HAUSC Academic Framework Proposal Complete-20210701-2

1
July 1, 2021
DR. LUIS MARIA R. CALINGO

University President & Chief Academic Officer
Holy Angel University
Angeles City, Pampanga
Dear President Calingo:
Greetings in the name of genuine student representation!
As an autonomous student council empowered by the students of Holy Angel University

(HAU) Community, the Holy Angel University – University Student Council (HAU-USC)
continues to fulfil its mandate of safeguarding the rights of every Angelite towards a quality
and accessible education. As the highest student governing body, it is in unison with the
Angelites' call of an inclusive learning environment where the mantra of the
university—no student left behind—should be upheld at all times.
The unforeseen transition from face-to-face in-person learning to completely an

online learning system has imposed huge disruptive effects on students, especially
those belonging to a family whose economic capacity cannot meet the demands of the new
way of learning. The past year of conducting the burgeoning "now normal" in education
does not guarantee the effectiveness of promoting active learning as instructors were
compelled to improvise quick online learning solutions, that are experimental, to immediately
combat the academic challenges arising due to the dreadful pandemic.
In line with this, students need to come fully prepared to battle various challenges such as
but not limited to: (a) scarcity of financial resources to avail the necessities of online learning
(gadgets, mobile loads, wireless fidelity connection, etc.); (b) online flipped classrooms
which are evidently taking a serious toll on the overall well-being of the students; (c)
absence of a conducive learning environment to most of the households, hence, effective
learning cannot foster; and (d) the inefficacy of delivering remote learning as education is
being constantly reshaped by the unprecedented effects brought about by the present crisis,
notwithstanding the truth that the whole country is unprepared for it.
The conclusion of the Academic Year 2020-2021 does not guarantee that the online
learning system puts forth an assurance that it would be able to serve its optimal
purpose as there still are unresolved concerns that are hindering the students in
receiving an education that is accessible and of quality. In view of this, the HAU-USC
released a survey aimed at identifying the learning experiences of the students and
evaluating the teaching methods and strategies delivered by the professors during this
online set-up. Responses transpired from this are used in proposing an Academic
Framework aimed at addressing the pressing challenges in the conduct of our online
education experienced by the HAU Community.
Time and again, the HAU-USC would like to reaffirm that the quality education offered by
the HAU Administration must not be in disassociation with compassionate and
considerate actions that are pro-students. In a period where numerous challenges hinder
students to fulfil their academic responsibilities, collective effort is necessary to ensure that
the said challenges are acted upon.
1
2
The HAU-USC firmly stands with the ultimate truth that education should always be a
right and not a privilege, therefore, no one should be left behind.
We hope for nothing but to amplify the collective voices of the students, to prospect the
reality, and for the student-centered recommendations reflected in this Academic
Framework be considered, implemented, and institutionalized.
Thank you, and may the blessings of the Almighty Father remain in your home and in the
academe!
In solidarity amid academic burden we unify,
JOSHUA SANTOS HAZEL MIRANDA KENNETH DE GUZMAN
Speaker of the House, Justice Advocate Director, Chief Executive Officer

Legislative Board Justice Advocacy Board Executive Board
President
Vice President for External Vice President for Internal
Affairs Affairs
FRANCIS JOSHUA AILEEN MAGLALANG DARWIN DIONISIO

DALMACIO
Speaker of the House Pro Director for Research and Associate Director for
Tempore, Legislative Board Development Special Committee on Student
Committee Services
Senator for School of
Nursing and Allied Medical Senator for School of Senator for School of
Sciences Computing Business and Accountancy
KYM LEE HALL DARLENE ISABEL

YUMUL
Business Correspondent,
Press Relations Committee Director for Committee on
Finance and Resource
Senator for School of Management
Hospitality and Tourism
Management Senator for School of
Business and Accountancy
2
3
JOSSET CAPARAS MARSHYLL AUBREY EVANGELISTA

Chairperson, College Student Council Vice Chairperson, College Student Council
College of Criminal Justice Education and College of Criminal Justice Education and
Forensics Forensics
CHRISTIAN JOHN ZABALA ZOE FIONA CALANG

School of Arts and Sciences School of Arts and Sciences
ERICKA SANCHEZ MARIE ELIZABETH SAGUM

School of Business and Accountancy School of Business and Accountancy
ABELARDO CORTEZ JR. NICOLE DIANE LIWANAG

School of Education School of Education
SOPHIA NICHOLLE GARCIA JUSTINE AARON SANGALANG

School of Engineering and Architecture School of Engineering and Architecture
NICOLE YSHI SAMSON MARIA NARCISA KRISTINA TAYAG

School of Hospitality and Tourism Management School of Hospitality and Tourism Management
MOHAMMAD CATACUTAN DANELLA MARIA DIAZ

School of Nursing and Allied Medical Sciences School of Nursing and Allied Medical Sciences
MARJORIE BERMILLO KATRINE JOY DELA CRUZ

School of Computing School of Computing
3
4
RE: ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL

[AN OUTLOOK TO THE HAU ONLINE LEARNING SYSTEM]
A Position Paper spearheaded by

Holy Angel University – University Student Council 2021-2022
HAU_USC_COSS_RDSCOMM_FRAMEWORKPROPOSAL_2021_00002
Page | i
4
5
TABLE OF CONTENT
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Demographic Profile of the Respondents ....................................................................................... 1
Academic Workload ....................................................................................................................... 7
Checking, Feedback, and Progress ............................................................................................... 15
Maximum Leniency ...................................................................................................................... 21
Overall Well-Being Breaks ........................................................................................................... 30
Standardized Practices of Instructors in Online Learning ........................................................... 35
Overall Experience........................................................................................................................ 43
Discussions ................................................................................................................................... 64
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 73
References ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Page | ii
5
6
LIST OF FIGURES
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Figure 1.1 Respondents’ Department…………………………………………………..….……..1
Figure 1.2 Respondents’ Year level……………………………………………………………...2
Figure 1.3 Internet Service Provider……………………………………………………………..2
Figure 1.4 Technology Devices………………………………………………………………….3
Figure 1.5 Reliability of Internet Connection…….……………..……………………………….3
Figure 1.6 Download Speed of Internet Connection…….……………..………………………..4
Figure 1.7 Upload Speed of Internet Connection…….……………..…………………………...4
Figure 1.8 Standard Connection of Mobile Data…….……………..…………………….……...5
Figure 1.9 Time Restrictions for Technology Devices…….……………..……………………...5
Figure 1.10 Number of Members in the Household Who Share Technology Devices……….....6
Figure 1.11 Weekly Expenses for Mobile Data…….……………..……………………..............6
ACADEMIC WORKLOAD
Figure 2.1 Number of Class-Standing Requirements Per Major Course Every Semester………..7
Figure 2.2 Number of Class-Standing Requirements Per Minor Course Every Semester………..7
Figure 2.3 Number of Hours Spent in Accomplishing Asynchronous Requirements Per Week....8
Figure 2.4 Number of Hours Spent Per Week for Synchronous Sessions…………………………8
Figure 2.5 Manageability and Effectiveness of the Number of Hours Spent for Synchronous
Classes for Major Courses…………………………………………………………..……………..9
Classes for Minor Courses…………………………………………………………..……………..9
Figure 2.7 Asynchronous Requirements for Major Courses Necessitate Manageable Number of
Hours………………………………………………………………………………..……………10
Figure 2.8 Asynchronous Requirements for Minor Courses Necessitate Manageable Number of
Hours………………………………………………………………………………..……………10
Figure 2.9 Manageability and Effectiveness of the Nature and Type of Assessments………….11
Figure 2.10 Equipment of Activities Given with Essential Learning and Skills per Course…....11
Figure 2.11 Most Reasonable Number of Hours Per Week for Synchronous Classes of Major
Courses……………………………………………………………………………..…………….12
Figure 2.12 Most Reasonable Number of Requirements Per Week for Every Major Course…..12
Figure 2.13 Most Reasonable Number of Hours Per Week for Synchronous Classes of Minor
Courses……………………………………………………………………………..…………….13
Figure 2.14 Most Reasonable Number of Requirements Per Week for Every Minor Course…..13
CHECKING, FEEDBACK, AND PROGRESS

Figure 3.1 Instructors Provide Clear Guidelines and Rubrics in Evaluating Activities……..…..15
Figure 3.2 Instructors Promptly Check, Recheck, Evaluate, and Give Remarks to All Types of
Outputs……………………………………………………………………………..…………….16
Figure 3.3 Instructors Promptly Provide Correct Answers and Solutions After Objective Academic
Task……………………………………………………………………..………………………..16
Figure 3.4 Instructors Promptly Input Remarks or Grades in the Canvas Learning Management
System and Campus++…………………………………………………………..………………17
Page | iii
6
7
MAXIMUM LENIENCY
Figure 4.1 Submission of Requirements during Saturdays and Sundays…………………….…21
Figure 4.2 Submission of Requirements on Regular Holidays………………………………….21
Figure 4.3 Submission of Requirements the Same Day of Publishing………………………….22
Figure 4.4 Designation of Consultation Hours of Professors for Students’ Concerns………….22
Figure 4.5 Extension of Deadlines……………………………………………...……………….23
Figure 4.6 Specific Instructions of Professors for Communication Purposes…………………..23
Figure 4.7 Information and Communication of Students and Professors…………………….....24
Figure 4.8 Release of Learning Plan on the First and Second Week of Every Semester…….....24
Figure 4.9 No Requirements on Saturdays and Sundays………………………………….…….25
Figure 4.10 No Requirements During Regular Holidays………………………………….…….25
Figure 4.11 No Requirements and Deadlines on the Same Day of Publication……….………..26
Figure 4.12 Leniency on Late Submissions and Absences……….……………………………..26
Figure 4.13 Leniency as a COVID-19……….………………………………………………….27
Figure 4.14 Designation of Contact Hours for Students Academic Concerns……….……...….27
Figure 4.15 Extension of Submission Deadlines……….……………………………………….28
Figure 4.16 Specific Instructions for Contact Details and Information……….………………...28
Figure 4.17 Facebook Messenger as a Medium of Communication between Students and
Instructors………………………………………………………………………..………………29
Figure 4.18 Release of Learning Plan………………………………………..…………………29
OVERALL WELL-BEING BREAKS

Figure 5.1 Overall Well-being Breaks Last Academic Year……………………………………30
Figure 5.2 Level of Benefit of Mental Health Breaks…………………………………………..32
Figure 5.3 Length of Overall Well-being Breaks…………………………………...…………..34
Figure 5.4 Frequency of Overall Well-being Breaks…………………………………….……..34
Figure 5.5 Synchronous and Asynchronous Setup During Overall Well-being Breaks………..35
STANDARDIZED PRACTICES OF INSTRUCTORS IN ONLINE LEARNING

Figure 6.1 Preparedness of Instructors…………………………………………..……….……...35
Figure 6.2 Well-equipped Professors for Learning Management System (Canvas) ….……......36
Figure 6.3 Adherence to Time Scheduled Allotted for Synchronous Meetings………………...36
Figure 6.4 Skills of Professors for Teleconferencing Software Used for Class Meetings……...37
Figure 6.5 Professors’ Knowledge in Handling Technical Difficulties……………….......……37
Figure 6.6 Publishing of Instructional Materials and Modules on Time………….......………...38
Figure 6.7 Recording of Synchronous Sessions……………………………………….......……38
Figure 6.8 Adherence to Class Schedules and Number of Hours of Synchronous Sessions...….39
Figure 6.9 Publishing Modules and Other Learning Materials in Canvas…………………...….39
Figure 6.10 Private Space Conducive for Remote Learning………………………………........40
Figure 6.11 Camera-on During Discussions………………………………………………....….40
Figure 6.12 Comfortability of Camera-on During Discussions…………………...………....….41
Figure 6.13 Laboratory Work……………………………..………………………………....….41
OVERALL EXPERIENCE
Figure 7.1 Rating for Overall Online Learning Experience.………………………………....…43
Page | iv
7
8
LIST OF TABLES
ACADEMIC WORKLOAD
Table 2.1 Recommendations to Improve the Academic Workload of Students………………..…14
CHECKING, FEEDBACK, AND PROGRESS

Table 3.1 List of Recommendations for Checking, Feedback, and Progress Policy……………..17
OVERALL WELL-BEING BREAKS

Table 5.1 Number of Days of Mental Health Break………………………………….…………30
Table 5.2 Benefits of Mental Health Break……………………………………………………..32
STANDARDIZED PRACTICES OF INSTRUCTORS IN ONLINE LEARNING

