learning Styles. Regarding the findings, it could be obtained on the same table that respondents consider statement 1, “My instructor considers students’ differences before giving a task,” whose mean value of 3.82, which is interpreted as well implemented. Statement 2 “My instructor prefers to give feedback after giving the task to the students,” whose mean value of 4.2 is interpreted to be well implemented. Statement 3 “My instructor employs group participation in every lesson inside the classroom,” whose mean value of 4.1 is interpreted to be well implemented. Statement 4, “My instructor prioritizes students’ questions in every task,” whose mean value of 4.2 is interpreted as well implemented. Statement 5 “My instructor retaught the lesson when students did not understand the lesson properly,” whose mean value of 4.16 was interpreted as well implemented to experience such a condition inside the classroom. The implementation of strategic planning as to students’ learning styles can be interpreted as well implemented since it has an overall mean of 4.10. These findings of well-implemented strategic planning are in line with the study conducted in a previous study (Okwako et al., 2020).

11. Table 11 provides data regarding the Relationship Between Career/Future Ready Strategic Planning And Performance Task Outcomes of Diverse Students

Table 11. Relationship Between Career/Future Ready Strategic Planning And Performance Task Outcome of Diverse Students

Table 11 shows the significant relationship between career/future-ready strategic planning and the performance task result of diverse students. It reveals that the computed r-value between strategic planning and performance task results of diverse students is -.17, which is interpreted as a weak negative relationship. The findings are in contraction to previous studies in which a positive relationship is reported (Okode, 2013; Mehrang & Rahimpour, 2010). These previous studies focus on a wide aspect of strategic planning, but Table 11 focuses on the relationship between career/future-ready strategic planning and the performance task result of diverse students. The result shows that strategic planning has a very weak effect (r²= .03) on the performance task result of diverse students. Furthermore, since the p-value is .22 and it’s above .05, there is enough evidence to accept the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between the career/future-ready strategic planning and performance tasks of diverse students.

12. Table 12 provides data as regards the Relationship Between Career/Future Ready Strategic Planning And Performance Task Outcomes of Diverse Students

Table 12.  Relationship Between High-Quality Strategic Planning And Performance Task Outcome of Diverse Students

Table 12 shows the significant relationship between high-quality instruction strategic planning and the performance task result of diverse students. It reveals that the computed r-value between strategic planning and performance task results of diverse students is -.20, which is interpreted as a weak negative relationship. The findings are in contraction to previous studies in which a positive relationship is reported (Okode, 2013; Mehrang & Rahimpour, 2010). These previous studies focus on a wide aspect of strategic planning, but Table 12 focuses on the relationship between high-quality instruction-ready strategic planning and the performance task result of diverse students. The result shows that high-quality strategic planning has a very weak effect ( r²= .04) on the performance task result of diverse students. Furthermore, there is enough evidence to accept the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between high-quality strategic planning and performance tasks despite various learning styles.

DISCUSSION

Here is a summary of the findings of this study.

The result showed that the teacher’s strategic planning style is career/future-ready, wherein it registered a total mean of 4.06, which could be interpreted as evident. Also, the teacher’s teaching method is learner-centered, wherein it registered a total mean of 4.39, which could be interpreted as evident. This finding that teachers are more learner-centered in their teaching style is supported by the study conducted by (Khandaghi & Farasat, 2011). In addition, the result showed that student’s learning styles are diverse; however, read/write learners got the highest average mean of 4. 04 second from the top are visual learners with an average mean of 4 and followed by auditory learners with an average of 3.87 and kinesthetic learners registered the lowest average which is 3.70. This finding is in line with the previous studies, which tell that students’ learning styles are diverse (Sywelem et al., 2012; Wu, 2014). The students’ performance tasks are interpreted to be well implemented and computed with a total mean of 3.87. Moreover, Students’ Learning Style is interpreted to be well implemented and computed with a total mean of 4.10. These findings of well-implemented strategic planning are in line with the study conducted in a previous study (Okwako et al., 2020). Moreover, the computed r-value between career/future-ready strategic planning and performance task results of diverse students is -.17, while high-quality instruction strategic planning and performance task results of diverse students are -.20, interpreted as a very weak negative relationship. The findings contradict previous studies in which a positive relationship is reported (Okode, 2013; Mehrang & Rahimpour, 2010). We accept the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between strategic planning and the performance tasks of diverse students.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions were drawn from the findings. The teacher’s strategic planning style is more career/future-ready than high-quality instruction. The study also shows that the teacher’s teaching method is more learner-centered. The learning style of the mathematics major students is diverse, yet read/write learners are more dominant. The implementation of teachers’ strategic planning inside the classroom as to students’ learning styles and performance tasks is well implemented. Moreover, there is no significant relationship between strategic planning and the performance tasks of diverse students.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations below are suggested based on the findings and conclusions of this study. Since the career/future-ready strategic planning style is more dominant, teachers could focus on working on their high-quality instruction strategic planning. Teachers could continue adapting to education changes that help students learn best. Also, teachers could give assessments that are fit to dominate students’ learning style while still considering other learners. Teachers could continue implementing and improving their strategic planning for the students. Other variables not used in this study could be looked forward to in future studies.

