Readiness for Flexible Learning amidst COVID 19 Pandemic ...The researchers sent a transmittal letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs of Saint Michael College of Caraga

Peer Reviewed Journal

1

Readiness for Flexible Learning amidst COVID 19 Pandemic of Saint Michael

College of Caraga, PhilippinesKENNETH IAN B. BARRERA

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7678-9410 [email protected]

Saint Michael College of Caraga, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

BEVERLY D. JAMINALhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5534-3754

[email protected] Michael College of Caraga, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

FELIX E. ARCILLA JR.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2669-2979

[email protected] Michael College of Caraga, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

Gunning Fog Index: 13.67 • Originality 99% • Grammar Check: 99%Flesch Reading Ease: 40.61 • Plagiarism: 1%

ABSTRACT

With the current situation in the educational system amidst the coronavirus pandemic and the call for flexible learning, Saint Michael College of Caraga has deemed it necessary to survey its stakeholders, particularly the students’ and teachers’ readiness for flexible learning. The researchers used descriptive research design by Creswell & Creswell (2017) in conducting the study. Based on the findings, the result shows that the respondents, the Junior High School (JHS), Senior High School (SHS), College, and Teachers of Saint Michael College of Caraga, are ready for flexible learning. The majority of the respondents have smartphones, laptops and can connect to the internet through mobile data and Wi-Fi providers. Since smartphones, laptops and an internet

SMCC Teacher Education JournalISSN Print: 2008- 0598 • ISSN Online: 2008-0601

Volume 2 • June 2020DOI:

SMCC Teacher Education Journal

2

connections are the technical requirements for online education. It was recommended that the official online platforms or learning management system first be established by the institution. Also, the respondents use mobile data as their source of internet connection, a flexible learning scheme that would have low usage of mobile data to lessen the students’ expenses, and offline class or use of modules or learning materials should also be an option for those students who don’t have connectivity. Moreover, teachers should undergo trainings and seminars on how to conduct online classes, and the curriculum should be revisited to accommodate the paradigm shift.

KEYWORDS

Readiness, flexible learning, COVID 19 pandemic, descriptive, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

The dawn of the 21st century and the development of technology have brought different challenges to society’s various sectors, especially to the educational system. Schools were challenged to produce globally competitive graduates who are equipped with 21st-century skills.

With the advent of technology and the internet wherein almost six in ten of the nearly 8 billion people in the world are connected to the internet (Aazam et al., 2014), makes e-learning a vital part of the educational system since technology plays a big part in the 21st-century learning. The integration of computers, smartphones, and other devices in the teaching and learning process is a move that every school must embrace to become relevant in the present time.

The need to include e-learning to the curriculum has been made more prominent with the onslaught of the COVID 2019 (Sahi, Mishra, & Singh, 2020). Government agencies, such as the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), advocate online classes or flexible learning to address pandemic issues and the constraints imposed on schools to observe health protocols and practice social distancing. Thus, schools are now looking into the viability of implementing online classes or flexible learning, including online and offline courses (Narmada & Somasundaram, 2020).

In addition, distance education is a concept that covers the teaching-learning activities in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains of learners. It features non-contiguous communication and can be executed anywhere, anytime, making it attractive to both teachers and students with professional and social commitments (Saykili, 2018).

Sandars (2020) includes essential criteria for the formulation of distance education, such as the elements of non-contiguous communication, two-way interactive communication, and technology to mediate the necessary two-way communication.


3

Marshall & Kostka (2020) argued that meaningful learning, which anchors new learning subjects in cognitive structures, not rote learning, is the center of interest. Teaching is taken as making learning easier. This view of teaching and learning is integrated with its individualization.

Given the current situation in the education system amid the coronavirus pandemic and the need for flexible learning, Saint Michael College Caraga has found it beneficial to survey its stakeholders, particularly teachers and students’ readiness to embark on this learning platform.

FRAMEWORK

The study is anchored on the Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning by Gordon (2014) and Hart (2000).

Demographic shifts have led to a shift in university student bodies: more mature, full-time, and international students. Both students’ expectations for their education have shifted, with a greater focus on job preparedness and flexible or self-directed activities, and employer expectations for their workforce, pushing for greater “flexibility and transferable skills” which will provide them with “more dynamic working lives” (Gordon, 2014).

He said that Flexible learning is one way for such changes to be tackled. It lets students choose when, where, and how to learn. This is referred to as the learning pace, place, and mode.