Table 6.1 Pressing Issue/s that Concern/s the Students on Remote Learning……………….…..42
OVERALL EXPERIENCE
Table 7.1 List of Indicators for Poor Rating……………………………………………………..43
Table 7.2 List of Indicators for Fair Rating……………………………………………………...45
Table 7.3 List of Indicators for Good Rating………………………………………………….....47
Table 7.4 List of Indicators for Very Good Rating………………………………………...….....48
Table 7.5 List of Indicators for Excellent Rating………………………………………...….......50
Table 7.6 Academic Workload/Requirements…………………………………………………...51
Table 7.7 Checking, Feedback, and Progress………………………………………………...….53
Table 7.8 Maximum Leniency…………………………………………………………………...55
Table 7.9 Institutionalized Overall Well-being Breaks………………………………………….56
Table 7.10 Standard Practices of Instructors in Online Learning………………………………..57
Table 7.11 Safe and Gradual Resumption of Physical Classes……………………………….....61
Table 7.12 Scholarship and Other Financial Matters…………………………………………….62
Table 7.13 Other Matters………………………………………………………………………...62
Page | v
8
9
HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY STUDENT COUNCIL’S POSITION PAPER
RE: ACADEMIC FRAMAEKWORK PROPOSAL FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2021-2022
[AN OUTLOOK TO THE HAU ONLINE LEARNING SYSTEM]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the Philippines ventures into a new mode of learning during these fortuitous times, several
students wrestle with mounting challenges while struggling to fight for their right to education.
The abrupt shift to an online curriculum heightened disparities in education, evidently favoring
those with greater access to resources— a widening digital divide between the rich and the poor
that existed even before the occurrence of the pandemic. Students belonging to less privileged
families who cannot afford the requirements for online schooling are being left behind, even
forcing some to drop out of school.
This paper highlights the complications faced by the student body in a year of distance learning.
To identify the drawbacks of this new normal way of learning, the Holy Angel University Student
Council conducted a survey on June 21, 2021 to assess the experiences of the students during the
Academic Year 2020-2021 where a sudden transition to remote learning was implemented by the
university. The survey is divided into seven (7) categories which are as follows: Student's
Demographic Profile; Academic Workload; Checking, Feedback, and Progress Policy; Maximum
Leniency Policy; Institutionalized Overall Well-being Breaks; Standard Practices of Instructors in
Online Learning; and Other Matters.
The responses from this survey were used to formulate an Academic Framework which will serve
as a recommendation to the University Administrators to correct and improve the plausible system
of online learning. The HAU-USC persistently stands with the Angelites in the call of
implementing student-centered interventions in a period of prolonged crises where socioeconomic
disparities continue to affect the lives of the many.
RESULTS
I. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS
Figure 1.1 Respondents’ Department
The conducted survey gathered a total of 835 respondents from the different Schools of the
university. The department with the greatest number of students who answered the survey is the
School of Business and Accountancy (SBA) which occupies 36% of the whole sample or 301
students. This is followed by the School of Engineering and Architecture (SEA) with 262
Page | 1
9
10
respondents (31.4%). Next in line is the School of Computing (SOC) holding 8.3% of the total
sample, which is equivalent to 69 respondents. School of Education (SEd) comes next, consisting
of 60 students (7.2%), while School of Hospitality and Tourism Management (SHTM) represents
6.3% of the graph or 53 students out of all the respondents. Furthermore, the School of Arts and
Sciences (SAS) consists of a total of 43 respondents (5.1%). Following, School of Nursing and
Allied Medical Sciences (SNAMS) which has 38 respondents (4.6%). The department who has
the least number of students who answered the survey is the College of Criminal Justice
Education and Forensics (CCJEF) with 1.1% or 9 students.
Figure 1.2 Respondents’ Year level
Data gathered in the figure above shows that the majority or 279 of the total 835
respondents (33.4%) are third year students from the last A.Y. 2020-2021, hence, are the
incoming fourth year college students this Academic Year. Following this is the 249 of the total
number of respondents who are in second year college (29.9%). Next are the freshmen with a
total of 187 respondents (22.4%). Lastly, the remaining 120 respondents (14.4%) out of the 835
are the fourth-year students from the said Academic Year.
Figure 1.3 Internet Service Provider
Out of the 835 total respondents, 393 or 47.1% have access to Fiber Internet for the past
online academic term. Following this, 228 (27.3%) students are connected through the usage of
cable modem. Meanwhile, 118 students (14.1%) are using Prepaid Wi-Fi. Accordingly, 47
respondents (5.6%) are consuming mobile data when studying. Meanwhile, total of 20 students
or 2.4% answered that they are connected via DSL, and 15 respondents or 1.8% are using
Page | 2
10
11
broadband. Moreover, 10 respondents (1.2%) have confirmed to be connected via pocket wi-fi
and lastly, 2 respondents are using the internet of a relative or neighbor.
Figure 1.4 Technology Devices
The figure above shows the majority or 69.7% or 582 of the 835 respondents have a laptop
intended for educational purposes. Accordingly, 65.7% or 582 of the students also use their
smartphones for the academic year’s online set up. Meanwhile, 19.2% or 160 of the said
respondents access their classes through their personal computer. Lastly, 7% are either using
personal tablets or tablets provided by the university to keep up with the demands of online
learning.
Figure 1.5 Reliability of Internet Connection
As seen above, 619 students or 74.1% have answered that their internet connection is
indeed reliable enough to enable them to engage in synchronous learning and assessment
activities. On the other hand, 25.9% or 216 students to be exact, do not have a stable internet
connection for them to be able to engage in synchronous learning and activities.
Page | 3
11
12
Figure 1.6 Download Speed of Internet Connection
As can be inferred from the figure above, 348 or 41.7% of the total 835 respondents
indicated that the download speed of their internet connection at home is ranging between 20
Mbps and above. However, 166 respondents (19.9%) said that their internet connection speed
normally goes from 6 Mbps - 10 Mbps. Furthermore, 163 respondents (19.5%) are struggling at a
low internet connection speed of 1 Mbps - 5 Mbps on a daily basis. Meanwhile, 144 (17.2%) of
the said 835 respondents experience 11 Mbps - 15 Mbps download speed of internet connection.
Unfortunately, there are 12 students (1.4%) who said that they cannot properly access the
internet in their area.
Figure 1.7 Upload Speed of Internet Connection
After analyzing the download speed of each respondent, they were then asked about the
upload speed of their internet connection. Majority of the respondents or 323 students have
answered 20 Mbps and above (38.7%). While 198 students (23.7%) answered 1 Mbps - 5 Mbps
for their upload internet speed. Following this, 168 (20.1%) of the 835 respondents said that they
experience 6 Mbps-10 Mbps when pertaining to the upload speed. Further, 128 (15.3%)
respondents’ upload speed ranges between 11 Mbps-15 Mbps, and a total of 13 students (1.6%)
may sometimes not have access to the internet in their area.
Page | 4
12
13
Figure 1.8 Standard Connection of Mobile Data
As seen from the figure, the majority, or 520 out of the 835 respondents (62.3%), has
standard connection of 4G/LTE from their mobile data. Meanwhile, 262 (31.4%) would
normally experience 3G/H/H+. While 23 students (2.8%) claimed to not have a mobile phone
that can access the internet. Lastly, 20 respondents (2.4%) claimed to have 2G / E signal in their
area.
Figure 1.9 Time Restrictions for Technology Devices
When asked regarding their access in using their gadgets, a total of 532 (63.7%) answered
that they have unlimited access to their personal technology devices. Following, 252 students
(30.2%) responded they can only be granted for a medium access of 3–4 hours. Meanwhile, there
are other students (49 or 5.9%) who said that they have limited access to their devices, and can
only be granted for 1–2-hour access.
Page | 5
13
14
Figure 1.10 Number of Members in the Household Who Share Technology Devices
Owning or having to share a device can make a difference in the learning of an individual.
Regarding this, a total of 298 respondents (35.7%) claimed that they share one device with 5 or
more members in a household. While 153 students (18.3%) said that they share one device with
2 members in a household. Following, 134 or 16% of the total respondents said that they share
one device with 4 members of the household, while 127 (15.2%) respondents answered that they
do not share devices and have their personal technology. Lastly, 123 (14.7%) claimed to share
one device with 3 members of the household.
Figure 1.11 Weekly Expenses for Mobile Data
As illustrated in the figure above, a large number of the respondents (45.3% or 378) do not
use mobile data. As indicated by the question earlier regarding connecting to mobile data, most
students prefer using Wi-Fi instead of the former. The second most answered was Php 51-Php
100 with a total of 172 (20.6%) respondents. Following range is Php 101-Php 200 with 120
(14.4%) respondents. Meanwhile, 71 (8.5%) students tend to spend Php 301 and more on mobile
data alone on a weekly basis. Furthermore, a total of 54 students (6.5%) spent an amount of Php
10–50, and lastly, 40 students (4.8%) spent a total of Php 201-300 on their mobile data
consumption as weekly expenses.
Page | 6
14
15
II. ACADEMIC WORKLOAD
A. Situational Analysis
Figure 2.1 Number of Class-Standing Requirements Per Major Course Every Semester
According to the gathered data from the survey for major courses, 38.6% or a total of 322
students out of 835 claimed that there were 6–10 class-standing requirements given for each
major course per semester. On the other hand, 194 students (23.2%) claimed that they had 11-15
class-standing requirements in a semester. Moreover, 144 students (17.2%) said to be given 0-5
requirements. Meanwhile, more than 20 class-standing requirements were given to 10.9% (91) of
the respondents, and 16-20 class-standing requirements were given to 84 (10.1%) students in a
semester as claimed.
Figure 2.2 Number of Class-Standing Requirements Per Minor Course Every Semester
For minor courses, 298 (35.7%) of the total 835 respondents claimed to have been given 6
to 10 class-standing requirements every course per semester. Moreover, 207 (24.8%) students
have been given 11 to 15 requirements per semester, while 170 (20.4%) had 0–5 requirements.
On the other hand, more than 20 requirements were given to 84 (10.1%) of the respondents and
16–20 requirements were given to the remaining 76 (9.1%) students in a semester.
Page | 7
15
16
Figure 2.3 Number of Hours Spent in Accomplishing Asynchronous Requirements Per Week
In consonance with the 835 total respondents, 303 students or 36.3% claimed to have spent
11–20 hours in a week when working on asynchronous requirements. While 188 students
(22.5%) have allotted more than 30 hours to complete and submit asynchronous requirements on
time. Moreover, 187 (22.4%) have spent 22–30 hours on asynchronous requirements, while the
remaining 157 (18.8%) spent 0–10 hours in a week to complete such requirements.
Figure 2.4 Number of Hours Spent Per Week for Synchronous Sessions
As per the illustration above, the majority or 368 students (44.1%) has spent an average of
5-6 hours per week for synchronous classes. Meanwhile, 248 respondents (29.7%) said that they
spent an average of 3–4 hours, while 219 students (26.2%) spent 1–2 hours for synchronous
classes on a weekly basis.
Page | 8
16
17
Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Classes for Major Courses
Based on the gathered data, a third of the total respondents (n=284, 34.01%) agreed that
the number of hours spent for synchronous classes for major courses are manageable and
effective, while another third of the total responses (n=279, 33.41%) were neutral, and that
remaining thirds respectively disagreed (n=128,15.33%), strongly agreed (n=87,10.42%), and
strongly disagreed (n=57,6.83%). Collectively the 835 respondents strongly agreed (x=4.31).

Classes for Minor Courses
As shown on the table, a third of the total respondents (n=301, 36.05%) agreed that the
number of hours spent for synchronous classes for minor courses is manageable and effective,
while another third of the total responses (n=291, 34.85%) were neutral, and that remaining
Page | 9
17
18
thirds respectively disagreed (n=108,12.93%), strongly agreed (n=98,11.74%), and strongly

disagreed (n=37,4.43%). Collectively the 835 respondents strongly agreed (x=5.96)

Figure 2.7 Asynchronous Requirements for Major Courses Necessitate Manageable Number of
Hours
Garnered data revealed, almost third of the respondents (n=270, 32.34%) were neutral in
the matter that the number of hours spent for asynchronous classes for major courses necessitate
a manageable number of hours, while another almost third of the total responses (n=240,
28.74%) strongly agreed, and that remaining thirds respectively disagreed (n=166, 19.88%),
strongly agreed (n=84,10.06%), and strongly disagreed (n=75, 8.98%). Collectively the 835
respondents agreed (x=3.51)

Figure 2.8 Asynchronous Requirements for Minor Courses Necessitate Manageable Number of
Hours
Page | 10
18
19
Based on the survey results, students’ responses on the matter regarding asynchronous
requirements for minor courses necessitate a manageable number of hours are the following
respectively: neutral (n=286, 34.25%), agreed (n=223, 26.71%), disagreed (n=172, 20.6%),
strongly disagreed (n=81, 9.70%), and strongly agreed (n=73, 8.74%). Collectively the 835
respondents were neutral (x=3.39).

Figure 2.9 Manageability and Effectiveness of the Nature and Type of Assessments
Analyzed data represented students' responses on the nature (group or individual) and type
(objective or subjective) of assessments given are manageable and effective in achieving the
learning outcomes of each set of modules respectively: neutral (n=332, 39.76%), agreed (n=238,
28.50%), disagreed (n=146, 17.49%), strongly disagreed (n=67, 8.02%), and strongly agreed
(n=52, 6.23%). Collectively the 835 respondents agreed (x=4.05).

Figure 2.10 Equipment of Activities Given with Essential Learning and Skills per Course
Page | 11
19
20
Table showed that students’ responses to all activities that were given in the last Academic
Year 2020-2021 equipped them with essential learning and skills for their course respectively:
neutral (n=290, 34.73%), agreed (n=241, 28.86%), disagreed (n=187, 22.40%), strongly
disagreed (n=74, 8.86%), and strongly agreed (n=43, 5.15%). Collectively the 835 respondents
agreed (x=3.85).
B. Suggestive Items
Figure 2.11 Most Reasonable Number of Hours Per Week for Synchronous Classes of
Major Courses
As revealed in the figure above, 275 respondents (32.9%) said that a maximum of two
hours per week is the most reasonable number of hours that should be allocated for synchronous
classes of major course per week. This is followed by 240 students (28.7%) who said that a
maximum of three hours per week is reasonable. A maximum of one (1) hour and thirty (30)
minutes per week is suggested by 162 students (19.4%), while 96 or 11.5% of the total
respondents claimed that a maximum of one (1) hour per week is enough. 62 or 7.4% of the
students have answered that a maximum of two (2) hours and thirty (30) minutes per week
should be allocated for synchronous classes of major courses.
Figure 2.12 Most Reasonable Number of Requirements Per Week for Every Major Course
For the number of requirements of major courses, 402 of the total respondents (48.1%)
answered that a maximum of one (1) requirement per week is the most reasonable, followed by a
maximum of two (2) requirements per week which got a total vote of 33.1% or 276 respondents.
12.7% or 106 students claimed that requirements for major courses should be given only when
deemed necessary. A maximum of three (3) requirements per week was suggested by 42
Page | 12
20
21
respondents (5%), while 9 or 1.1% of the responses pertain to students choosing more than three
(3) requirements per week for major courses.
Figure 2.13 Most Reasonable Number of Hours Per Week for Synchronous Classes of
Minor Courses
A maximum of one hour per week is suggested by 425 respondents (50.9%) to be the hours
allocated for synchronous classes of minor courses, followed by a maximum of one (1) hour and
thirty (30) minutes per week which is answered by 210 students (25.1%). 158 respondents or
18.9% out of the total answers said that the most reasonable number of hours for minor courses’
synchronous classes should be a maximum of two (2) hours per week. A maximum of three (3)
hours per week, on the other hand, was recommended by 22 students (2.6%), while 20
respondents or (2.4%) claimed that a maximum of two (2) hours and thirty (30) minutes per
week is the most reasonable one.
Figure 2.14 Most Reasonable Number of Requirements Per Week for Every Minor Course
When giving requirements for minor courses, 55.1% or 460 respondents answered that a
maximum of one (1) requirement per week is the most reasonable, followed by a maximum of
two (2) requirements per week which is chosen by 190 or 22.8% of the total respondents. 165
students (19.8%) claimed that requirements of minor courses must be given only when deemed
necessary. A maximum of three (3) requirements per week is answered by 16 respondents
(1.9%), while 4 (0.5%) of the answers pertain to more than three (3) requirements per week as
the most reasonable number of requirements that should be given by each of the minor courses.
Page | 13
21
22
Table 2.1 Recommendations to Improve the Academic Workload of Students
Improvements Indicators Frequency

Lessen the academic workloads, and make sure that the
provided activities will only be essential, manageable,
and with reasonable time for deadlines (including group
117
works, and those specifically pertaining to general
education course requirements)
Professors from major and minor courses should
establish a plan of scheduling the publishing of 107
activities, as well the maximum number of activities per
List of week.
Recommendations Make sure that the requirements to be given are
beneficial, accessible, and in relevance with the learning 39
outcome of every module.
Establish good relationship and communication with
34
instructors including kind consideration from them
Plan for the safe and gradual resumption of physical
20
classes.
Give clear discussions of the topic, and instructions to
13
every academic requirement given.
Lessen synchronous hours 11
Synchronous sessions should be recorded, and video
discussions should be uploaded right after the 10
synchronous session.
Provide timely feedbacks regarding the submitted
outputs as well as provisions of correct answers every 8
after checking quizzes and the like
Monitor faculty attendance and performance 7
Requirement-free weekends 5
Maximize utilization of synchronous sessions 5
Applicable alternative for hands-on courses 5
Provide proper learning resources such as software
4
materials, among others.
Make sure to read the recommendations and comments
3
included in every survey
Make sure to read the recommendations and comments
3
included in every survey
Refrain designing activity that requires video shooting 2
Lessen fees 2
Continuance of Academic Health Breaks 2
Conduct a monthly meeting between the students and
1
the administrators of their department/School
Improve grading system 1
Total 399
Results showed that lessening the academic workload and proper planning, scheduling,
and execution of academic requirements dominated the condensed factors listed as per the
responses keyed-in by the respondents.
Trimming down the academic demands being imposed during the online learning scheme
posed a majority of negative effect for their mental health as its repercussions according to most
of the answers gathered including a diminished time for other things like leisure, family affairs,
and the like.
Page | 14
22
23
Decreasing the academic requirements also includes groupworks which are commonly
described to be a difficult task to accomplish considering the setup that we are currently facing.
Miscommunication and inactive group members were some of the prevailing reasons regarding
this matter. Next are with connection to general education/minor courses which commonly
provides numerous activities which are not directly attributable to the development of necessary
skills of a certain student in line with their chosen career path. Also qualifying under this aspect
are those courses which require three or more tasks every week that are being raised by the
student body due to the fact that most students don't only have one subject enrolled per semester
to only bring their focus to such.
Furthermore, proper planning and scheduling of tasks mostly dealt with the issues on
simultaneous deadlines among academic requirements which makes the deliverables
unmanageable. Some concerns related to this included those requirements which are being given
before the examination week, those that are being opened late by the instructors resulting in lack
of time for them to be done, and those with unreasonable deadlines.
Among other factors which showed a seemingly higher persistence in reference to the rest
are as follows: relevance of the lessons or activities that are being provided, establishment of
good relationship and communication with instructors, and a plea for the continuous
efforts to gradually shift into face-to-face arrangement especially citing subjects that need
hands-on training.
III. CHECKING, FEEDBACK, AND PROGRESS

Figure 3.1 Instructors Provide Clear Guidelines and Rubrics in Evaluating Activities
The majority or 337 of the total respondents (40.4%) have agreed that instructors provided
clear guidelines and rubrics that reflect those from the syllabus to be followed religiously in
evaluating activities. While 286 students (34.3%) have answered neutrally, 103 or 12.3% have
disagreed, 94 respondents (11.3%) have strongly agreed, and 15 respondents (1.8%) have
Page | 15
23
24
strongly disagreed. Overall, students have strongly agreed with the abovementioned statement
having a weighted mean of 12.62.

Figure 3.2 Instructors Promptly Check, Recheck, Evaluate, and Give Remarks to All Types of
Outputs
The statement, instructors promptly check, recheck, evaluate, and give remarks to all types
of outputs, was agreed by 306 respondents (36.6%); answered neutrally by 266 (31.9%);
disagreed by 120 (14.4%); strongly agreed by 110 (13.2%); and strongly disagreed by 33
students (4%). As a conclusion, students strongly agreed that instructors promptly check,
recheck, evaluate, and give remarks to all types of outputs with a weighted mean of 6.41.

Figure 3.3 Instructors Promptly Provide Correct Answers and Solutions After Objective
Academic Task
Page | 16
24
25
For this statement, 261 of the respondents (31.3%) have answered neutrally; 236 (28.3%)
have agreed; 168 (20.1%) have disagreed; 96 (11.5%) have strongly disagreed; and 74 (8.9%)
have strongly agreed. As a summary, students have answered neutrally with regards to
instructors promptly providing correct answers (and appropriate solutions, if necessary) after
objective academic tasks (e.g. activities or quizzes) before proceeding to the next lesson which
has a weighted mean of 3.08.

