Authors : Irish E. Flores; Ella Mae G. Dagsaan; Jocelle Picar Devillas; Judy Ann Romualdo Abadilla; Joan Micah Lumibao Billena; Rico Pisco Mangohig

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 2 - February

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/8zs7ja7y

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/4sk3bxwm

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26feb150

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The transition from the interactive and familiar environment of traditional class settings to the virtual world appears to be difficult for both the facilitator and the student amid a pandemic. Thus, the present study determined the effects of teaching presence and immediacy to cognitive and affective learning of BSE-Social Studies students during online classes at the College of Teacher Education, President Ramon Magsaysay State University, Iba, Campus. The study used descriptive quantitative research that aims to describe the demographic profiles of the respondents (age, sex, and year level) and determine the effects of teaching presence and immediacy on cognitive and affective learning in online classes. In collecting the data, the researchers used a survey questionnaire that identified the teaching presence and immediacy effects on the cognitive and affective learning of students. Based on the findings of the study, the researchers concluded that the students-respondents were typically young adults, female and mostly first year college students. In addition, online courses have been found out to boost students’ cognitive learning. Moreover, there were no significant differences in age and sex in terms of teaching presence and teaching immediacy on both cognitive and affective learning. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in respondents' year level in terms of teaching presence on both cognitive and affective learning. But in terms of teaching immediacy, cognitive learning has a significant difference in the year level but not affective learning.

Keywords : Cognitive, Affective Learning, Traditional Class, Virtual World, Teaching Presence, Teaching Immediacy.

References :

1. Caskurlu, S., Yukiko, I., & Richardson, J. C. (2020). Teaching presence in online learning: Research developments and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09756-4
2. Campbell, J. (2014). Instructor immediacy behaviors in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(3), 1–15.
3. Chakraborty, M. (2017). Gender differences in participation and engagement in higher education. International Journal of Educational Development, 55, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.06.003
4. Muganga, L., & Ssenkusu, P. (2019). Teacher-centered versus student-centered learning: Implications for cognitive engagement. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(12), 16–25.
5. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2015). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
6. Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Sciartelli, S. M. (2015). The power of examples in learning and instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9317-6
7. Chen, Y., & Chang, C. (2017). Instructor immediacy and student engagement in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 114, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.015
8. Myers, S. A., & Claus, C. J. (2012). The relationship between instructor immediacy and students’ affective learning. Communication Education, 61(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.69793