1. Pace. This refers to encompasses accelerated and decelerated programs, part-time learning, prior learning recognition, and associated credit framework.

2. Place. This refers to the actual location of learning, whether it takes place in a classroom, or at home, in the middle of a trip or as part of a work-based experience.

3. Mode. This refers to how innovations can be used to deliver learning in fully enhanced environments online, blended, or technology.

Instructors, learners, and institutions all play a role in flexible learning. Instructors must be able to recognize opportunities for flexible learning, “with a growing focus in handling the learning cycle instead of being the only learning provider content.” Learners must take responsibility for their learning and grasp opportunities presented to them and advocate for the method of delivery that best serves their learning. Institutions must develop flexible structures that provide learners with options in their learning and establish mechanisms that guarantee a quality learning experience (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013).

This wide range of influences can complicate the definition of flexible learning. Palmer (2011) points out that the variety of teaching elements that allow flexibility can “lead to the assumption that almost any teaching and learning configuration can claim


4

to be flexible in some respect,” but he points out that there is a need to be more careful in using the term flexibility. The lack of an agreed definition of flexible education or the use of an overly broad definition has led to a confusing “conflation of educational typologies,” such as identifying any aspect of a course delivered in a non-traditional manner as flexible or equating distance education with flexibility. Hart (2000) further points out that distinguishing “flexible delivery” (technology or economically-driven strategies) from true “flexible learning” (an educational goal) is significant. He has identified eight principles to do so, which he says are “central to enforcing a flexible learning strategy.”

1. Flexible access. Admitting students without a typical educational experience or credentials helps students decide when to enter or exit a course and encourage them to work individually, attend classes, or combine the two.

2. Recognition of prior learning. Providing credit for formal or non-formal learning, including work experience and training, and using of this individual experience to establish an acceptable study course.

3. Flexible content. «Problem-based, as opposed to controlled, curricula require students to function at various levels,” requiring students to construct a study course that involves “units from other universities, extensions of units provided, supervised practical research or contracts for learning.”

4. Flexible participation. Communication can be “face-to-face or asynchronous, one-on-one or mobile, scheduled or on-demand,” available to teachers and support staff at all times that are convenient for students.

5. Flexible teaching and learning methods. The delivery mode is set by a combination of the “subjects “requirements and the individual learner’s needs”;” Learning is personalized, teamwork is facilitated and metacognitive goals are followed.” There is a systematic approach to independent learning “with the ultimate aim of creating a broad understanding and learner accountability.”

6. Flexible resources. Access to all university resources is available on and off-campus, “Modular self-education materials (remedy, revision, and extension) are available if required by the students.

7. Flexible assessment. Assessment is based on competency and not time, “on meeting goals rather than standard delivery, on getting input and evaluation as well.” Evaluation suits the course’s aim and allows students to be responsible for their own level of achievement. Assessment is an essential part of the course evaluating students’ success in “declarative, operational, and contextual aspects.”

8. Ongoing evaluation. Continued formative and overview assessments of flexible learning curricula and materials ensure the required development or revision of modular courses and elements of the course occurs as necessary.

Moreover, Brunzell, Stokes, & Waters (2016) found that flexible learning can help meet the needs of various students, let students balance education, study and


5

family, and ‘allow students to build skills and attributes to adapt to change successfully. Scheduling options (part-time, full-time, day, night), curriculum personalization (graduates, certificates, just-in-time classes, career-based learning), experiential and community-based learning opportunities, and the introduction of publicly accessible digital content, flexible learning has been shown to enhance student learning outcomes and expand access to education.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The main purpose of the study was to survey its stakeholders, particularly the students’ and teachers’ readiness for flexible learning. The survey would become the basis in the formulation of the SMCC flexible learning development program.

METHODOLOGY

Research DesignThe researchers of the study used descriptive research design by Creswell &

Creswell (2017) in conducting the survey.

Research LocaleThe research was conducted at Saint Michael College of Caraga (SMCC), located

in Atupan Street, Nasipit Agusan del Norte, Philippines. SMCC has good qualities in terms of education and teaching Christian values. The researchers purposefully chose this institution so that the result of this study could be of great help on flexible learning readiness.

Research RespondentsThe researchers used the universal sampling method. The respondents of this study

were the 107 full-time teachers and the 2, 575 students who answered the online survey using the online Google forms.

Research InstrumentThe study used Google forms as a source for securing the required data. This uses a

standardized questionnaire. The online survey questionnaire incorporates the profile of the respondents and the questions on flexible learning.