Figure 3.4 Instructors Promptly Input Remarks or Grades in the Canvas Learning Management
System and Campus++
Instructors inputting quantitative remarks or grades in the Canvas Learning Management

System and Campus++ on time was agreed by 312 out of the 835 students (37.4%); neutrally
answered by 255 respondents (30.5%); strongly agreed by 122 (14.6%); disagreed by 104
(12.5%); and strongly disagreed by 42 (5%). Overall, the said statement was strongly agreed by
the students with a weighted mean of 5.40.
B. Suggestive Item
Table 3.1 List of Recommendations for Checking, Feedback, and Progress Policy

(f)
Instructors should be transparent with how they evaluate 150

academic requirements by promptly providing answer keys
and solution sets (for quizzes, exams, etc.) and comments or
feedback (for written assessments, such as essays, etc.) to
make the students aware of the areas needed for
improvement.
Instructors should be responsive and should maintain open 22

communication with their students regarding feedback, and
queries on academic requirements and grades.
Page | 17
25
26
Provide clear rubrics and guidelines for every academic 24

requirement, and religiously follow them when evaluating
said requirements.
There should be a set number of hours provided for the 19

process of checking, re-checking and discussion of answers
List of for every academic requirement.
Recommendations
Check requirements as they come, and regularly update 18
grades in Canvas.
Before proceeding to the next lesson, instructors should 13

utilize a synchronous meeting to discuss the correct answers
for the recent academic requirement.
Monthly Faculty Evaluation Webinars or Training for 4

Instructors to navigate the LMS and other programs used for
Online Learning.
Lessen the number of academic requirements to give time for 4

instructors to check them, and discuss the correct answers.
Upload video recordings in Canvas that discuss the correct 2

answers or explain the solutions behind the items of an
academic requirement.
Instructors should provide an acknowledgment statement 1

when they have successfully received a submission.
Instructors should not publish grades publicly. 1
Total 258
Surmised on the table above, majority of respondents’ responses (f=150) suggested to

immediately provide answer keys and solution sets right after every academic task (e.g.,
activities, quizzes, exams, etc.) as supported from the statements of Respondents 371, 10, 551,
289, and 628, respectively, for transparency for said occurrences:
“It would greatly help on our part as students for professors to tell us where we went
wrong on our outputs. Most of our professors do not care or even show us the incorrect
items on our outputs which confuses us on where we went wrong.”
“For instructors to give feedback, there are circumstances that the test and quizzes are
very similar to the major exams. Since we do not have feedback from our instructors before
the major exams, we are never sure if what we did in our quiz, which is similar to the
major exam, is correct until the end of the semester or until grades are due. Feedback is
most important because how can we assess our work if we do not know our mistakes. We
are bound to repeat them with what occurred the previous semester.”
“I highly suggest that the professors must be responsible enough to give on time remarks
and feedback especially in providing the correct solutions after every quiz/major exam.
Some professors are struggling, and it is completely understandable. However, it seems
that some of them are forgetting the fact that it is more struggling for the students to not
monitor their progress on time since after all what most of the students aim is to learn from
their mistakes and to move to the next lesson with such ease.”
Page | 18
26
27
“If the students ask for the right answers after the quiz or activity, the professor must
provide it for the students to know the right answer and study it. No excuses must come
from the professors, and he/she must also explain how he/she came up with that right
answer.”
“Furthermore, since departmental quizzes results are muted, for transparency I humbly
recommend making the correct answers viewable instantly right after the departmental
quiz took place so students can promptly reflect from their wrong answers. If not, disclose
the answers within a week so studying in chunks will be more feasible and efficient.”
Moreover, based on the responses for suggestions on checking, feedback, and progress
policy (f= 24) a call for instructors to provide clear rubrics and guidelines for every academic
requirement, and religiously follow them when evaluating said requirements. As stated from the
responses of Respondents 252 and 43, respectively:
“Please provide rubrics in checking so that we could be objective in evaluating student's

outputs. Likewise, if rubrics are provided please follow them properly and religiously.”
“We wish that some professors actually follow the rubric they made for grading.”
In addition, a total of (f=22) responses suggested that instructors should be responsive and
should maintain open communication with their students regarding feedback, and queries on
academic requirements and grades. As to quote on the statements of Respondents 206, 533, and
594, respectively:
“There should always be good communication between the teacher and students. The
student can ask something if she/has difficulties in rechecking and viewing his/her
requirements for improvement and the professor should also give his/her best to be able to
response on students concern despite of his/her other appointment or anything because I
have experience in one of my major subject that I haven't receive any feedback to him
when I ask something that is not clear for me yet I found out that he is responding to my
other classmates at the same time. Please also consider the student's concern, it is
important for us to hear your response.”
“It should be Two-way communication. Both from student and instructor. Although there
are professors who did a great job, who are compassionate when students have difficulties
in academics and personal reasons. There are also a few professors like ‘okay I will teach
with a few slides and surprise you with exams you will never forget, and then don't send me
messages when we don't have class’ those vibes okay sir! We’re not after the grade, we're
here to learn from you.”
“No clear guidelines are given by some profs and when we reach out to them, it's either
they're unresponsive or they respond with sarcasm.”
More so, as strongly suggested by the respondents (f=19), there should be a set number of
hours provided for the process of checking, rechecking, and discussion of answers for every
academic requirement as strongly articulated by Respondents 746 and 229, respectively:
“Some instructors only check the outputs of the students after examinations, there is no
way for students to know their outstanding grades before the exams. I suggest that
instructors upload the 70% or 60% of the grades in campus++ before examinations
because there is a tendency that instructors would not upload students' class standing at
all (during prelims), then only uploads them after the exams (during midterms), which
pulls the students' grades lower.”
Page | 19
27
28
“Some instructors didn't recheck some of the scores on canvas when I checked my
campus++ the score that was inputted is zero. I was complaining but it's already finalized.
I think they should recheck everything before they finalize the grades because we did our
best to do the activity then we see on our campus++ a score of zero supposed to be not.
Also some instructors are hard to reach out to and some others are not replying with our
concerns about our grades.”
Besides, it was also one of the suggestions of the respondents (f = 2) for instructors to
upload video recordings in Canvas that discuss the correct answers or explain the solutions
behind the items of an academic requirement as stated by Respondents 834 and 628,
respectively:
“Since weekly sessions per subject are limited to about at least an hour, I get why most
professors immediately proceed to their next lessons. In my classes, we don't usually
receive sufficient feedback as to why our solutions and answers were wrong. To rectify the
problem, maybe they could post a video recording assessing every academic requirement
they hand out. They can elaborately discuss where a collective number of students got
wrong on a particular item. Such videos should be specifically uploaded in Canvas too.”
“Also I believe that providing the answer key with solutions or creating videos explaining
the solutions further will greatly benefit students to correct their mistakes and ultimately
understand how they can improve and understand the material better.”
With accordance with the suggestive items section (f=4) respondents mentioned the need
of monthly Faculty Evaluation Webinars or Training for Instructors to navigate the LMS and
other programs used for Online Learning as supported by the statements of Respondents 834 and
395, respectively:
“There are professors, especially part-time staff and the old, who seem to lack a better
understanding of Canvas and other platforms used in online learning. During the second
semester of the A.Y. 2020-201, there were still those who did not know how to keep things
up to date. I do understand the factors that contribute to the way they are. It just seems
appropriate to give them elevated guidance as well.”
“I have noticed that some professors weren't able to utilize their literacy in terms of
technology use, so this problem might help the Student Council to provide an immediate
solution to this.”
Lastly, collectively some suggestions of the respondents (f=24) with regards to practices of
professors and instructors such as instructors should not publish grades publicly, instructors
should provide an acknowledgment statement when they have successfully received a
submission, instructors should lessen the number of academic requirements to give time for
instructors to check them, and discuss the correct answers and instructors should check
requirements as they come, and regularly update grades in Canvas as coherently stated by
Respondents 287, 483, 42, and 626, respectively:
“Inputting of grades in the Campus++ shouldn't be done instantly or all at once within the
date of the finalization of grades. The encoding should be gradually done right after the
checking of the said activities to allow students to verify whether the grades in Canvas
matches the ones encoded in the C++ prior to finalization. This allows cross-checking and
transparency as well as to avoid mistakes in the final grades.”
“Lessen the academic requirements given to students to reduce the time of checking and
encoding grades of the instructor to avoid late remarks and/or grades in canvas and
campus++.”
Page | 20
28
29
“It would be best if the instructors will not publish the grades publicly. Rather, give the
students with below average grades a private message to not make the students feel
embarrassed.”
“Professors should always double check or reply once a work is submitted since we had
cases in the last terms wherein professors failed to check a submission and gave a deduction
for "late passing."
IV. MAXIMUM LENIENCY
Figure 4.1 Submission of Requirements during Saturdays and Sundays
The data gathered show that 85.87% or 717 of the total respondents had requirements that
were set to be submitted on weekends, while the remaining 14.13% or 118 respondents answered
the opposite.
Figure 4.2 Submission of Requirements on Regular Holidays
Page | 21
29
30
Succeeding, 58.20% or 486 respondents indicated that they had requirements that were set
to be submitted on regular holidays; while the remaining 41.80% or 349 respondents did not
have requirements that were due on regular holidays.
Figure 4.3 Submission of Requirements the Same Day of Publishing
In addition, 67.90% among the total respondents or 567 students had requirements that
were given and due on the same day; while the remaining 32.10% or 268 students implied the
opposite.
Figure 4.4 Designation of Consultation Hours of Professors for Students’ Concerns
Next, 82.63% or 690 out of the total respondents had professors who allotted consultation
hours apart from their class hours; at the same time, 17.37% or 145 students had professors
whose availability were only limited to their class hours.
Page | 22
30
31
Figure 4.5 Extension of Deadlines
Also, 85.87% or 717 respondents were granted deadline extensions, provided that they
presented factual and valid reasons for such non-compliance; however, the remaining 14.30% or
118 students were not granted such requests despite theirs being backed up by factual and valid
reasons for their non-compliance.
Figure 4.6 Specific Instructions of Professors for Communication Purposes
Consequently, 86.83% or 725 students were instructed by their professors on how and
where to contact them specifically regarding academic concerns; on the other hand, 13.17% or
110 students did not receive any specific instructions on how and where to reach out to their
professors.
Page | 23
31
32
Figure 4.7 Information and Communication of Students and Professors
In terms of ease in information dissemination, 78.20% or 653 students had professors who
provided separate accounts that are intended for announcements and other reminders; while the
remaining 21.80% or 182 students stated otherwise.
Figure 4.8 Release of Learning Plan on the First and Second Week of Every Semester
Lastly, 78.32% or 654 respondents mentioned that their learning plans were released by
their professors within the first and second weeks of every semester; meanwhile, the learning
plans of the remaining 21.68% or 181 respondents were released later than the second week of
every semester.
Page | 24
32
33
B. Suggestive Items

Figure 4.9 No Requirements on Saturdays and Sundays
Referring to the figures above, it is shown that 83.35% or 696 students strongly agree that
no requirements should be due on the weekends except for NSTP requirements; 7.90% or 66
students agree; 6.11% or 51 students are neutral; 1.92% or 16 students disagree; while 0.72% or
6 students strongly disagree. As a conclusion, the majority of the students, with a weighted mean
of 34.82, strongly suggest that requirements should not be due on weekends excluding NSTP
requirements.

Figure 4.10 No Requirements During Regular Holidays
Page | 25
33
34
In the following statement, 91.38% or 768 students strongly agree that submission
deadlines should not be set on regular holidays; 4.55% or 38 students agree; 3.23% or 27
students are neutral; 0.48% or four (4) students disagree; while the remaining 0.36% or three (3)
students strongly disagree. Based on the computation above, the summary of responses show that
the majority of the students, with a weighted mean of 79.74, strongly recommend that
requirements should not be set to be passed on regular holidays.

Figure 4.11 No Requirements and Deadlines on the Same Day of Publication
According to the data collected, 85.99% or 718 students strongly agree that requirements
should not be due on the same day they were published except for major examinations or certain
cases; 8.26% or 69 students agree; 4.19% or 35 students are neutral; 0.96% or eight (8) students
disagree; while 0.60% or five (5) students strongly disagree to the idea. Basically, the statistics
shows that the result of the verbal interpretation has a weighted mean of 46.08; therefore, it is
safe to imply that the majority of the respondents strongly suggest that requirements should not
be due on the same day they were published.

Figure 4.12 Leniency on Late Submissions and Absences
Page | 26
34
35
In terms of granting deadline extensions to those who failed to comply, 64.67% or 540
respondents strongly agree that they should be trusted almost 100% of the time with the reasons
that they will present to their professors; 22.87% or 191 students agree; 9.94% or 83 students are
neutral; 1.80% or 15 students disagree; and 0.72% or six (6) students strongly disagree. Based on
the interpretations above, it is shown that the majority of the students strongly agree to the
statement with a weighted mean of 34.35.

Figure 4.13 Leniency as a COVID-19 Response
When students experience COVID-19 symptoms or if they or their family members tested
positive for COVID-19 or have close contact with a COVID-19 positive patient, 91.86% or 767
students strongly agree that they should be given maximum leniency in submitting their
requirements; 5.51% or 46 students agree; 2.28% or 19 students are neutral; 0.24% or two (2)
students disagree; and the remaining 0.12% or one (1) student strongly disagrees. Analyzing the
given data, the verbal interpretation has a weighted mean of 212.63 which signifies that, overall,
students strongly agree to the statement.

Figure 4.14 Designation of Contact Hours for Students Academic Concerns
With regards to the question, 78.56% or 656 students strongly agree that instructor should
allot contact hours aside from their class hours to accommodate the students’ academic concerns;
Page | 27
35
36
16.29% or 136 students agree; 4.43% or 37 students are neutral; 0.36% or three (3) students
disagree; while the last 0.36% or three (3) students strongly disagree. Calculating the verbal
interpretation, it depicts that students, with a weighted mean of 85.36, strongly agree to the
question.

Figure 4.15 Extension of Submission Deadlines
According to the figures above, 81.15% or 711 students strongly agree that instructors
should grant an extension for students who fail to comply with the initial deadline as long as the
request is accompanied by factual and valid reasons; 10.90% or 91 students agree; while the
remaining 3.95% or 33 students are neutral. Despite the majority agreeing to the statement, the
verbal interpretation resulted in a weighted mean of 2.19 which means that, overall, the students
disagree with the statement.

Figure 4.16 Specific Instructions for Contact Details and Information
Page | 28
36
37
The data gathered show that 89.70% or 749 students strongly agree to the idea that
instructors should establish instructions on how and where to contact them about academic
concerns; 7.66% or 64 students agree; 2.40% or 20 students are neutral; and the remaining 0.24%
or two (2) students disagree. With a weighted mean of 45.23, the verbal interpretation shows that
students strongly agree to the statement.

Figure 4.17 Facebook Messenger as a Medium of Communication between Students and

Instructors
In relation to the statement, 76.77% or 641 students strongly agree; 13.05% or 109 students
agree; 9.10% or 76 students are neutral; 0.72% or six (6) students disagree; and 0.36% or three
(3) students strongly disagree. With a weighted mean of 70.75, the verbal interpretation indicates
that students strongly agree to the statement.

