Development of Google Classroom as a Learning Management System for Grade 4 Filipino Instructions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67167/vertex.378Keywords:
google classroom, learning management system, filipino instruction, instructional design, digital learningAbstract
This study examined the use of Google Classroom as a learning management system (LMS) to address classroom disruptions and improve the learning outcomes of Grade 4 Filipino learners. It aimed to analyze lesson exemplars in terms of content, structure, and assessment; design a Google Classroom platform targeting least-mastered competencies; and refine the platform through expert evaluation. The study responds to the need for structured, flexible, and technology-supported instruction in elementary language education. A developmental research design guided by the Analysis–Design–Development (ADD) model was employed. Lesson exemplars were analyzed using a validated checklist, while the developed Google Classroom prototype was evaluated by five Master Teachers using a structured rating instrument. Quantitative data were analyzed using mean scores, and qualitative feedback was examined through thematic analysis. Findings revealed that while lesson exemplars were culturally relevant and logically sequenced, they showed inconsistencies in scaffolding, limited higher-order thinking activities, minimal differentiation, and partial alignment of assessments with competencies. The developed platform incorporated structured lesson navigation, multimedia presentations, interactive learning tasks, and formative assessments to support learner engagement and continuity of instruction. Expert evaluation results showed that most components were rated “Very Appropriate” (M = 2.75–2.90), while some were rated “Appropriate” (M = 2.28–2.32), indicating areas for refinement. The study concludes that a systematically designed and iteratively refined Google Classroom platform can effectively address instructional gaps and support competency-based learning. It underscores the importance of scaffolded, interactive, and learner-centered digital environments in enhancing elementary Filipino instruction.
Downloads
References
Ahmed, S., & Rafiq, M. (2023). Culturally responsive digital learning environments and student engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00345-2
Al Shammari, Z., Almazrouei, K., & Alkaabi, A. (2024). Digital pedagogy and literacy development in elementary education. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11678-9
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2020). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (2nd ed.). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2021). The ICAP framework for active learning. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1886100
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). E-learning and the science of instruction (4th ed.). Wiley.
DeLuca, C., & Bellara, A. (2021). Curriculum alignment and assessment validity in education systems. Curriculum Journal, 32(4), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.121
Hernandez, R., & Lo, C. (2023). Scaffolded instruction and literacy development in elementary learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 55(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X23115234
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2021). Measurement reliability in educational research instruments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 40(3), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12456
Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2023). Iterative instructional design in digital learning environments. Computers & Education, 192, 104662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104662
Lopez, R., Garcia, P., & Cruz, A. (2025). Digital learning engagement using Google Classroom. Computers & Education, 198, 104785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104785
Martinez, L., & Pérez, J. (2022). Integrated literacy instruction and comprehension outcomes. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 38(5), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2022.2056789
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355
Patel, S. (2021). Digital formative assessment and metacognitive development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2573–2590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10012-3
Snyder, K., & Lowenthal, P. (2022). Evidence-based instructional design in online learning. Online Learning Journal, 26(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i2.2643
Singh, R., & Gupta, V. (2024). Socio-emotional learning in digital classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107985
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2023). Understanding by design (3rd ed.). ASCD.