Data GatheringThe researchers sent a transmittal letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs of

Saint Michael College of Caraga to conduct the study. Then, the researchers conducted pre-orientation relating to the purpose, process, and benefits of the study. Further, the researchers post the link to the personnel’s group chat and sent the link to the Deans,


6

Principals, and advisers to inform their teachers and students regarding the online survey using Google forms.

Statistical TreatmentThe data collected were entered into the data matrix using the Software of Microsoft

Excel with the statistical procedure in a frequency distribution, weighted mean, and percentage of the mean score.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Devices used for Internet connection Devices College SHS JHS Teachers Total

f % f % f % f % f %

Smartphones 982 89.70% 560 84.70% 791 87% 120 86.30% 2453 86.93

Tablet 46 4.20% 68 10.30% 132 14.50% 16 11.50% 262 10.13

Laptop 192 17.50% 188 28.40% 233 25.60% 98 70.50% 711 35.5

Personal computer 41 3.70% 55 8.30% 96 10.60% 15 10.80% 207 8.35

Smart tv 24 2.20% 44 6.70% 73 8% 27 19.40% 168 9.08

Smart Boards 1 0.10% 3 0.50% 7 0.80% 0 0 11 0.35

Camera 52 4.70% 34 5.10% 47 5.20% 13 9.40% 146 6.1

Scanner 17 1.60% 24 3.60% 21 2.30% 9 6.50% 71 3.5

Printer 44 4% 55 8.30% 82 9% 181 5.33

I do not have any of the devices mentioned

58 5.30% 53 8% 63 6.90% 3 2.20% 177 0.55

Table 1 shows the respondents’ devices that can be used for internet connection. It further shows that students’ and teachers’ common devices for internet connection are smartphones and laptops. Almost eighty-seven percent of the respondents have smartphones, while 35.50% have laptops, while only 0.35% of the respondents have Smart Boards.

With this, it can be deduced that most of the respondents can connect to the internet through their smartphones (Sendelbah, Vehovar, Slavec, & Petrovčič, 2016). Also, Watkins & Cho (2018) said that this transition was made possible by an expanding range of high-powered digital devices capable of connecting from the teaching space to the internet and by a new generation of students for whom constant connectivity is the norm.


7

Table 2. Phone/Computer Applications for CommunicationsPhone/Computer

Applications College SHS JHS Teachers Total

f % f % f % f % f %

Zoom 57 5.20% 38 5.70% 56 6.20% 41 29.50% 192 11.65

Google Hangouts/Meet 100 9.10% 75 11.30% 85 9.40% 31 22.30% 291 13.03

Facebook Mes-senger 1,045 95.40% 618 93.50% 831 91.40% 134 96.40% 2628 94.18

Viber 107 9.80% 74 11.20% 69 7.60% 44 31.70% 294 15.08

Skype 150 13.70% 111 16.80% 125 13.80% 61 43.90% 447 22.05

None 29 2.60% 21 3.20% 51 5.60% 3 2.20% 104 3.4

Table 2 shows the Phone/Computer Applications used by the respondents for communications. Further, it reveals that 94.18% of the respondents used Facebook messenger for communications followed by Skype, and the least used is the ZOOM application. It is noted that only 3.4% of the respondents do not use any of the communications applications. No doubt, digital technologies can enhance learning by accessing information and improving communication and providing self-directed and collaborative learning opportunities. ICT skills can also help develop capable, future-ready citizens (Handyman, 2018)

Table 3. Phone/Computer Applications for Word Processing & Office Phone/Computer

Applications College SHS JHS Teachers Total

f % f % F % f % f %

Microsoft Office Applications 723 66% 478 72.30% 522 57.40% 115 82.70% 1838 69.6

Google Docs, Sheets, Slides 365 33.30% 269 40.70% 292 32.10% 74 53.20% 1000 31.5

Open Office 69 6.30% 48 7.30% 43 4.70% 20 14.40% 180 41.05

WPS 612 55.90% 306 46.30% 158 17.40% 62 44.60% 1138 17.03

None 115 10.50% 59 8.90% 214 23.50% 35 25.20% 423 17.03

Table 3 shows that the Phone/computer applications for Word processing & office used by the respondents. It can also be learned from the data that 69.6% of the respondents used Microsoft office applications, followed by Open Office with 41.05%. While the least used is WPS, and 17.03% of the respondents do not use any of the identified applications.