Figure 4.18 Release of Learning Plan
Page | 29
37
38
Referring to the table above, 80.69% or 706 students strongly agree that learning plans
should be released within the first and second weeks of every semester; 10.51% or 92 students
agree; 4.00% or 35 students are neutral; and 0.23% or two (2) students disagree. Considering that
no one strongly disagrees and with a weighted mean of 43.84, the verbal interpretation shows
that students, overall, strongly agree to the statement.
V. OVERALL WELL-BEING BREAKS
Figure 5.1 Overall Well-being Breaks Last Academic Year
This section pertains to the overall well-being of the students during the previous academic
year. Referring to the figure above, it posits that 87.20% or 728 students were able to experience
overall well-being/mental health breaks last academic year; while the remaining 12.80% or 107
students were not able to experience those breaks.
Table 5.1 Number of Days of Mental Health Break
Number of Days of Mental Health Break Number of Responses
1 19
1–2 78
1–3 8
1-4 2
1–5 1
2 173
2–3 144
2–4 31
2–5 3
Page | 30
38
39
3 116
3–4 65
3–5 31
3–6 2
3–7 1
4 26
4–5 14
4–6 1
4–7 2
5 18
5–6 1
5–7 6
6 2
6–7 1
7 28
More than 3 1
Almost a week 2
7 – 10 2
7 – 14 1
14 1
Less than a week 2
It depends. 1
Unsure 4
Total 787
The table above summarizes the responses of the students regarding the number of days of
mental health break they had in the previous academic term. The shortest mental health break
lasted for a day. On the other hand, the maximum number of mental health breaks was in a span
of 14 days or two (2) weeks. Upon reading the table, it is evident that the majority of the students
were able to experience a two-day mental health break.
Page | 31
39
40
Legends: 1 = Not Beneficial 2 = Slightly Beneficial 3=

Neutral
4 = Beneficial 5 = Very Beneficial
Figure 5.2 Level of Benefit of Mental Health Breaks
Referring to the figure above, 63.00% or 526 students stated that those breaks were very
beneficial for them; 13.50% or 113 students said that the breaks were beneficial for them;
12.50% or 104 students are neutral; 6.20% or 52 students said that the breaks were not that
beneficial for them; while the remaining 4.8% or 40 students expressed that the breaks were not
beneficial at all. Upon computing the verbal interpretation, results show that with a weighted
mean of 6.75, the mental health break was very beneficial for the students.
Table 5.2 Benefits of Mental Health Break
Overall Indicators Frequency

Well-Being (f)
The mental health break has served as a breather for the students to 514
rest, relax, get peace of mind, and relieve stress.
The mental health break does not serve its purpose for the reason 139
that it becomes the time for the students to accomplish requirements
that are due during or after the break.
SNAMS was not granted a mental health break. 33
The mental health break is beneficial, for it has helped the students 31
to recharge, recalibrate, and prepare for the next major period.
Students were able to catch up on their sleep and to recuperate from 27

their sleep-deprived nights.
The mental health break was not beneficial at all. 25
Page | 32
40
41
Because of the mental health break, students were able to catch up 21

and bond with their family. Some also had the time to focus on and
solve their family problems.
List of
Benefits During the break, students took the time to reflect on themselves 12
and evaluate their academic performance in the previous major
period to determine what needs to be improved.
With the help of the mental health break, the anxiety of the students 9
was alleviated.
The mental health break is an opportune time for the students to rest 8
from eye strain caused by gadget exposures.
When taking a break from academics, students are busy doing 5

household chores.
The mental health break gives freedom to the students to do their 5

hobbies and other leisure activities.
Students use their mental health break to catch up on work-related 3

backlogs outside school.
Because there are no classes during the mental health break, it 3

allows the students to break down mentally and emotionally.
TOTAL 835
For this question, the 835 respondents have stated how the mental health break has
benefitted them throughout the academic year. The table above displays the indicators along with
their respective frequency.
a. Having a frequency (f) of 514, the majority of the respondents indicated that the mental
health break has been beneficial for them as it served as a breather for the students to rest,
relax, get peace of mind, and relieve stress. According to Respondent 733,
“It gave me time for myself without thinking of any obligation academically. It
somehow gave me peace in a short period of time.”
b. The second indicator, with the second highest frequency of 139, is about how the break is
not beneficial for the students as it does not serve its right purpose. It only allows them to
accomplish requirements that are set to be submitted after the mental health break. As
Respondent 5 said,
“But the true concern lies in the question of why we need to create mental health
breaks. This is where we see how the platform isn't progressive in nature as it is
geared to burn out our mental capacities for it to be capitalized all over again.”
c. With a frequency of 33, subsequent to the previous indicator is the responses coming
from the students of School of Nursing and Allied Medical Sciences (SNAMS) which
stated that the mental health break was not beneficial for them at all because they had
none to begin with. Based on Respondent 771,
“SNAMS students did not have any mental health break for the entire academic
year.”
Page | 33
41
42
d. Having a frequency of 31, it is said that the mental health break is beneficial, for it has
helped the students to recharge, recalibrate, and prepare for the next major period. As
claimed by Respondent 604,
“Nakakaalis ng stress and got time to relax. This helped me to recharge para
ready na sumabak sa next period.”
e. The indicator that ranked fifth overall has a frequency of 27. Students posit that the
mental health break was able to help them catch up on their sleep as they are deprived of
it from doing numerous academic requirements. As stated by Respondent 601,
“It helped me in recovering from work stress, in restoring my energy and mental
resources, and in decreasing the development of fatigue and sleep disorders.”
B. Suggestive Items
Figure 5.3 Length of Overall Well-being Breaks
Based on the chart, the majority or 50.80% or 424 of the total respondents suggest that a
well-being break should be three (3) to four (4) days long; 45.90% or 383 students believe that it
should last for more than four (days); while the remaining 3.40% or 28 students think that a well-
being break should only last for less than two (2) days.

Figure 5.4 Frequency of Overall Well-being Breaks
Observing the table above, results show that 92.34% or 771 students strongly agree that
overall well-being breaks should be given every after a major period; 4.55% or 38 students
agree; 2.63% or 22 students are neutral; 0.36% or three students disagree; and the remaining
Page | 34
42
43
0.12% or one student strongly disagrees. The verbal interpretation shows that with a weight
mean of 198.51, students strongly agree to the aforementioned notion.

Figure 5.5 Synchronous and Asynchronous Setup During Overall Well-being Breaks
In relation to the table above, the frequency table shows that 91.70% or 784 students
strongly agree to the notion that there should be no submission of any requirements in the entire
duration of the overall well-being breaks; 4.09% or 35 students agree; 1.75% or 15 students are
neutral; no one disagrees; but the remaining 0.12% or one (1) student strongly disagrees. Results
show that the verbal interpretation has a weighted mean of 171.95; thus, indicating that the
majority of the students strongly agree to the previously mentioned statement so as the well-
being break could serve its real purpose.
VI. STANDARDIZED PRACTICES OF INSTRUCTORS IN ONLINE LEARNING
Figure 6.1 Preparedness of Instructors
In reference to question number one, 75.68% or at least 632 students responded that the
instructors were prepared for the online instruction as per their personal experience during the
previous academic year. Whereas, 24.31% or approximately 203 students deemed otherwise.
Page | 35
43
44
Figure 6.2 Well-equipped Professors for Learning Management System (Canvas)
According to the data gathered, 69.94% or roughly 584 students perceived that their
instructors were geared to navigate the Learning Management System efficiently while 30.06%
or about 251 answered that most of their professors do not possess sufficient competency to
operate the said platform.
Figure 6.3 Adherence to Time Scheduled Allotted for Synchronous Meetings
Item number 3 revealed that 75.33% of the respondents or 629 students experienced a
regular or appropriate time schedule that is being followed by their instructors during the course
of the online learning scheme. On the other hand, 24.67% or about 206 students unveiled their
experience of having an irregular schedule brought by their instructors.
Page | 36
44
45
Figure 6.4 Skills of Professors for Teleconferencing Software Used for Class Meetings
This survey also unraveled the proficiency of the instructors in operating teleconferencing
applications which is vital in carrying out the contemporary mode of learning brought by the
situation at hand wherein 85.03% or 710 students have observed that their teachers are
knowledgeable of navigating them effectively while 14.97% or 125 of the respondents
manifested otherwise.
Figure 6.5 Professors’ Knowledge in Handling Technical Difficulties
67.07% of the students or equal to 560 respondents witnessed that their instructors were
capable of handling technological distress during the pendency of the online academic year while
Page | 37
45
46
32.93% or 275 of them have seen that their professors are not well-versed in addressing such
technical concerns.
Figure 6.6 Publishing of Instructional Materials and Modules on Time
The conducted survey also implied that 70.18% or 586 of the respondents went through a
timely publication of their modules which served as their primary source of information
regarding their enrolled courses while 29.82% or 249 went through the opposite.
Figure 6.7 Recording of Synchronous Sessions
This study also provided that 59.52% or 497 respondents received their copies of the
recorded synchronous sessions after they have been readily converted for use while 40.48% or
338 showed that they have not undergone such expedient provision.
Page | 38
46
47
Figure 6.8 Adherence to Class Schedules and Number of Hours of Synchronous Sessions
It was also seen that 74.85% or 625 respondents have been strictly following their given
class schedules and appropriate number of hours during their synchronous sessions and the other
25.15% or 210 of them have gone through an unstable schedule.
Figure 6.9 Publishing Modules and Other Learning Materials in Canvas
This graph showcased how the materials which were vital for online learning were made
available for students. 81.92% or 684 of the respondents answered that their instructors were able
to publish them for student’s viewing while 18.08% of them or 151 inputted otherwise.
Page | 39
47
48
Other Matters
Figure 6.10 Private Space Conducive for Remote Learning
This paper also disclosed that only 52.34% or 437 of the respondents have a conducive
space for learning within the comfort of their homes whereas a whopping 47.66% or 398 does
not have a suited area which is appropriate for online or remote learning.
Figure 6.11 Camera-on During Discussions
It is also divulged that there are about 41.80% or 349 students who experienced being
required by their instructors to open their cameras for the entirety of the discussion while a
majority of 58.20% begged to differ.
Page | 40
48
49
Figure 6.12 Comfortability of Camera-on During Discussions
A small percentage of 25.75% or at least 215 of the respondents answered that they are
comfortable to open their cameras during the discussion while 74.25% or 620 of them said the
contrary.
Figure 6.13 Laboratory Work
Results also showed that 76.65% of the respondents or around 640 of them disagreed that
the online learning scheme is an effective substitute for them to have the necessary competencies
in preparation for their future deployment in their chosen career paths while only 23.35% or 195
answered otherwise.
Page | 41
49
50
Table 6.1 Pressing Issue/s that Concern/s the Students on Remote Learning
Indicator Frequency
Mental health and overall well-being 725
Needed financial and technological resources 410
Internet connectivity and speed 538
Family concerns 306
Learning environment 519
Learning effectivity 610
Simultaneous requirements 4
Time difference for students abroad 1
Inconsiderate instructors 2
Advantageous to working students 1
Total 3,116
For issue/s that concern the students most with regard to the resumption of classes through
remote learning, factors that have a frequency of 1, 2, and 4 are as follows: time difference for
students abroad, advantageous to working students, simultaneous requirements, and
inconsiderate instructors. Simultaneous requirements in this case mostly pertains to the
seemingly heavy workload that is being imposed upon students, whereas inconsiderate
instructors may be traced in situations similar to setting unreasonable deadlines and lack of
empathy for reasonable incidents presented by students in cases of missed academic activities.
All of which may imply that these are their least-considered elements as compared to the other
reasons listed above that showed a heightened persistence as their concerns in the conduct of
online or remote learning.
On the other hand, frequencies of 306, 410, 519, 538, 610, and 725 are attributed to family
concerns, financial and technological resources, learning environment, internet connectivity and
speed, learning effectiveness, and overall well-being, respectively. Some of these stem from
health issues and the financial capability of students to pay for the prescribed fee together with
acquiring gadgets that are essential in the said setup. In addition, the learning environment is
usually dependent on issues such as power interruptions, unconducive spaces within their houses,
and the like. Finally, learning environment leans toward practical/hands-on learning for certain
programs which is vital for the students’ training as impending professionals, issues on academic
materials which are found out to have just been searched by professors online, ineffective
instructors, and the inevitable truth that students have different learning styles which is not
always uniform and suited for everyone given the current arrangement.
Page | 42
50
51
VII. OVERALL EXPERIENCE
Figure 7.1 Rating for Overall Online Learning Experience
Overall, the respondents fostered a 1.56% or 13 students having an impression of an

excellent experience during the course of the previously concluded online academic year,
14.49% or 121 displayed a very good remark, 44.43% or 371 expressed their learning journey as
a good circumstance, 27.07% 4444444226 conveyed a fair rating, and 12.46% 104exhibited a
poor status. In conclusion, a weighted mean of 5.04% was arrived at giving the final verbal
interpretation which is symmetrical to a poor online learning experience among Angelite
students for Academic Year 2020-2021.
Table 7.1 List of Indicators for Poor Rating
Rating Indicator Frequency
Poor Students deemed online class to be ineffective and in need of 38

improvement
Students felt as if they did not gain enough knowledge 30
Experienced cases of low-quality teaching practices 20
Some professors were inconsiderate to students 19
The workload given was overwhelming 19
Online set-up was mentally and physically exhausting (too much 17

exposure on gadgets)
Skills needed were not gained because of the absence of practical 15

application
Distractions present within the learning environment make it difficult to 13

concentrate or retain information
Most of the lessons were self-studied 9
There was a lack of study materials and resources 9
Page | 43
51
52
Professors and students were not proficient with the online learning 7
platforms, such as with the Learning Management System
Online learning was difficult to adapt to 6
Unreasonable amount of laboratory fees 4
Some requirements were unnecessary 4
Classes were not dynamic or stimulating enough to encourage student 3

participation
The communication barriers made interactions between student to 3

teacher and student to student difficult
Students encounter financial difficulties in keeping up with the demands 3

of online learning
Students suffer from internet connectivity problems 2
Some professors do not follow the established class schedule 1
Biased treatment of professors 1
The school was not prepared enough for the new normal way of 1
learning
Dates set for the summer term enrollment and the A.Y. 2021-2022 were 1
too close
Out of 835 responses for the question which seeks to determine the overall experience of
the students for the academic year 2020-2021, 104 answered with the rating ‘poor’. In line with
this, above is a table with their reasons and frequency.
With a frequency of thirty-eight (38), most respondents have stated that they deem online
classes to be ineffective. This can be attributed to the following reasons:
a. Students feeling as if they did not gain enough knowledge due to either not fully
understanding some of their major courses or being unable to retain information, had a
frequency of thirty (30). As stated by Respondent 39,
“I feel like it didn't teach me the things I needed to learn for the entire year.
I feel so unprepared for the coming year because some of the discussions were
rushed. As a result, we cannot grasp and master the lessons being taught.”
b. Some respondents were subjected to cases of low-quality teaching practices (f = 20).

Respondent 128 and 364 shared,
“... But I experienced a professor who doesn’t teach and just keeps on giving
activities and we students are the one who will present to the class(not that it’s a
problem) but how can we present if we don’t know how to do the activities?
That’s why we are relying more on google and youtube than some of our
professors.”
“...Also, based on my experience, I did not learn because in my one major course,
the professor who was assigned to make lecture videos was only answering
questions in the book without further explaining the topics and nature of it. In my
Page | 44
52
53
other major course, my professor taught us actively in the first to second week of
our meeting ONLY HUHU.”
c. Students experienced dealing with some professors who were inconsiderate despite
having valid excuses (f = 19). Respondent 616 said,
“When I tested positive for covid 19, most of my professors didn't even wait for
me to fully recover to pass my requirements and most of the time, some professors
are very inconsiderate (esp. With working students)”
d. Students find the workload to be too overwhelming (f = 19). Respondent 690 stated,
“I didn’t learn anything I needed. All that happened was we got bombarded with
so many projects in a small time frame. We barely had any breaks because we
used even our weekends just to finish the projects. They’re very time-consuming.”
e. Students stated that the new set-up was taking a toll on their mental and physical health (f
= 17). As Respondent 70 shared,
“It was pretty exhausting for me, mentally and physically. I wasn’t able to take
care of my well-being and overall health which led to being hospitalized for 3
times.”
f. The effectiveness of the laboratory classes is a major concern for students as they implied
that the skills they require for a certain field of expertise were not obtained through
online classes (f = 15). Respondent 534 said,
“Online learning is not as effective as on-campus learning. As an engineering
student, we need to be taught in a laboratory. We need to experience it, we will
not learn by watching videos.”
g. Students expressed that their home is not a conducive learning environment as

distractions present hinder them from fully understanding the lessons being taught (f
= 13). Respondent 619 shares,
“It’s not as effective as face-to-face learning. I do not have my own room so I
study in our living room where it gets really loud. It’s also too comfortable for me
so I tend to get distracted and bored. I feel like my efforts were never enough.”
Table 7.2 List of Indicators for Fair Rating
Fair Online set-up is ineffective and is in need of improvements 68

Students found it difficult to cope up with the new normal way of 36

learning
The workload was overwhelming 34

application
Page | 45
53
54

Some professors were not considerate to students 22
Lack of study materials or resources 16
The school was not prepared enough in shifting to online learning 15