REFERENCES

Journal Article

1. Abdi, M., Eslami, H., & Zahedi, Y. (2012). The Impact of Pre-task Planning on the Fluency and Accuracy of Iranian EFL Learners’ Oral Performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2281–2288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.199
2. Ahangari, S., & Abdi, M. (2011). The effect of pre-task planning on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1950–1959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.445
3. Albay, E. M., & Eisma, D. V. (2021). Performance task assessment supported by the design thinking process: Results from a true experimental research. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100116
4. Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative Research Methods: A Synopsis Approach. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business & Management Review, 6(11), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.12816/0040336
5. Asgarikia, P. (2014). The Effects of Task Type, Strategic Planning and No Planning on Written Performance of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.417
6. Babaoglan, E. (2015). Strategic Planning in Education in Turkey. Educational Planning, 22(2), 35–40. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208590.pdf
7. Bajaj, R. V., & Sharma, V. (2018). Smart Education with artificial intelligence based determination of learning styles. Procedia Computer Science, 132, 834–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.095
8. Bickel, S., Dias, E. C., Epstein, M. P., & Javitt, D. C. (2012). Expectancy-related modulations of neural oscillations in continuous performance tasks. NeuroImage, 62(3), 1867–1876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.009
9. Bornstein, M. H., & Gardner, H. (1986). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(2), 120. https://doi.org/10.2307/3332707
10. Cuevas, J. A. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515606621
11. Curtis, E. M., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2016). Importance and use of correlational research. Nurse Researcher, 23(6), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2016.e1382
12. Fooladv and, M., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Shahtalebi, S. (2015). The Application Strategic Planning and Balance Scorecard Modelling in Enhance of Higher Education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 950–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.115
13. Galego, C., & Cunha, A. (2020). An integrative debate on learning styles and the learning process. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1), 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100017
14. Gordon, G., & Fischer, M. J. (2015). Strategic Planning in Public Higher Education: Management Tool or Publicity Platform?. Educational Planning, 22(3), 5–17. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208584.pdf
15. Immordino, K. M., Gigliotti, R. A., Ruben, B. D., & Tromp, S. (2016). Evaluating the Impact of Strategic Planning in Higher Education. Educational Planning, 23(1), 35–47. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208199.pdf
16. Khalid, M., Akhter, M., & Hashmi, A. (2017a). Teaching Styles of Secondary School English Teachers and Learning Styles of Their Students and Relationship of Teaching Learning Style Match with Students’ Achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39(3), 203–220. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210136.pdf
17. Khalid, M., Akhter, M., & Hashmi, A. (2017b). Teaching Styles of Secondary School English Teachers and Learning Styles of Their Students and Relationship of Teaching Learning Style Match with Students’ Achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39(3), 203–220. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210136.pdf
18. Khandaghi, M. A., & Farasat, M. (2011). The effect of teacher’s teaching style on students’ adjustment. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.299
19. Khatib, M., & Farahanynia, M. (2020). Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System, 93, 102297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102297
20. Khorasani, R., Kashef, S. H., & Ahmadi, M. H. (2014). Is Complexity Reachable through Planning Conditions in Written Task Performance? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.509
21. Klement, M. (2014). How do my Students Study? An Analysis of Students’ of Educational Disciplines Favorite Learning Styles According to VARK Classification. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 132, 384–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.326
22. Learning Styles in Education: A Critique. (2015). BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 9(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1230420.pdf
23. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705
24. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125
25. Lwande, C., Muchemi, L., & Oboko, R. (2021). Identifying learning styles and cognitive traits in a learning management system. Heliyon, 7(8), e07701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07701
26. Mehrang, F., & Rahimpour, M. (2010). The impact of task structure and planning conditions on oral performance of EFL learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3678–3686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.572
27. Meti̇ N, M. (2013). Öğretmenlerin Performans Görevlerini Hazırlarken ve Uygularken Karşılaştığı Sorunlar. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.3.1452
28. Sywelem, M. M. G., Al-Harbi, Q., Fathema, N., & Witte, J. C. (2012). Learning Style Preferences of Student Teachers: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1, 10–24. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533031.pdf
29. Taylor, A. L., Pfeiffer, C. A., Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M. G. (2000). Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 507. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649152
30. Wu, D. C. (2014). Learning Styles And Satisfaction In Distance Education. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.31724
31. Yildirim, R., & Örsdemir, E. (2013). Performance Tasks as Alternative Assessment for Young EFL Learners: Does Practice Match the Curriculum Proposal? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences. http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423904198.pdf
32. Zaccaron, R. (2017). Collaborative and individual strategic planning effect on performance of an oral task. Avances En Educación Y Humanidades, 2(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.21897/25394185.1484

Book

1. Pandey, P., & Pandey, M. M. (2015). Research Methodology: Tools & Techniques. Bridge Center. https://euacademic.org/BookUpload/9.pdf

Webpage

1. Lemboye, O. T. (n.d.). Correlational Analysis of the Relationship Among Mastery Experience, Self-Efficacy, and Project Success. ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/7028/
2. Marenus, M. (2023). Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences – Simply Psychology. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/multiple-intelligences.html

Thesis

1. Okode, G. O. (2013). Influence Of Secondary Schools’ Strategic Planning On Students’ Academic Performance In Rachuonyo North District, Kenya. http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/55797
2. Okwako, A. D. (2013). Strategic planning and performance of public secondary schools in Rarieda District, Kenya. http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/61690