8

Shmueli, Patel & Bruce (2011) supported that many easy to use applications providing flexible solutions for every task you meet at the workplace, school, or at home, this Microsoft Office or MS Office software suite is the global reference for desktop publishing and use in online learning. Moreover, direct and straightforward features that enable learners to achieve the result quickly with ease make MS Office one of the most used software suites in the world (Jun & Ohgama, 2016).

Table 4. Phone/Computer Applications for Learning Management System used by the RespondentsPhone/computer

applications College SHS JHS Teachers Total

f % F % f % f % f %

Edmodo 277 25.30% 234 35.40% 137 15.10% 58 41.70% 706 29.38Google Classroom 656 59.90% 426 64.40% 253 27.80% 69 49.60% 1404 50.43

Blackboard 157 14.30% 118 17.90% 201 22.10% 18 12.90% 494 16.80

Lark 4 0.40% 7 1.10% 8 0.90% 5 3.60% 24 1.50

Schoology 38 3.50% 15 2.30% 51 5.60% 12 8.60% 116 5.00

None 239 21.80% 104 15.70% 391 43% 45 32.40% 779 28.23

Table 4 shows the Phone/Computer Applications for Learning Management System frequently used by the respondents. Further, it shows that Google Classroom, with 50.43%, ranks first among the respondents’ applications, followed by Edmodo, and the least is Lark. Islam (2019) said that Google Classroom helps students to communicate more effectively. Perhaps more important than being user-friendly and accessible, the communication tools are also very effective. Since it’s all cloud-based, students no longer “lose” the tasks.

It is noted that there are 28.23% of the respondents who are not familiar with any of the given applications.

Furthermore, for JHS respondents, most of them are not familiar. They have not used the given applications for the Learning Management system; only 27.8% of the JHS respondents are familiar with Google Classroom. According to Alharbi & Drew (2014), teaching and learning through learning management systems (LMS) seems to be initially intended for distant education which is reasonable that is why students are not familiar because the traditional approach of teaching is face to face modalities before the onset of technologies and online platforms.


9

Table 5. Word Processing, Spread Sheet and Presentations used by the RespondentsWord Processing Spreadsheet Presentation

Department Weighed Mean Verbal

description Weighed

Mean Verbal

description Weighed

Mean Verbal

description

College 3.63 very good 3.22 good 3.56 very good

SHS 3.54 very good 3.26 good 3.56 very good

JHS 3.36 good 3.10 good 3.32 good

Teachers 4.04 very good 3.60 very good 3.86 very good

3.64 Very good 3.29 good 3.58 very good

Table 5 shows the level of literacy Basic Computer Task particularly on Word Processing, Spreadsheets, and Presentations. The data indicate that only the Junior High School respondents are good level at literacy in basic computer tasks. In contrast, the other respondents, the College, SHS, and teachers have a very good literacy level in basic computer tasks, particularly in Word Processing, Spreadsheet, and Presentations.

Blignaut & Els (2010) claimed that due to the use of computers in our everyday communication and work, computer systems skills and the ability to work with word processing, data management, and data sheeting and data analysis programs had become important requirements for students

Therefore, the JHS respondents, including grade 7 and grade 8, whose curriculum still does not include the given basic computer tasks, explain the low literacy level.

Table 6. Internet Skills, Audio & Video Editing, Image/Photo Editing and Programming Literacy

Internet Skills Audio & Video Editing Image/Photo Editing Programming

Department Weighed Mean Verbal description

Weighed Mean

Verbal description

Weighed Mean

Verbal description

Weighed Mean

Verbal description

College 3.58 Very good 2.92 good 3.14 good 2.40 fair

SHS 3.58 Very good 3.13 good 3.33 good 2.73 Good

JHS 3.63 Very good 3.09 good 3.36 good 2.68 Good

Teachers 3.81 Very good 2.78 good 2.94 good 2.08 fair

Ave. Weighted Mean

3.65 Very good 2.98 good 3.19 good 2.47 fair

Table 6 shows the level of literacy on Internet Skills, Audio & Video Editing,

Image/Photo Editing, and Programming. Further, it shows that all of the respondents have a very good literacy level for

Internet Skills. On Audio and Video Editing and Image/Photo Editing skills, all


10

respondents have a good literacy level. And for Programming skills, only the SHS and JHS respondents have a good literacy level while the college and teachers-respondents have a fair literacy level. Internet skills and programming skills are essential for success in the business world, especially in education. These skills are a useful tool for students to utilize and to integrate them into curricula for all levels of student’s education (Dweck et al., 2014).