Unreasonable fees were imposed in spite of the prevailing set-up 8
Some requirements were unnecessary 6
Most of the lessons were self-studied 4
Insufficient synchronous meetings for some subjects 3
Compiled on the table above are the reasons as to why 226 respondents have answered that
their overall experience for the school year 2020-2021 was ‘Fair’. With a frequency of sixty-
eight (68), this data shows that the majority of the students deemed the new normal set-up to be
ineffective and in need of further improvements. This can be related to the following reasons:
a. Similar to those who rated their experience to be ‘Poor’, most of the students feel as if
they did not learn enough for they couldn’t fully grasp some of the lessons (f = 41).
Respondent 208 states,
“Just very nervous for the upcoming board exam. I don't feel like I learned the
things I should be learning this school year. I’m not saying the online class was
easy, but it definitely is not as informative as f2f class.”
b. Students feel that their physical and mental well-being was not being prioritized in this
set-up (f = 51). This corresponds with students who gave a similar reason but a rating of
‘Poor’. Respondent 473 shares,
“Online learning is a lot more draining than the usual face to face classes. My
mental health experienced its lowest point and this is coming from someone who
rarely had emotional breakdowns during f2f classes.”
c. With a similar reason to some who rated ‘Poor’, a number of students deem the workload
to be overwhelming (f = 34). To quote from Respondent 350,
“Personally, my learning experience with this online class was stressful. I’m still
not used to this overall set-up. With a lot of asynchronous activities and
recordings to watch, it ate my personal time. Thus, I get to experience stress and
even breakdown.”
d. A similar reason to those who rated their experience as ‘Poor’, there were some instances
where students have faced low-quality teaching from professors (f = 34). Respondent 250
said,
Page | 46
54
55
“Some instructors are not considerate and insensitive. There are insufficient
learning materials. The LMS was not utilized. Students experienced overload in
activities and got burnt out. The line between home and school commitments are
now blurry. Most of the hours were taken by school commitments. Students feel
unheard and unmotivated. Lessons are not discussed adequately.”
e. Students feel that they did not gain the skills that should be acquired especially in the
laboratory classes (f = 28). This reason could also be found in the rating ‘Poor’.
“We have a lot of laboratory classes. Online class does not give justice to the
quality we are supposed to be getting. Moreover, there is a very limited time for
us to finish the entirety of some of our major courses. Quality is being
compromised in this kind of setting.“
Table 7.3 List of Indicators for Good Rating
Good Students had a difficult time coping up with the new set-up 82
Online set-up is ineffective and is in need of improvements 65
The workload given was overwhelming 58


application
Some professors were not considerate to students 28

There is a lack of study materials and resources 15
Lack of interaction with fellow classmates and teachers 14
Unreasonable fees were imposed in spite of the prevailing set-up 10
Some professors cannot explain their lessons thoroughly due to lack of 9

time
The school was not prepared enough in shifting to online learning 6

Page | 47
55
56
Classes were not dynamic or stimulating enough to encourage student 4

participation
Some activities are unnecessary 3
Students encounter financial difficulties in keeping up with the demands 3

of online learning
Among the 835 respondents of the survey, 371 students answered with the rating ‘Good’ to
describe their overall experience for the academic year 2020-2021. The table above features that,
with a frequency of sixty-five (65), most express that the current set-up is ineffective and much
in need of improvement. Stated below are reasons that could be stemmed from this:
a. Students had a difficult time coping with the change in the mode of learning (f = 82).
Respondent 441 said,
“During the academic year, there were a lot of adjustments considering that it
was my first year in college. I was literally clueless on what I should do and
sometimes I can’t grasp the lessons properly”
b. Similar to those who rated ‘Poor’ and ‘Fair’, there are a number of students who state that
the workload was quite overwhelming this year (f = 58). Respondent 152 states,
“The effectiveness of online learning is not that great because most of the time we
spend from it was about doing and passing a lot of requirements. It should be
more on discussions.”
c. Likewise, a recurring reason that could be found on those who rated ‘Poor’ and ‘Fair’
was that the students experienced the negative effects of online classes on their mental
and physical health (f = 47). Respondent 520 shares,
“Online learning is really mentally and physically draining. I just comply with all
the requirements without assessing if I really learned something.”
d. Students were not able to obtain enough learning, hence why some subjects were not
fully understood (f = 37). This reason corresponds with those who gave ‘Poor’ and ‘Fair’
ratings.
“Not just only me but other students really find it hard to study and acquire
knowledge in this online class set up. Many, including me, still want to have face
to face class set-up because we can’t just set aside family-school matters.”
e. A similar reason from those who answered ‘Poor' and ‘Fair’ ratings, some students are
not convinced of the effectiveness of the laboratory courses. They expressed that due to
the limitations of the set-up, they did not obtain the skills necessary for the course (f =
35). Respondent states,
“Although our professors/instructors are doing their best, our studies are best
taught in the field to visualize, familiarize and apply the technical aspects of our
learnings in our own fields such as in laboratory courses.”
f. Similar to those who rated their experience to be ‘Poor’ and ‘Fair’, numerous students
experienced low-quality teaching practices which hindered their performance level in the
subject (f = 32).
“Some professors have feasible time to discuss, yet they choose to procrastinate
when examination week is coming. Also, some professors only read powerpoints
and do not explain them thoroughly leaving the students insufficient knowledge on
required submittals. There is also no basis for grading requirements and it may
seem unfair to the students who give out their best on every requirement.”
Page | 48
56
57
Table 7.4 List of Indicators for Very Good Rating
Very Learned the knowledge and skills needed for the course despite 39
Good struggling to adjust
Most professors were considerate and were able to provide quality 23

education
Online set-up was managed effectively and was well-conducted 23
Students have adjusted to the new mode of learning after struggling 20

to cope at first
Online set-up can be improved further 19
Students suffer from technical and internet connectivity problems 5

application
Some lessons were difficult to understand 4
Distractions present within the learning environment make it difficult 4

to concentrate or retain information

Professors were not proficient with efficiently utilizing the online 2

learning platforms and LMS
Sufficient learning materials were provided in the LMS 2
The workload was overwhelming 2
Students encounter financial difficulties in keeping up with the 1

demands of online learning
Interaction between fellow students was present 1
Communication barriers hindered student and teacher interaction 1
Vague instructions for some requirements 1
In the survey provided by the Holy Angel University Student Council, 121 students rated their
overall experience for the academic year 2020-2021 to be ‘Very Good’. With a frequency of
thirty-five (35), the majority of these students stated that it was due to the fact that they have
gained enough knowledge despite the change of the set-up. Respondent 180 said,
“Despite all the hardships or struggles I've experienced during that school year, I still
gained enough knowledge and lessons that I can use and apply in my life as well in
my chosen career”
However, many suggested that further improvements should be made (f = 19). To quote from
Respondent 439,
Page | 49
57
58
“Very good, because despite that this is the first time Holy Angel University to handle
this platform of education, we can see that the school is doing its best to provide a
quality education for the students. However, it's the school's first time and it needs
further improvements.”
Similar to those who rated ‘Good’, numerous students have had difficulty with coping or are still
adjusting to online learning (f = 20). Respondent 476 states,
“Even though it is hard for me to have this new way of learning, but it is great
experience.”
Furthermore, some students encountered considerate professors who were well-versed within
their subject matter (f = 15). Respondent 795 shares,
“I think most of my instructors last academic year were understanding and were still
able to explain the lessons quite well despite the online learning setup.”
Along with this, a number of respondents agreed that the set-up was handled and managed well.
“I gave a rating of very good for the online learning for the Academic Year
2020-2021, it is because the sessions were conducted well and lessons were
discussed thoroughly…”
Table 7.5 List of Indicators for Excellent Rating
Excellent Learned the knowledge and skills needed for the course despite 8
struggling to adjust
Most professors were considerate and were able to provide quality 5

education
Students got encouragement from fellow students 2
Of the 13 respondents who rated their overall experience for the academic year to be good, most
of them reasoned that it was due to being able to acquire knowledge despite the new set-up (f =
8). Respondent 501 states,
“I can say that I have learned a lot this academic year though we are on this kind of
platform.”
In line with this, students with considerate professors who were able to deliver a high standard of
education contributed to this rating (f = 5). Respondent 139 said,
“Honestly, it is indeed difficult to cope up with the new normal classes. However, our
professors help us and motivate us to enjoy and survive the academic year. We learned a
lot from them.”
Moreover, some students preferred this set-up as they were able to manage their time more
wisely in their learning environment (f =2). Respondent 143 shares,
“I was able to manage my time well given the fact that I’m just at home and the
activities can be done during my preferred time.”
While some students gained encouragement from their fellow classmates, hence making their
experience this academic year more enjoyable (f = 2). Respondent 221 states,
Page | 50
58
59
“ I enjoyed my freshmen year because i joined a lot of activities in school, it boosted

my confidence and with the classmates that I have they make studies even more
exciting”
Table 7.6 Academic Workload/Requirements
Frequency
Improvements Indicators
(f)
Instructors should properly manage their roll-out of 66

requirements. A reasonable amount of academic tasks should
be given to the students. Professors that teach the same class
should also coordinate with each other so as to prevent
instances of overlapping and overwhelming deadlines.
Instructors should increase the number of hours utilized for 14

synchronous sessions.
Group works with objectives that can be accomplished 10

individually should be lessened. On the occasion that group
works are necessary, instructors should require peer
evaluation to provide justifiable grades for each member.
Instructors should ensure that the learning outcomes of their 8

academic requirements are beneficial to their students’
courses and can be directly applied to real-life situations.
Instructors should provide additional examples, learning 6

activities, and resources to test their students’ learning. This
should be implemented especially for subjects that require a
lot of computations.
List of
Recommendations Lessen the number of synchronous meetings so as to reduce 6
the amount of screen time of students.
Provide academic requirements that will allow students to 5

acquire the Most Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs)
of their course. The activities should also be attainable and
appropriate for the online learning system.
The number of hours allocated for major subjects should be 5

greater than the number of hours allocated for minor subjects.
No academic requirements should be due the week before 4

examinations so as to give ample time for students to review.
A reasonable amount of requirements shall be assigned for 3

each semester in a certain course.
Instructors should avoid time-consuming requirements like 2

infographics and videos.
All academic requirements should be aligned with only topics 2

that professors have successfully covered to avoid instances
of self-studying.
Page | 51
59
60
Instructors should provide unweighted assessments alongside 2

weighted activities, requirements, and exams.
All exam questions should be available to view all at once. 1

Akin to physical exams, students should be able to skip items
and go back to them afterward.
For subjects that require a Final Project, instructors should 1

already provide instructions at the beginning of every major
period. In doing this, students will be given sufficient time to
produce quality outputs, and instances of overlapping
deadlines for Final Projects will be addressed.
The schedule of minor and major courses shall be organized 1

in a manner that a certain course is completed continuously in
months before moving to the next one.
For group works, instructors should let students work with 1

people they know, instead of members randomized by
Canvas.
Total 137
a. As can be inferred from the table above, the most frequent recommendation regarding
academic workload and requirements concerns improvements on the roll-out of
requirements. With a frequency of 66 (f = 66), the survey respondents assert the need to
reduce the amount of requirements to a reasonable number. Professors that teach the
same class can coordinate with each other regarding the deadlines of their requirements
so as to actualize the aforementioned suggestion, and consequently prevent instances of
overlapping due dates. As stated by Respondent 347 and 354 respectively:
“I hope they can minimize the number of activities given per week. Might as well,
coordinate also with other faculty regarding the given tasks, may it be in major or
minor courses.”
“There should be coordination among professors when giving requirements so

students would not be bombarded with such.”
b. Second to this, the recommendation to increase the number of hours utilized for
synchronous sessions obtained a frequency of 14 (f = 14). The following statements that
support this recommendation are from Respondents 451, 804, 769 and 630 respectively:
“Not all topics can be understood right away. Instructors shall consider this
matter when giving requirements and also when conducting number of
synchronous classes. 1 hour synchronous class per week and per subject is not
enough to tackle more than 1 lesson. And I hope that synchronous class shall not
be just a time for question and answer, wherein if there would be no any raised
questions from students, the class will be dismissed. I recommend that there will
be more synchronous classes for discussion purposes.”
“I think that further integrating the practices during face to face classes such as
having more time allotted for synchronous classes, especially for major subjects
and conducting formative activities that lets students apply and practice what they
have learned will be very beneficial.”
Page | 52
60
61
“More synchronous sessions on major courses because I believe that our

previous major courses were kind of rushed especially during the end of
semesters. The instructors gave us recordings instead of synchronous meetings.”
“Lesser work but more synch class to cover the topics. Pre-recorded video
discussions must be recapped during one synch class in which the professor may
ask for any clarifications.”
c. Moreover, survey respondents also stated that instructors should lessen group works with
objectives that can be accomplished individually. On the occasion that group works are
necessary, instructors should require peer evaluation to provide justifiable grades for each
member (f = 10). As stated by Respondents 575 and 43 respectively:
“Lessen the group works because we have different time. No video requirement
for group project because only one person would do all the editing (it’s not even
easy). Hoping professors would be more understanding and considerate in these
trying times and offer QUALITY discussion/education.”
“...avoid giving unnecessary group works (works that can be done individually)
since contacting groupmates is more difficult this set up.”
d. In addition, some survey respondents also recommend that instructors should ensure that
the learning outcomes of their academic requirements are beneficial to their students’
courses and can be directly applied to real-life situations (f = 10 ). As stated by
Respondents 750 and 140 respectively:
“Lessen workloads or rather just do requirements that are related/necessary to
the corresponding program.”
“Provide activities that can be used in the real-life.”
e. Furthermore, the recommendation for instructors to provide additional examples, learning

activities, and resources especially for subjects that require a lot of computations
garnered a frequency of 6. As stated by Respondent 438 and 257 respectively:
“Have the instructor actually teach the material. Not just read the presentation.
Also, I would appreciate if we were given more examples, clearer explanations
and lesser workloads.”
“More examples for math courses. more synch. provide correct answers.”
Table 7.7 Checking, Feedback, and Progress
Frequency
(f)
Instructors must be transparent about the scores and 9

academic performance of the students. It is essential to
provide prompt and objective feedback after every
requirement for the awareness of learners on what to
improve.
Instructors must provide answers on quizzes and major 4

examinations held by the course. These shall be thoroughly
discussed in synchronous sessions, on recorded videos, or
presented in a file with good notes to aid students in
correcting their mistakes.
Page | 53
61
62
Instructions must be clearly explained by the instructors for 3

the students to have an appropriate grasp of the assigned
tasks.
Instructors must ensure that all necessary announcements 2

List of for the course are given to the students ahead of time. These
Recommendations shall be provided in a number of days rather than hours
before it is required.
All modules and activities of the course must be readily 2

published by the instructors. The availability of these
materials allows students to manage their schedules
properly.
The academic plans of the course must be both effective and 1

comprehensive for the benefit of the learners.
Total 21
a. Students suggest that instructors leave objective feedback for their requirements with the
aim of improving the student’s overall performance in mind (f = 9). Respondent 418
states,
“I suggest transparency on our scores, feedbacks on our outputs, effective
communication between students and instructors, consideration of the situation
and needs of the students and lower tuition fee for us all.”
b. Moreover, the provision of answer keys or solutions for quizzes or major exams should
be done as an aid for students who wish to correct their mistakes (f = 4). Respondent 377
said,
“...Solutions to assessments with the answer key should always be required and
published.”
c. In addition, clear instructions must be given by the instructors to ensure that no

misunderstandings would occur (f = 3). Respondent 438 shares,
“...Also, I would appreciate if we were given more examples, clearer explanations
and lesser workloads”
d. Furthermore, students recommend that all announcements necessary for the course must
be stated ahead of time. They express that these should not be given only a couple of
hours before the required submission so as to give them ample time to prepare the
requirement (f = 2). To quote from Respondent 319,
“... and send announcements a day before the meeting not minutes/hours before
it.”
e. Alongside this, students require that all activities and modules necessary for the course
should be readily published in the Learning Management System. This will allow
students to properly manage their schedules (f = 2). Respondent 143 states,
“Publish and unlock all the modules and activities for the students to have a clear
picture of their schedule”
Table 7.8 Maximum Leniency
Page | 54
62
63
(f)
Maximum leniency should be upheld in this remote learning 82

setup as not all students have a conducive learning
environment. Instructors must be considerate towards those
who have unstable connections, have limited means to
acquire high-quality equipment, and are not tech-savvy.
A considerable amount of time shall be given by the 26

instructor in regard to the requirements assigned in the
course. There shall be a realistic timeframe to be set, a
flexible level of difficulty for the students, and clearly stated
instructions. At least a week or up to the extent needed
should be given for the students to work on the tasks.
An extension must be granted to a student who has notified 3

List of the instructor with factual and valid reasons regarding non-
Recommendations compliance with the initial deadline.
A better grievance system shall be made available for 3

students who encounter difficulties with instructors who lack
consideration.
Professors should have designated consultation hours aside 1

from their class hours in order to accommodate their
students’ academic concerns. Consequently, they must
establish specific instructions on how and where to contact
them regarding academic concerns.
There shall be a specified plan to be followed in case 1

common problems are experienced by the students. This
includes, but is not limited to, typhoons, power outages, and
internet connectivity issues.
Total 116
a. With a frequency of eighty-two (82), several students recommended that the school
should implement a maximum leniency policy as not all students have conducive learning
environments. Respondent 332 and 207 shares,
“Learn how to give respect and listen to your students please. I've had
experiences with instructors who got e n r a g e d and denied their students from
wanting to ask questions about their lessons/requirements. Also, stop treating
them as if they are robots who can do everything and anything all at once. Just
because they are at home does not mean they have the capability to move as if
they have SO MUCH free time. Remember that students have a life OUTSIDE
being a student. Stop putting pressure and requiring them to simultaneously
submit loads of schoolworks in a week, or sometimes, even a day. That's all.
“Instructors should have considerations specially those who are teaching major
subjects, and instructions should be well explained. The requirements should have
enough time before the deadline, and there must be considerations for no
electricity, no internet connection, and those who have health problems.”
Page | 55
63
64
b. Along with this, students express that more consideration should be given with regards to
the number of requirements assigned, the time allotted for its completion, and the level of
difficulty (f = 26). Respondent 233 said,
“Please lessen the number of requirements per subject as well as the difficulty
because even though it's one requirement, the effort and time to do it takes more
than a day to finish.”
c. Furthermore, students state that the submission of requirements should be given within a
reasonable timeframe (f = 3). Respondent 193 states,
“Be more considerate when a certain student request for extension of submitting
requirements. Don’t just say “I gave you longer deadline so no need to extend
every students have their own difficulties and struggles to face.”
d. In addition, the suggestion for a better grievance system for students who were subjected
to inconsiderate instructors has been raised (f = 3). To quote from Respondent 94,
“Have a better grievance system for students who encounter difficulties with profs
who lack consideration”
Table 7.9 Institutionalized Overall Well-being Breaks

(f)
Institutionalized well-being breaks must be implemented 15

every after major examination (prelims, midterms, finals) as
it helps students to recharge, consequently, being more
productive for their next tasks.
Instructors must be more patient in handling students who 5

are coping with mental health issues. The proper measures
shall be considered in deciding the amount of workload and
List of difficulty of tasks to be assigned.
Recommendations
Instructors shall not require students to pass academic tasks 3
during and after mental health breaks for such to serve its
purpose.
‘Kamustahan’ sessions may be held by a certain instructor 2

for a block section to check on the students and ease their
minds with the academic workload.
The general academic system must be fixed to ensure that 2

students do not feel burned out and lose their will to study.
a. Students expressed the significance of implementing well-being breaks for all

departments after the major examinations for each term in a semester (f = 15). This
provides a sufficient opportunity for them to accomplish more tasks in an efficient
manner. Responded 524 states,
Page | 56
64
65
“FOR ME THAT WOULD BE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MENTAL-

HEALTH BREAKS EVERY AFTER A MAJOR EXAM. THAT WOULD BE A LOT
OF HELP FOR THE STUDENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE FACULTY. BECAUSE
HAVING BREAKS IN BETWEEN WILL HELP IN MAKING US MORE
PRODUCTIVE, IS WHAT I BELIEVE.”
b. Furthermore, instructors must extend their utmost patience in dealing with students who
are having difficulty with the current learning setup (f = 5). They must also put to mind
the learners’ well-being in planning out the academic tasks for the course. To quote from
Respondent 213,
“I know we’re still adjusting in this set up and for some people it is hard and it is
not simple as we think. We have different ways on how to cope up with difficulties.
I recommend to look on the well being of the students, because personally if you
really don’t know how to cope up with stress and anxiety it will consume you. Just
be more patient with the students and I think they would really appreciate that.”
c. Academic requirements shall not be set to be submitted during or after implemented well-
being breaks as it defeats the purpose for the students to rest and recharge from the
previous activities (f = 3). Respondent 467 said,
“Allow your students to rest and can mental health breaks at least be true for
once. We don’t want required zoom meetings. We want a real break…“
d. It was also suggested that there must be an allotted time for students to bond with their
blockmates and instructors in the form of kamustahan sessions to be able to look out for
each other’s current state and well-being (f = 2). As Respondent 642 expressed,
“I recommend to have more kamustahan session.”
e. Also with a frequency of 2, it was conveyed that the general academic system shall be
reevaluated in a manner that heeds the overall welfare of the students. Respondent 15
shares,
“Fix the academic system make sure that students will not feel burned out and
lose their will to study.”
Table 7.10 Standard Practices of Instructors in Online Learning
Frequency
(f)
Professors must present the course material in a clear 35

manner to facilitate understanding.
Instructors should establish good relations with their 28

students. They should be responsive to their students’
queries, issues, and grievances regarding their academic
experience.
List of
Recommendations Professors should use class time effectively by maximizing 27
the synchronous sessions and thoroughly discussing the
course material.
The instructors record and provide copies of the 14

synchronous sessions immediately after such videos have
been converted.
Page | 57
65
66
Instructors should implement various ways to make classes 13

more engaging, interactive, and less intimidating so as to
cater to students with short attention span.
Instructors should be given technical support to ensure that 13

they are well-equipped in managing learning management
systems (Canvas), and are knowledgeable in utilizing
teleconferencing software for class meetings (e.g. Zoom,
Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, etc.).
Instructors should utilize and provide various mediums (e.g. 10

videos, articles, e-books, etc.) to discuss the course material.
Instructors should properly consider how much time will be 5

spent on a lesson to avoid instances of rushed discussions.
They should ensure that the number of meetings utilized to
discuss a topic is sufficient enough to cover all its
components.
Video presentations for laboratory simulations should not be 5

merely from YouTube. Recording simulations from HAU’s
own laboratories would be more effective.
Instructors should lessen the number of topics to be 4

discussed so as to lessen instances wherein students have to
self-study for topics that their instructors failed to cover.
Instructors should observe punctuality and consistency with 3

the set schedules for synchronous sessions.
Instructors should be provided with resources that will allow 3

them to facilitate discussions with ease (e.g. digital pens,
unlimited Zoom accounts, etc.).
Instructors must not show favoritism towards any students. 3
Instructors shall ensure that they come well-prepared to class 3

with the necessary materials and video presentations they
may utilize.
Instructors should not require students to turn on their 2

cameras for synchronous sessions. Alternatively, turning on
cameras could be done for only a limited number of minutes
in consideration of students who rely on mobile data.
Instructors must administer synchronous assessments only 2

when everyone in the class is present.
Utilize appropriate assessment activities depending on the 2

nature of the subject/lesson
Further information should be given to students about 1

Canvas features so as to lessen instances of technical
difficulties.
Page | 58
66
67
Instructors must not provide academic requirements that 1

involve the use of social media (e.g. specific number of likes
and shares in Facebook will correspond to a certain grade).
Instructors must not provide academic requirements that 1

involve the participation of family members in consideration
of students who may have family problems.
All instructors should decide on only one teleconferencing 1

software for class meetings, and one messaging application,
in consideration of students who may have inadequate
resources to download or access multiple applications
Instructors should utilize the Canvas board for recitation 1
There should be at least two attempts when passing 1

assignments on Canvas.
Utilize open-source software and programs and inhibit the 1

usage of paid and high RAM consuming applications
Provide alternatives for clinical duties. 1
Instructors should provide students with sufficient time to 1

absorb their lessons.
Replace synchronous sessions with pre-recorded videos and 1

let the recitation happen on Canvas’ discussion board.
Total 182
a. As can be inferred from the table above, the most frequent recommendation regarding
Standard Practices of Instructions in Online Learning concerns the need for professors to
present their course material in a clear manner that facilitates understanding (f = 35). As
stated by Respondents 394, 650, 296, 39 respectively:
“Most of the instructors are great and teach very well but sometimes there are
those who need to put more effort in discussing the lessons instead of just reading
the presentation.”
“Provide alternatives for clinical duties. All professors should have the ability to
efficiently and effectively teach the students.”
“I recommend that lessons especially accounting subjects shouldn't be rushed. I

hope that instructors also have some energy when teaching.”
b. Second to this, the recommendation for instructors to establish good relations with their
students by being responsive to their queries, issues, and grievances regarding their
academic experience, garnered a frequency of 28 (f = 28). As stated by Respondents 287
and 114 respectively:
“Other departments should learn from SAS Department particularly with the
Psychology Department in terms of how they handle online learning system. The
Program Chairperson must conduct ground meeting right after the major exam
Page | 59
67
68
week of every grading period with every block/section to discuss there queries,
issues, and grievances in regard to their academic experience during the said
grading period (e.g., Prelims) so further actions can be implemented right away
for the next grading period.”
“Try to communicate with your students even outside class hours and ask them if
they need to clarify something or just be open to your students and don't block
them on social media that is so unethical.”
c. Moreover, the survey respondents assert the need for professors to use class time
effectively by maximizing the synchronous sessions and thoroughly discussing the course
material (f = 27). As stated by Respondent 394 and 514 respectively:
“I recommend that professors should prepare well on how they can deliver their
lessons to students and they should teach also during synchronous class. They
should give more time in teaching their lessons not in giving requirements.”
“...with lessons not discussed, I was not able to understand some topics, hence
needing to find external resources.”
d. Furthermore, survey respondents also recommended that instructors should be required to

record and provide copies of the synchronous sessions immediately after such videos
have been converted (f = 14). As stated by Respondents 773 and 198.
“In any event that connectivity is lost towards one or more person, I personally
think the recording of the online sessions are helpful and can benefit a lot. For
those who were absent and those who lost power or internet connection.”
“I recommend for the professors to record our sessions because sometimes what
they discuss is not present in the modules so we can't keep up.”
e. In addition, the recommendation for instructors to implement various ways to make

classes more engaging, interactive, and less intimidating obtained a frequency of 14 (f =
13). As stated by Respondents 514, 592 and 430 respectively:
“The only things I was concerned with are some strenuous, unengaging class
sessions we were involved in, of which exhausted me mentally.”
“Professors should do something to make learning more interactive and

interesting (bcs of our short attention span)”
“I think the professors should prepare or give a short and fun games or activities
after they discuss the lesson so that the synchronous classes won't be boring and
drowsy.”
f. Also with the frequency of 13 is the recommendation for instructors to be given technical
support to ensure that they are well-equipped in managing learning management systems
(Canvas), and are knowledgeable in utilizing teleconferencing software for class
meetings (e.g Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, etc.). As stated by Respondents
517
“To improve the learning system, the teachers/professors must have a

background in using different learning platforms and maximize the use of it.
Maybe the school must provide some seminars that helping them to master the use
of technologies for online classes.”
Page | 60
68
69
Table 7.11 Safe and Gradual Resumption of Physical Classes
Frequency
(f)
Resumption of classes through blended learning must be 69

intricately planned out for the safety and welfare of its
students. Face-to-face classes may be held for certain
courses where skill enhancement through physical activities
is crucial. In addition, classes to be held inside the campus
may be properly managed by batch per department set on a
List of specific day.
Recommendations
The university must hold a vaccination program for its 6
students and employees to ensure their safety for face-to-
face classes.
In the instance that face-to-face classes are implemented, 1

students may have the option to attend the class physically
or online through live stream classes of the instructors.
Total 76
a. Students suggested that an intricate plan for the safe resumption of physical classes
through blended learning must be made. This is for the purpose of certain courses whose
skills can only be obtained through practical application (f = 69). Respondent 228 states,
“Students with laboratory courses should be allowed to have limited
face-to-face classes”
b. In addition, several students suggest a vaccination program to ensure the safety of the
students and employees of the school (f = 6). Respondent 3 said,
“The online class setup was actually for me is at its best already, but most of
us know that it just does not provide a quality face to face, actual teaching
and learning experience. I think vaccination and face to face programs should
be prioritized”
c. Moreover, a student recommended that if ever face-to-face classes are implemented they
should have the option to attend their classes physically or through Livestream.
“I would recommend blended learning. With different courses have their classon
different days. Example: SAS and SNAMS - Monday and Tuesday (Morning and
Afternoon batches) SOC and SBA - Wednesday and Thursday (Morning and
Afternoon Batches). This also means that the student can attend classes either
online or not. The instructor will livestream his/her teachings.”
Table 7.12 Scholarship and Other Financial Matters
Frequency
(f)
Page | 61
69
70
Pro-student policies regarding fees shall be implemented to 12

ensure equal chances of learning for everybody. More
specifically, decreasing the tuition fee lessens the pressure
on the student who wishes to enroll in the institution.
Laboratory fees shall also be decreased or removed
completely if these are not utilized in a face-to-face setup.
List of
Recommendations Considerations shall be extended to those who cannot pay 1
their fees on time.
A tablet or laptop could at least be provided to all the 1

students.
The scholarship scope shall be expanded and not only be 1

limited to the upper 1% of the batch per department.
Total 15
a. Students recommend pro-student policies with regard to their financial matters. They
have stated that a decrease in tuition fee will lessen the pressure of students who wish to
enroll into the school. Additionally, a number of students agree that the laboratory fees
should be decreased or removed completely as they are not being utilized in the new set-
up (f = 12). To quote from Respondent 720,
“Please reduce the tuition fee to lessen the pressure of students.”
b. In addition, it was suggested that special consideration should be given to those students
who cannot pay their fees in time. Respondent 574 states,
“I hope there will be more consideration for those who cannot pay the tuition fee on
time.”
c. Moreover, laptops or tablets should be provided by the school as stated by Respondent

783,
“Provided atleast a tablet or laptop to all the students, and decrease the tuition fee”
d. Furthermore, it was suggested that the criteria for the scholarship should be expanded and
not only limited to the upper 1% of the batch. Respondent 36 states,
“magkaroon ng scholarship, hindi lang for upper 1% ngunit pati na rin yung mga taong
nageexcel academically”
Table 7.13 Other Matters
Frequency
(f)
The university administration shall give utmost priority in 19

considering the opinions and suggestions of students and
their parents on how they may cope up with online classes
(based on the surveys disseminated). Their perception should
not be invalidated and criticized but rather given effective
solutions.
The administration and instructors shall be mindful and 9

empathetic of the students’ varying contexts in regard to the
online setup. It must be considered that not all are able to
Page | 62
70
71
access a private space at home and a high-speed internet

connection.
The whole online learning system shall be re-assessed as it is 7

ineffective and holds no contribution for the learners to
progress. New ideas and techniques beneficial to the remote
List of learning setup shall be developed.
Recommendations
The university shall stand firm on the core values that it 2
upholds.
The availability of schedules to choose from shall be enough 2

to cater to the preferences of the students.
Implementation of academic freeze for the school year. 2
Teaching staff that caters to all program takers, not just one 1
program, shall be added in a department. Some students feel
underrepresented in regard to this issue.
There shall be staff or officers assigned in observing and 1

evaluating the instructors’ conduction of synchronous
sessions.
Extension of the resumption of classes for the next academic 1

year.
E-books that are essential for the academic needs of the 1

students should be provided freely by the university library.
More events shall be held wherein all departments are able to 1

participate. These shall also be enjoyable for the students
even in the comfort of their homes.
The university administration and student council 1

organizations shall unite and visibly speak out against the
atrocities happening in our society.
Total 47
a. For other matters concerning the students, majority have indicated how they seek for the
university to heed to their call, address their issues, and find effective solutions for the
betterment of the newly adapted learning setup (f = 19). To quote from Respondent 168,
“If students raise certain concerns, I hope that the admin, instructors and
professors will be more inclined to listen. Students state these concerns in order
to find solutions for them and not to be invalidated or worse be criticized for their
occurrence.”
b. In line with the aforementioned statement, it has also been expressed that administrators
and instructors shall understand the varying privileges of the students especially at this
unfortunate time where empathy must be fully outstretched (f = 9). As said by
Respondent 180,
“Be considerate and understanding to all students because not all of us are
privileged enough to afford this online learning system and we don't know their
struggles that they're are facing.”
Page | 63
71
72
c. With a frequency of 7, students have commented that the online learning system is
proven to be ineffective in the previous school year and thus, the development of
teaching techniques is vital for the students’ academic progress. Respondent 112 and 826
respectively states,
“I believe students should be able to go back to school, online learning is not
effective—at least not for everyone.”
“Develop new ideas/techniques that are/will be effective in remote learning