Table 7 Instructional Delivery Preferences Value College SHS JHS Teachers Total

f % f % f % f % f %

Traditional/ Face-face Lecture

849 77.50% 472 71.40% 548 60.30% 123 88.50% 1992 74.43%

Self-paced learning Modules- defined as…

305 27.90% 252 38.10% 383 42.10% 57 41% 997 17.5%

Flipped Classroom- a type learning

197 18% 131 19.80% 256 28.20% 57 41% 641 11.55%

Distribution of Printed Learning Materials

420 38.40% 238 36% 349 38.40% 78 56.10% 1085 19.2%

Live Lectures Online- Students and teachers

193 17.60% 111 16.80% 220 24.20% 57 41% 581 10.45%

Table 7 shows that respondents prefer traditional/face-to-face lectures with 74.43% on Instructional Delivery preference. The next preference is the Distribution of Printed Learning materials. The least preferred instructional delivery is the Live lectures Online, with only 10.45%.

Duncan & Fiske (2015) indicated the importance of face-to-face interaction because it allows for a better exchange of information since both the speaker and listener can see and interpret body language and facial expressions. In contrast, Lenkaitis (2020) demonstrated that education quality could be achieved by incorporating computer technology in online class interaction. In addition, given the importance of face-to-face interaction, successful distance education programs are increasingly moving towards distance learning education (Simonson, Zvacek & Smaldino, 2019). Moreover, online delivery might find it challenging to support modules and printed materials distribution


11

is an option in studying at a distance education (Martin, Cupples, & Taherzadeh, 2020).

Table 8. Teaching and Learning process using online platforms Indicators College SHS JHS Teachers Total

f % f % f % f % f %

Comfortable with online Platfoms

313 28.60% 191 28.90% 417 45.20% 68 48.9 989 37.90%

Not Comfortable with online Platforms

782 71.40% 470 71.10% 506 54.80% 71 51.1 1829 62.10%

Table 8 shows that majority of the respondents are not comfortable using online platforms in the teaching and learning process. This can be explained that though most of the respondents have smartphones and can connect to the internet, data show that most of the respondents used their devices for Facebook or communication purposes only. Only a few use their devices for the teaching and learning process (Sung, Chang, & Liu, 2016).

In addition, Dresselhaus & Shrode (2012) stated that mobile devices and Wi-Fi providers have become more popular; they have also improve more widely integrated into students’ lives. Many students use smartphones or tablets as part of their life, and it is one of the requirements in online learning. Nikolopoulou (2020) supported that smartphone or tablet can certainly enhance a student’s online learning experience. Moreover, Accessing course materials, creating assignments, or even simply emailing your professor and fellow students on the go, makes online teaching and learning even more convenient (Barkley & Major, 2020).

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings, it can be deduced that the respondents, the JHS, SHS, College, and Teachers of Saint Michael College of Caraga, are ready for flexible learning, for the majority of the respondents have smartphones, laptops and can connect to the internet through mobile data and Wi-Fi providers. Since smartphones, laptops and an internet connections are the technical requirements for online education. The result is incongruent to the Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning by Gordon (2014); Hart (2000) states that innovations can be used to deliver learning in fully enhanced environments both online and blended. Besides, it helps students to decide when to enter or exit a course and encourage students to work individually and attend online classes. Moreover, Modular or self-education materials are available for those who don’t have internet connectivity.


12

RECOMMENDATIONS

The researchers recommend that official online platforms or learning management systems first be established by the institution wherein instructors can provide engaging educational activities. Online platforms should be user-friendly and hold the number of students per class and online class hours (Gacs, Goertler, & Spasova, 2020).

With the data gathered, it is further recommended to start with the flexible learning program. Since most of the respondents use mobile data as their source of internet connection, a flexible learning scheme that will have low usage of mobile data to lessen the students’ expenses for their mobile data, and offline class or use of modules or learning materials should also be an option for those students who don’t have connectivity (Martin, Cupples, & Taherzadeh, 2020).

Thus, it follows that teachers should undergo trainings and seminars on how to conduct online classes (Rosa, 2020), and the curriculum should be revisited to accommodate the paradigm shift (Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur, 2020).