setup.”
d. Additionally, some students have also recommended that more schedules could be made
available to choose from that suits their need for a time to learn productively
(f = 2). As Respondent 656 expressed,
“Sakin po is yung sched lang siguro nang pasok. Mas prefer ko po kasi yung
afternoon. Pero wala pong available na sched last sem. Sana po is may dalawang
sched po na mapag pipilian. Morning or afternoon sched.
VIII. DISCUSSIONS
On the Demographic Profile of the Respondents
As the Philippines experiences a gradual shift to online education due to the threats of COVID-
19, students and teachers struggle to be abreast with the needed resources in acquiring and
delivering quality instruction and are posed with different risks, problems, and challenges of the
new normal way of learning. Prevalent of which is the availability of gadgets and internet
connectivity which are the major resources needed to be able to carry out and participate in the
means in which online learning is being done.
In accordance to the survey conducted in terms of internet connectivity, 759 or 90.9% of the 835
total respondents have access to a stable source of internet connection such as fiber internet,
cable modem, prepaid Wi-Fi, DSL, and such; 619 or 74.1% of the responses entail that students
have reliable internet connection; 348 students (41.7%) answered that the download speed of
their internet connection ranges between 20 mbps and above; and 323 respondents (38.7%)
answered the same range of mbps in terms of upload speed. With this, it can be inferred that
there is a large portion of students who have the means to pursue an online learning system of
education. However, there are still remaining respondents who do not have the same privilege
which is evidently shown by the following numbers: 74 students (9.1%) do not have an access to
a stable source of internet connectivity and are only dependent in using mobile data, broadband,
pocket wi-fi and even some do not have internet access at the comforts of their home and are
instead using their neighbor's or relative's internet connection; 216 of the respondents (25.9%) do
not have a reliable internet connection; and 12 students (1.4%) said that they do not have a
proper internet access in their area, hence, a very low internet speed for uploading and
downloading purposes.
In terms of having a gadget for online learning, 93% of the students have devices such as laptop,
personal computer, and smartphones to use for educational purposes; 532 responses (63.7%)
pertain to the unlimited use of these gadgets; and 127 respondents (15.2%) answered that they
use these gadgets independently without having the need to share with other members of the
family. On the other hand, 7% of the respondents rely on the tablets borrowed from the
Page | 64
72
73
university to keep up with the requirements of online learning; 303 of the respondents (36.3%)
said that they are granted for only several hours when using their devices; and 708 (84.8%) of the
total students who answered the survey said that they share devices with the other members of
their family.
As said by Adonis (2020) on her article she published in Inquirer.Net, a teacher from Jose Abad
Santos High School in Manila, Mr. Reyes, stated that major reasons as to why there are fewer
students attending online classes are lack of access to gadgets and unstable internet connection,
which is evident even in a private institution like Holy Angel University. “Our students are
definitely having a hard time adjusting to distance learning. I, myself, am having a hard time.
The main concerns here are internet connectivity, gadgets, and stress for students,” the teacher
revealed in an interview with Inquirer. Similarly, the latest data from the Department of
Education (DepEd) showed that only 25 million students were enrolled for school year 2020-
2021 and nearly 3 million were out of school as they cannot have the requisites to continue their
education in an online system, leaving them with no choice but to drop out (Adonis, 2020). This
claim is supported by studies from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) which
revealed that when education is disrupted by emergencies like disease outbreaks, children are
more likely to drop out of school completely.
The information obtained from this survey showed that students from Higher Education
Institutions are no exception to this dilemma. Even before the pandemic, there was already an
existing education crisis faced by the country and today's situation aggravated these
complications. Online learning is evidently in favor only of those with greater access to
resources and so those who are incapable of meeting these demands will be automatically left
behind. With the struggles at hand, students cannot be compelled to go back to school as per the
following reasons: (1) the government failed to conduct mass testing and immunization; (2) there
is a lack of contact tracing teams in every community; and (3) there is also a shortage of
healthcare workers who can provide assistance to schools.
WHEREAS, the HAU-USC firmly believes that the current online learning system only
contributes to the widening digital divide between the classes present in the society. Although
many are keeping up with the requirements of digital learning, there is still a significant number
of students who are falling behind and are being robbed of their right to education just because
they lack the resources to acquire such. Education should not come with a price because it should
be a right rather than a privilege. The University Administrators must continue to extend its
hands to those who are being marginalized and should implement steps that will ease the
financial obstacles faced by the studentry. The university must stand in consonance with the
student body in embodying compassion, and leniency especially in the face of adversity.
On Academic Workload
This category pronounces a varying number of workload given to the students last Academic
Year 2020-2021. For major courses, students received a maximum of more than 20 class-
standing requirements per course during an entire semester. This also applies for minor courses
as reflected in the interpretations.
With regards to the asynchronous sessions, the majority of the students spent 11-20 hours
working on asynchronous requirements per week. However, a relatively significant number of
Page | 65
73
74
students also expressed their concern that it took them more than 30 hours per week to
accomplish asynchronous requirements. In the view of the students, they agreed that
asynchronous requirements for major and minor courses necessitate a manageable number of
hours, and therefore it is evidently shown that the more than 20 requirements given per semester,
both for minor and major courses, and the more than 30 hours per week spent in accomplishing
the said requirements, are not manageable.
This result is in coherence with Malik (2017), both course and program must be designed on the
basis of developmental research in the field of online learning, not constraining to the total
number of hours spent for asynchronous sessions. This includes, but not limited to, reviewing,
and accomplishing asynchronous requirements.
Based on the suggestive items, the student body recommends that the number of requirements
per week for both minor and major courses, should be at a maximum of one (1). Hence,
decreasing the number of hours spent by the students to accomplish asynchronous requirements.
Looking into the number of hours rendered for synchronous classes, the students said that they
spent five to six (5-6) hours per week during the Academic Year 2020-2021. In support of this,
the students strongly agreed that the maximum number of hours spent for synchronous sessions
stated above on both minor and major courses is manageable and effective.Therefore, it is clearly
shown that synchronous sessions for both minor and major courses was effective if it will remain
at 5-6 hours maximum per week.
Based on the suggestive items, the student body recommends that the allocated maximum
number of hours per week for synchronous sessions of major courses should only be two (2)
hours, and a maximum of one (1) hour for minor courses per week.
Furthermore, the students agreed that the nature (group or individual) of their assessments, as
well as the type (objective or subjective) were manageable and effective in achieving the
learning outcomes of each set of modules. However, a significant percentage of 25.5%,
disagreed with this claim, stating that the nature and type of assessments were not, after all,
manageable and effective to achieve the learning outcomes per set of modules. In addition,
assessing the activities given last academic year, there were 31.3% who disagreed that the given
activities had them equipped with essential learning and skills, in view of their degree program
and major courses.
Therefore, the student body recommends having Most Essential Learning Competencies or
MELCs per set of modules. A maximum of one (1) requirement per course per week shall be
designed to target the MELCs. Further, it is recommended to design activities that will not
require group working and video shooting, and design requirements to be beneficial, accessible,
and in relevance with the learning outcome of every module.
WHEREAS, the HAU-USC recognizes and believes that the different factors of the shift to the
now normal in our educational system such as the number of hours for synchronous and
asynchronous sessions, number of requirements given per course, and the nature and type of
academic requirements among others must be put into consideration. Assessment of student
learning is a crucial part of quality learning based on the holistic nature of academic workload
given to the students (Bilgin, 2017). Therefore, the amount of academic workload per week on
Page | 66
74
75
average should be in consonance to the effectiveness goal of learning, designed for the online
setup.
On Checking, Feedback, and Progress
The survey results indicate that 40.4% of the respondents agree that their instructors provide, and
follow clear guidelines and rubrics that are congruent to their syllabus. Though this amount may
be the majority, 286 respondents (34.3%) answered Neutral, while 118 (14.1%) respondents
were on the level of disagreement. Combining the percentages of those who answered Neutral,
Disagree, and Strongly Disagree yields an amount of 48.4% of the respondents. This entails that
a high number of students cannot confidently agree that their instructors provide rubrics and
guidelines which are followed religiously in evaluating their academic requirements.
Various reasons can be attributed to the stated data. The following are the most frequent reasons
that the students stated under the suggestive item of this section: a) Instructors do not include
rubrics upon publishing an activity; b) Rubrics are provided but instructors do not indicate the
rubric scores upon checking an activity; and c) The rubric was not followed in evaluating a task.
Similar results were garnered from the statement “Instructors promptly check, recheck, evaluate,
and give remarks to all types of outputs.” Though the majority of the respondents (36.6%) agreed
with the statement, 266 respondents (31.9%) were neutral, while 153 (18.4%) were on the level
of disagreement. Combining these percentages yields an amount of 50.3% of respondents who
are unassertive of the aforementioned statement. Furthermore, the statement “Instructors input
quantitative remarks or grades in the Canvas Learning Management System and Campus++ on
time,” garnered a verbal interpretation of neutral. It is important to note that the combination of
percentages for Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree for this item amounts to 48% of the
respondents. This amount signifies that a considerable number of students are unconvinced, and
can not assert the truthfulness of the statement.
The following answers from the suggestive item under this category provide reasons that can be
associated with the aforementioned data: a) Grades are not inputted immediately, hindering
students to track their progress; b) Some instructors only check requirements after major
examinations, depriving students of a way to assess their understanding before exams; c) Grades
are almost always inputted at the end of major exams, resulting to students having less time to
raise questions regarding the instructor’s evaluation; d) Students have reported incidents wherein
inaccurate grades were finalized because instructors failed to re-check their grades; and e) There
have been incidents wherein students got inaccurate grades because instructors relied on Canvas
to automatically check their activity.
In addition, 261 respondents (31.3%) were neutral on the statement “Instructors promptly
provide correct answers (and appropriate solutions, if necessary) after objective academic tasks
(e.g. activities or quizzes) before proceeding to the next lesson.” This amount, combined with the
31.6% whose answers were on the level of disagreement, yields an amount of 62.9% of the
respondents who are unassertive or dissatisfied with the current feedback system of their
instructors.
The following factors stated by the respondents under the suggestive time of this category
provide evidence as to why improvements are necessary to the existing academic framework: a)
Page | 67
75
76
Instructors do not provide any comment or feedback upon grading a requirement leaving
students with no means to comprehend their professor’s evaluation; and b) Answer keys and
solution sets are not provided after objective exams, hindering student to understand their
mistakes.
WHEREAS, the HAU-USC recognizes the right of every Angelite to quality education. We
assert the need for improvements on the current Academic Framework. It is of utmost
importance that these improvements be implemented in the upcoming academic year so as to
address the student body’s concerns regarding late posting of grades, non-feedback, and other
aforementioned matters.
On Maximum Leniency
This category determines the experiences of the students in terms of leniency last Academic Year
2020-2021. The participants said that there were requirements that have the same deadline as the
day of publishing, submissions during Saturdays and Sundays, and on regular holidays. This is
interpreted as a negative practice in the academe, especially in the current online setup. In the
research of Terada (2018), it found out that Saturday and Sunday breaks reduce stress and
increase productivity. Breaks keep our brain healthy and play a key role in cognitive abilities
such as divergent thinking. Hence, this leniency is necessary enough to balance academic
requirements and the needed break of students from academic responsibilities. As evident, the
majority of the student body recommends that no requirements should be due on Saturdays and
Sundays, except for NSTP classes. In addition to this, the student body suggests that no
requirements be published and due on regular holidays, as well as academic requirements which
deadlines are the same as the date they are published, except for special cases like major
examinations and synchronous quizzes.
Meanwhile, a relatively significant number of the students said that their professors did not
provide specific instructions on how to contact them, designate consultation hours to cater
student concerns, and create separate accounts, like Facebook and Messenger accounts, for
academic purposes. On the view of the student body, it is necessary to establish specific
instructions on how to contact the professors, as well as designate consultation hours, aside from
class hours, to cater academic-related concerns. Moreover, it is recommended to create Facebook
and Messenger accounts, which are the most efficient platforms of communication nowadays.
This is supported in the study conducted by Kalelioglu (2017), Facebook Messenger rendered an
effective, efficient, engagement, and instant feedback communication when used by the students
to synchronously communicate with their professors. Hence, the platform application should be
used for efficient flow of communication.
Moreover, students said that instructors grant an extension whenever notified with factual and
valid reasons regarding non-compliance of requirements with the initial deadline. However, there
is still a significant percentage of students who have not experienced leniency in terms of
extension of deadlines. Therefore, the prevailing data from the student body recommends that,
the students should be trusted almost 100% of the time with the reasons that they will present to
the professors when asking for consideration to extend deadlines or allow submission of
activities due to late submission and/or absences. Moreover, the students recommend that
instructors should grant an extension for students who notify with the former their non-
Page | 68
76
77
compliance with the initial deadline as long as reasons behind such missed activity are
considered factual and valid.
Furthermore, the students strongly agreed to recommend that professors should release the
learning plans of the course during the first and second week of the beginning of every semester.
In this case, students will be informed the earliest time possible on what activities and topics to
be expected for one whole semester.
More than that, the student body sees the relevance and timely consideration of the pandemic.
91.9% of the respondents strongly agreed that students who/whose: (a) experienced COVID-19
symptoms; (b) tested positive for COVID-19; (c) family member/s including himself had a close
contact with a COVID-19 positive patient; and (d) family member/s including himself tested
positive for COVID-19 should be given maximum leniency in rescheduling deadlines for
submission of academic requirements and be excused in attending synchronous sessions until
fully recovered.
WHEREAS, the HAU-USC stands with the studentry in recommending a collection of policies
that are maximumly lenient in nature in order to materialize the virtue of compassion and pro-
studentry. We believe that during these dire times, the health, safety, and condition of the
Angelites should always be a paramount priority. This practice of maximum leniency policies is
in consonance to the Chairman of Commission on Higher Education, J. Prospero E. De Vera III
(2020) stating that Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) must exercise leniency and help the
students during these difficult times.
On Overall Well-being Breaks
Survey results show that majority of the respondents 87.2% (n=728), were able to experience
well-being/mental health breaks last academic although the breaks were not standardized as
shown from the survey varying responses were collected ranging from 1 to 7 days while some
stated the issuance of mental health breaks depends on the situation. However, 12.8% (n=107)
were not able to experience mental health breaks.
Respondents were tasked to evaluate from 1-5 (1- being “Not Beneficial” and 5- being “Very
Beneficial”) how beneficial are the mental health breaks from them and 63% (n=526) of the
respondents evaluated (5- Very beneficial) ,thus mental health breaks benefitted them on their
endeavors as it gave them enough time to rest, to do things the love do, to accomplish their
requirements, to reflect on life, and to destress from academics.
Knowing the situation and impact of Mental Health breaks, respondents’ responses indicated that
mental health breaks should be 3-4 days (n=424), more than 4 days (n=383), and less than 2 days
(n=28). In addition, respondents’ responses strongly agreed (n=771, 92,3%) that mental health
breaks should be given after a major period (Preliminary, Midterm, and Finals), Lastly, data
revealed respondents strongly agreed (n=784, 93.9%) that there should be no submission of
requirements during the mental health breaks as to serve the real purpose of the breaks.
WHEREAS, the HAU-USC recognizes that Mental Health Breaks are vital for the students
overall well-being as it may provide them enough time to rest, do things leisurely, and be more
academically prepared as evidenced on the study of Bautista (2020) mental breaks associates
Page | 69
77
78
with benefits such as it improves the memory, serves as energy boosts, reduces stress, improves
health and boosts performance and creativity.
Furthemore, Nacar (2020) articulated that perhaps traditional educational practices such as
mounds of required homework, group requirements, and the like, would be better off temporarily
abolished in consideration of students’ varying circumstances, or lack of resources. In fact,
academic institutions should welcome discussions with experts, teachers, parents, and the
students themselves to fully understand the situation and the needs of the whole school. Open
discussions such as this, and genuine considerations from its decision-makers, might just be the
only way the academic sector can push forward amidst the pandemic, without foregoing its
community’s general well-being.
Therefore, as the unconventional 2020-2021 school year ended with students’ mental and
emotional burnout which undeniably affected and impacted students perception on education
thus, we strongly assert that mental health breaks should be implemented every after
preliminaries, midterms, and finals period with a span of more than 4 days and that during
mental health breaks there should be no submissions of requirements to fully serve the purpose
of the break so that no student shall be left behind.
On Standardized Practices of Instructors in Online Learning
This section refers to the respondents’ experienced standard practices of instructors in the new
learning set up and in order to assess the instructors’ efficiency and effectiveness, respondents
were tasked to choose “Yes” or “No'' in sets of questions prepared. Garnered data revealed,
75.69% of the instructors were well prepared for virtual meetings, 69.94% of the instructors were
well equipped in managing the Canvas (LMS), 75.33% of the instructors followed the time
scheduled for synchronous meetings, 85.02% of the instructors were able to utilized various
teleconferencing software for class meetings, 67.10% of the instructors were able to handle
technical difficulties encountered, 70.18% of the instructors were able to published instructional
materials and modules on time, 59.52% of the instructors were able to provide records of the
synchronous sessions after the meeting, 74.85% of the instructors were able to strictly follow
given class schedules and number of hours for synchronous meetings, and 81.92% of the
instructors were able to see to it that modules and other learning materials used in the discussion
were all published in Canvas and were made available for student’s viewing.
WHEREAS, the HAU-USC recognizes the importance of good practices exhibited by the
instructors for quality education that will transform students into persons of conscience,
competence, and compassion thus, we strongly assert that instructors should be trained on how to
use various means in teaching lessons i.e (teleconferencing applications, online training
applications and learning management systems) included that schedules should be strictly
followed, and that publishing of learning modules and instructional materials should also be
prioritized for the students to have enough time in other matters outside the academic box.
On the Overall Experiences of the Students
The survey indicates that the question, “Overall, how do you rate your online learning experience
this Academic Year 2020-2021?” garnered a general weighted mean of 5.0— thereby signifying
a verbal interpretation of Poor. Numerous reasons can be attributed to this rating.
Page | 70
78
79
Firstly, various factors that are out of a student’s control may continuously hinder his or her
performance in an online classroom. The following factors are those frequently mentioned by the
respondents: a) Internet Connection problems; b) House is not a conducive space for learning; c)
Insufficient resources and equipment; d) Family problems; e) Not proficient with technology;
and f) Mental and Physical health issues.
Considering all these factors, the most frequent recommendation out of all the responses from
the survey’s last suggestive item was the call for maximum leniency. Students agreed that utmost
consideration should be given in view of the numerous obstacles that the online learning setup
entails.
Furthermore, responses from the last suggestive item indicate that the most frequent
recommendation with regards to academic workload concerns improvements on the roll-out of
requirements. Prevalent reasons stated behind this suggestion were: a) Instances of overlapping
and overwhelming deadlines; b) Time given to accomplish academic requirements were
disproportionate to the said tasks’ difficulty; and c) Mental and physical exhaustion brought
about by the unmanageable number of requirements.
In view of these matters, a significant number of students assert the need to reduce the number of
requirements per week to a reasonable number. The following are specific ways which the
respondents believe can actualize the aforementioned recommendation: a) Professors who teach
the same class should coordinate with each other to prevent instances of overlapping due dates;
andb) Academic requirements that have no relevance to the students’ course should be
discontinued.
In addition, survey respondents reported instances of ineffective teaching methods. Numerous