LITERATURE CITED

Aazam, M., Khan, I., Alsaffar, A. A., & Huh, E. N. (2014, January). Cloud of Things: Integrating Internet of Things and cloud computing and the issues involved. In Proceedings of 2014 11th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences & Technology (IBCAST) Islamabad, Pakistan, 14th-18th January, 2014 (pp. 414-419). IEEE. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2YbCHYQ\

Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2QCNlnm

Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2YOvEpz

Blignaut, A. S., & Els, C. J. (2010). Comperacy assessment of postgraduate students’ readiness for higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 101-107. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/32BX0QT

Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., & Waters, L. (2016). Trauma-informed flexible learning: classrooms that strengthen regulatory abilities. International journal of child, youth and family studies, 7(2), 218-239. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3hGleQ1


13

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2Ei0ejK

Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (2015). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Routledge. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3gJJ6ku

Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Academic Tenacity: Mindsets and Skills that Promote Long-Term Learning. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/34JAKaa

Gacs, A., Goertler, S., & Spasova, S. (2020). Planned online language education versus crisis‐prompted online language teaching: Lessons for the future. Foreign Language Annals. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3b8Yk1d

Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning. The Higher Education Academy, 1-24. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2EH51vr

Hart, I. (2000). Learning and the ‘F’word. Educational Media International, 37(2), 98-101. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3b9HoI1

Hyndman, B. (2018). Ten reasons why teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom. Science Education News, 67(4), 41. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2ENWuqq

Islam, M. S. (2019). Bangladeshi University Students’ Perception about Using Google Classroom for Teaching English. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 57-65. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/31FryBX

Jun, I. I. O., & OHGAMA, S. (2016). “Make It Possible” Study: Can LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice Be Alternatives to MS-Office from Consumer’s Perspective?. DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science, (seme). Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/31DewEV

Joosten, T. (2012). Social media for educators: Strategies and best practices. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3hgtvKA

Lenkaitis, C. A. (2020). Technology as a mediating tool: Videoconferencing, L2 learning, and learner autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 483-509. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3bgDcq8


14

Li, J., Ghosh, R., & Nachmias, S. (2020). In a time of COVID-19 pandemic, stay healthy, connected, productive, and learning: words from the editorial team of HRDI. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/31dNt33

Marshall, H. W., & Kostka, I. (2020). Fostering Teaching Presence through the Synchronous Online Flipped Learning Approach. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 24(2). Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3kWAKJJ

Martin, K., Cupples, A., & Taherzadeh, S. (2020). Learning advanced engineering online: from distance delivery to online learning of finite element analysis. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(3), 457-472. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2Ga9xDw

Narmada, S., & Somasundaram, A. (2020). PREPAREDNESS FOR REOPENING AND CONDUCT OF SCHOOLS DURING AND POST COVID-19 PERIOD. Indian Journal of Practical Pediatrics, 22(2), 217. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/31bjAjQ

Nikolopoulou, K. (2020). Secondary education teachers’ perceptions of mobile phone and tablet use in classrooms: benefits, constraints and concerns. Journal of Computers in Education, 7(2), 257-275. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3jmuZ6k

Rosa, A. T. R. (2020). Teacher Development Potential (Creativity and Innovation) Education Management in Engineering Training, Coaching and Writing Works through Scientific Knowledge Intensive Knowledge Based on Web Research in the Industrial Revolution and Society. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 161-168. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/32H4VMA

Sahi, P. K., Mishra, D., & Singh, T. (2020). Medical Education Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Indian Pediatrics. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3h9SaAr

Sandars, J., Correia, R., Dankbaar, M., de Jong, P., Goh, P. S., Hege, I., ... & Webb, A. (2020). Twelve tips for rapidly migrating to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. MedEdPublish, 9. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3iPWo0r


15

Saykili, A. (2018). Distance Education: Definitions, Generations, Key Concepts and Future Directions. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 5(1), 2-17. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3aCtEFk

Simonson, M., Zvacek, S. M., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education 7th Edition. IAP. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/34Muw9E

Shmueli, G., Patel, N. R., & Bruce, P. C. (2011). Data mining for business intelligence: Concepts, techniques, and applications in Microsoft Office Excel with XLMiner. John Wiley and Sons. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/31CVoqH

Sendelbah, A., Vehovar, V., Slavec, A., & Petrovčič, A. (2016). Investigating respondent multitasking in web surveys using paradata. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 777-787. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/327ppOb

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3aJWCDy

Watkins, S. C., & Cho, A. (2018). The digital edge: How Black and Latino youth navigate digital inequality (Vol. 4). NYU Press. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/34MRqhk

Documents

Readiness for Flexible Learning amidst COVID 19 Pandemic ...The researchers sent a transmittal letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs of Saint Michael College of Caraga