respondents state that they experienced instructors rushing lessons, boring discussions, and
professors merely reading their presentations. To address these, they recommend the following:
a) Utilize effective teaching methods to present the course material in a clear manner; and b)
Observe time management to prevent instances of rushed lessons that consequently led students
to self-study.
Moreover, survey respondents frequently stated the need for improvements regarding the
Checking, Feedback, and Progress Policy of the previous Academic Year. Students repeatedly
asserted that professors should be more transparent with how they evaluate their students.
Reasons behind this statement are the following: a) Instructors do not provide any comment or
feedback upon grading a requirement leaving students with no means to comprehend their
professor’s evaluation; b) Answer keys and solution sets are not provided after objective exams,
hindering students to understand their mistakes; and c) Professors publish grades late, leaving
students with less time to re-check their outputs.
Respondents recommended the following means as to how these issues could be addressed: a)
Utilize synchronous sessions to thoroughly discuss the correct answers for an academic
requirement so as to ensure that students comprehend the reasons behind their mistakes. Should
there be time constraints, professors may opt to record a video explaining the correct answers or
provide an answer key with notes to aid students in correcting their mistakes; b) Provide
objective feedback for every academic requirement and be open to answering queries of students
regarding their grades; and c) Check outputs near the time they were submitted in order for
Page | 71
79
80
students to immediately assess their understanding of the topic. This will also help students to
track their progress and provide them with more time to raise clarifications.
Aside from concerns regarding academics, respondents also reported incidents of mental health
breaks not serving their purpose. There were instances of academic requirements being due after
the mental health breaks thereby compelling students to utilize their break to accomplish those
tasks, instead of using that time for recuperation. Therefore, the said respondents recommend the
following to ensure such instances are prevented: a) well-being breaks must be implemented
every after major examination (Prelims, Midterms & Finals); and b) No requirements should be
due during the entire duration of a well-being break, and the week after it.
On the subject of financial matters, respondents have expressed their dissent towards laboratory
fees and tuition fee increases. It can be inferred that a factor that contributed to the general Poor
rating for the prevailing online system is the lack of transparency regarding laboratory fees.
Considering this, the students highly recommend decreasing the laboratory fees especially since
laboratories are not being utilized by the students in this online setting.
In line with all the aforementioned issues that online learning has caused, numerous respondents
recommended the safe and gradual resumption of classes. Students expressed those online
simulations are simply not enough to acquire the skills that courses with laboratory work aim to
provide. Limited face-to-face classes should be considered especially for major subjects.
WHEREAS, the HAU-USC remains steadfast in its advocacy for pro-student policies. We assert
the need for an immediate response that will address issues regarding academic workload,
checking, feedback, and progress policy, maximum leniency policy, institutionalized overall
well-being breaks, standard teaching practices in online learning, safe and gradual resumption of
classes, financial and other matters. The institution should be alarmed by the student body’s
general rating of POOR as this rating stems from the numerous aforementioned reasons that are
in need of prompt action.
Page | 72
80
81
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
Standardized Academic Workload fit for Online Learning System
Type of Number of Number Estimated Target Recommendations

Session Requirement/s of Hours Number Output
per week per week of Hours
Spent by
the
Students
per week
Synchronous Maximum 5-6 hours Most Lessen groupings

MAJOR Sessions of two (2) Essential and video
COURSE Maximum of Learning shooting
one (1) --- Competencies
Asynchronous <30 hours
Sessions
5-6 hours
Synchronous Maximum (inclusive
Sessions of one (1) to the
major Most Lessen groupings
MINOR Maximum of course) Essential and video
COURSE one (1) Learning shooting
Asynchronous --- <30 hours Competencies
Sessions (inclusive
to the
major
course)
Other Recommendation under Standardized Academic Workload:
1. Instructors should properly manage their roll-out of requirements by consulting the class.
A reasonable amount of academic tasks, and a flexible level of difficulty should be given
to the students. Professors that teach the same class should also coordinate with each
other so as to prevent instances of overlapping and overwhelming deadlines.
2. On the occasion that group works are necessary, instructors should require peer
evaluation to provide justifiable grades for each member, and should let students work
with people they know, instead of members randomized by Canvas.
3. Instructors should provide additional examples, resources, and formative assessments to
test their students’ learning. This should be implemented especially for subjects that
require a lot of computations.
4. No academic requirements should be due the week before examinations so as to give
ample time for students to review.
5. All exam questions should be available to view all at once. Akin to physical exams,
students should be able to skip items and go back to them afterward.
6. For subjects that require a final project, instructors should already provide instructions at
the beginning of every major period. In doing this, students will be given sufficient time
Page | 73
81
82
to produce quality outputs, and instances of overlapping deadlines for final projects will
be addressed.
Implement a Strict Checking, Feedback, and Progress Policy which shall be composed of, but
not limited to, the following:
1. Instructors should provide clear guidelines and rubrics that reflect those from the
syllabus, that should be followed religiously in evaluating academic requirements;
2. Instructors should not rely on canvas automatic checking system (speed grader), and
should check, recheck, evaluate, and give remarks to all types of outputs every after
submission before proceeding to the next requirement;
3. Instructors should promptly provide correct answers and appropriate solutions every after
objective academic tasks (e.g. activities or quizzes), and should utilize a synchronous
meeting to discuss the correct answers before proceeding to the next lesson to make
students aware of the areas needed for improvement;
4. Instructors should immediately input quantitative remarks or grades in the Canvas
Learning Management System and Campus++ after checking of activity on a real time
basis;
5. Instructors should allot one synchronous session as a consultation hour to recheck, and
address concerns concerning inaccurate quantitative grades before finalizing the latter;
6. Instructors should be responsive and maintain an open communication with their students
regarding feedback, and queries on academic requirements and grades;
Implement a Maximum Leniency Policy for Online Learning System which shall be composed
of, but not limited to, the following:
1. No requirement should be published and given a due date during Saturdays and Sundays
(except for NSTP requirements), and on regular holidays to serve its purpose of giving
the students the opportunity to rest both physically and mentally;
2. Academic requirements should not be due on the same day they were published, except
for major examinations or certain cases;
3. Students should be trusted almost 100% of the time with the reasons that they will
present to their professors whenever they fail to attend synchronous sessions, and submit
requirements on time;
4. Instructors should grant an extension for students who fail to comply with the initial
deadline as long as the request is accompanied by factual and valid reasons;
5. Students who/whose: (a) experienced COVID-19 symptoms; (b) tested positive for
COVID-19; (c) family member/s including himself had a close contact with a COVID-19
positive patient; and (d) family member/s including himself tested positive for COVID-
19 should be given maximum leniency in rescheduling deadlines for submission of
academic requirements and be excused in attending synchronous sessions until fully
recovered;
6. Instructors should provide instructions on how and where to contact them about academic
concerns for easier communication between them and the students;
Page | 74
82
83
7. Instructors should allot contact hours, aside from their class hours, to accommodate the
students’ academic concerns for them to be accessible to the students should the need
arise;
8. Learning plans should be released within the first and second weeks of every semester to
give the students ample time to prepare;
9. Instructors must be considerate towards those who have unstable connections, have
limited means to acquire high-quality equipment, and are not tech-savvy;
10. There shall be a specified plan to be followed in case common problems are experienced
by the students. This includes power outages, and internet connectivity issues.
Implement an Institutionalized Overall Well-being Breaks which shall have the following
conditions:
1. Conduct well-being breaks every after major period (prelims, midterms, and finals) to
provide students proper rest from their academic responsibilities;
2. Overall well-being breaks after major periods (prelims, midterms, and finals) should last
for more than four (4) days, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, to provide students ample
time to rest and prepare for the next period;
3. There should be no submission of any requirements in the entire duration of the overall
well-being breaks to serve its purpose of rest for the students;
4. ‘Kumustahan’ sessions may be held by a certain instructor for a block section to check on
the students and ease their minds with the academic workload.
Implement a Strict Standardized Practices of Instructors in Online Learning which shall

include the following, but not limited to:
1. Adherence to the date and time scheduled for synchronous class meetings;
2. Publishing of all instructional and learning materials, and modules used in the discussion
on time;
3. Recording of synchronous sessions, and immediate converting and sending of the same to
the students;
4. Technical training for professors (fulltime and part-time)
Instructors, both fulltime and part-time, should be given seminars and online trainings in:
(a) properly navigating various teleconferencing applications (e.g. Zoom, Google Meet,
MS Teams, and Canvas) and (b) maximum utilization of Canva, Google Classroom, and
software applications and websites for laboratory classes as the HAU-USC deemed it
necessary towards quality education that transforms students into persons of conscience,
competence and compassion. Through this, incidents where instructors and professors
encounter technical problems during or before synchronous classes will be solved as
expertise and mastery in the technicalities of synchronous classes will be guaranteed.
5. Set a general rule for open cam
Opening of cameras should not be made mandatory during synchronous sessions, and
should only be required in limited instances like, but not limited to, the following:
attendance checking; graded recitation. This is because turning on the camera consumes
too much data, consequently, affecting the internet connectivity of students who are only
relying on mobile data or those who have unstable internet connection. Also, some
students may feel uncomfortable or anxious as they may not have the decent learning
environment to be displayed in classes.
Page | 75
83
84
6. The program coordinator should be assigned in observing and evaluating the instructors’
conduction of synchronous sessions.
Other recommendations deemed necessary by the HAU-USC:
1. Premium Zoom Account for Instructors

Instructors should be provided with resources that will allow them to facilitate discussions with
ease (e.g digital pens, unlimited access to Zoom accounts, etc.). They should be granted premium
Zoom accounts because the 40-minute limited access causes disruptions to classes as students are
required to sign in again after the meeting has ended, specifically for synchronous sessions that
are more than 40 minutes in duration.
2. Use of Pronouns on Zoom and Online Platforms

In compliance to Section 21: Gender Based Sexual Harassment in Educational and Training
Institutions of R.A. 11313 or the Safe Spaces Act of 2012, the HAU- USC recognizes the call for
promoting diversity and inclusivity of its stakeholders, especially the students, to be recognized
with their preferred pronouns during synchronous sessions. They should be allowed to indicate
their pronouns in their Zoom display names to promote a gender-sensitive, gender-responsive,
and gender-inclusive learning environment.
3. On safe and gradual resumption of physical classes, the following shall be the
requisites:
Concrete Plans for the Academic Year 2021-2022. Learning should be accessible, should not
exacerbate the financial and economic constraint, and prioritize safety of the Angelite
Community above anything else.
Implement regular and free mass testing. This is a first line of safety measures.
Extensive Vaccination Program. Vaccination programs should be free and safe for the students,
teachers, and staff of the institution.
Ensure the implementation of minimum health requirements. This includes the ratio of
students to teachers, availability and accessibility of health facilities, medicine, and school
sanitation zones.
Evidence-based practices. Conduct risk assessments in areas where there are limited face-to-face
classes.
Employment of competent health and sanitation personnel in school.
Involvement of LGUs. Preparedness and case management system in coordination with LGUs
and local health for contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.
Provide additional classrooms, sanitation rooms, and other necessary school facilities.
4. Recognize the representation of Holy Angel University Student Council in the

decision-making of the HAU Administration.
Page | 76
84
85
X. REFERENCES
Adonis, M. (2020). Fewer students in online classes are seen. Inquirer.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1374549/fewer-students-in-online-classes-seen
Bautista, J. (2020, September 17). 5 benefits of taking breaks. University College London
(UCL). https://www.ucl.ac.uk/students/news/2020/feb/5-benefits-taking-breaks
Bilgin, A. (2017). Academic workload implications of assessing student learning in work-

integrated learning. Https://Files.Eric.Ed.Gov/Fulltext/EJ1151142.Pdf.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1151142.pdf
De Vera, P. (2020, March 17). Chairman's Statement. CHED. https://ched.gov.ph/chairmans-

statement/.
Malik, M. (2017). E-Learning: Students' Perspectives about Asynchronous and Synchronous

Resources at Higher Education Level. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210223.pdf
Martin, E. (2021, May 12). EDITORIAL: Students need mental health break. Cardinal Points.
http://cardinalpointsonline.com/editorial-students-need-mental-health-break/
Nacar, P. (2020, October 1). Here’s to these schools that listened to the call for an academic
health break - we need more. The POST. https://thepost.net.ph/the-feed/campus-
features/heres-to-these-schools-that-listened-to-the-call-for-an-academic-health-break-
but-we-need-more_/
Terada, Y. (2018, March 09). Research-Tested Benefits of Breaks. Retrieved from

https://www.edutopia.org/article/research-tested-benefits-breaks
Page | 77
85

HAUSC Academic Framework Proposal Complete-20210701-2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HAUSC Academic Framework Proposal Complete-20210701-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

DR. LUIS MARIA R. CALINGO

Dear President Calingo:

Greetings in the name of genuine student representation!

As an autonomous student council empowered by the students of Holy Angel University

The unforeseen transition from face-to-face in-person learning to completely an

In solidarity amid academic burden we unify,

JOSHUA SANTOS HAZEL MIRANDA KENNETH DE GUZMAN

Speaker of the House, Justice Advocate Director, Chief Executive Officer

FRANCIS JOSHUA AILEEN MAGLALANG DARWIN DIONISIO

KYM LEE HALL DARLENE ISABEL

JOSSET CAPARAS MARSHYLL AUBREY EVANGELISTA

CHRISTIAN JOHN ZABALA ZOE FIONA CALANG

ERICKA SANCHEZ MARIE ELIZABETH SAGUM

ABELARDO CORTEZ JR. NICOLE DIANE LIWANAG

SOPHIA NICHOLLE GARCIA JUSTINE AARON SANGALANG

NICOLE YSHI SAMSON MARIA NARCISA KRISTINA TAYAG

MOHAMMAD CATACUTAN DANELLA MARIA DIAZ

MARJORIE BERMILLO KATRINE JOY DELA CRUZ

RE: ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL

A Position Paper spearheaded by

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

Demographic Profile of the Respondents ....................................................................................... 1

Academic Workload ....................................................................................................................... 7

Checking, Feedback, and Progress ............................................................................................... 15

Maximum Leniency ...................................................................................................................... 21

Overall Well-Being Breaks ........................................................................................................... 30

Standardized Practices of Instructors in Online Learning ........................................................... 35

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

CHECKING, FEEDBACK, AND PROGRESS

OVERALL WELL-BEING BREAKS

STANDARDIZED PRACTICES OF INSTRUCTORS IN ONLINE LEARNING

CHECKING, FEEDBACK, AND PROGRESS

OVERALL WELL-BEING BREAKS

STANDARDIZED PRACTICES OF INSTRUCTORS IN ONLINE LEARNING

HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

I. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Figure 1.1 Respondents’ Department

Figure 1.2 Respondents’ Year level

Figure 1.3 Internet Service Provider

Figure 1.4 Technology Devices

Figure 1.5 Reliability of Internet Connection

Figure 1.6 Download Speed of Internet Connection

Figure 1.7 Upload Speed of Internet Connection

Figure 1.8 Standard Connection of Mobile Data

Figure 1.9 Time Restrictions for Technology Devices

Figure 1.11 Weekly Expenses for Mobile Data

II. ACADEMIC WORKLOAD

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

thirds respectively disagreed (n=108,12.93%), strongly agreed (n=98,11.74%), and strongly

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Table 2.1 Recommendations to Improve the Academic Workload of Students

Improvements Indicators Frequency

III. CHECKING, FEEDBACK, AND PROGRESS

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Legends: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral

Instructors inputting quantitative remarks or grades in the Canvas Learning Management

Improvements Indicators Frequency