Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

Secondary school teachers psychological status and competencies in

e-teaching during Covid-19
Kai Yan Wong a, Tajularipin Sulaiman a, *, Amalina Ibrahim b, Abdul Gaffar Kunchi Mohd c,
Omrah Hassan @ Hussin a, Wan Marzuki Wan Jaafar a
a
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
b
School of Human Resource Development & Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
c
Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Engku Husain, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Presents problem/focus of study: The Covid-19 outbreak has had a staggering impact on the global economy, public
Covid-19 health and safety, trade and education. In Malaysia, the government implemented the Movement Control Order
Motivation (MCO) as a preventive measure against Covid-19. In education, the learning process has been transferred to online
Online teaching
teaching. However, pandemic pedagogy is making learning into completely online either synchronous or asyn-
Pedagogy
chronous. Therefore, the current research aims to determine the secondary school teachers' psychological status,
Psychology
competencies in e-teaching and teachers work motivation as well as determine the relationship between sec-
ondary school teachers’ psychological status and competencies in e-teaching during the Covid-19 outbreak.
Design/methodology/approach: Current research is a descriptive-correlational quantitative survey to determine
teachers' psychological status, e-teaching competencies and working motivation during Movement Control Order
(MCO) to contain the Covid-19 pandemic. The study sample consists of 595 secondary school teachers selected via
convenient sampling. Quantitative data are collected from an online survey through the questionnaires with
demographic, psychological status (stress, anxiety and depression), e-teaching competencies (teaching, moni-
toring and evaluation) and teaching motivation developed by the researchers were distributed during the MCO
period. SPSS 25 is applied, Statistical measures such as Cronbach's alpha, means, percentage and standard de-
viation were employed to analyze the data to obtain the value of the school teachers' psychological status, e-
teaching competencies and teaching motivation. Consequently, a Pearson correlation table was created to show
the analysis of the school teachers' psychological status and competencies in e-teaching.
Findings: This finding indicated that the teachers' psychological factors in stress, anxiety and depressed are
moderate, the teachers' competencies in e-teaching is moderate as well as teachers’ working motivations is also
the moderate level. However, the highest mean value was found among the variables, this is revealed that despite
the challenges during the Covid-19 outbreak, teachers showed positive and strong motivation in conducting e-
teaching. Additionally, the result showed a negative relationship between psychological status and e-teaching
competencies (-0.286, p < 0.01), as well as reported a negative relationship between dimension of psychological
status and competencies in e-teaching.
Limitation & recommendations: This study has its limitations. This study is included only Selangor teachers and
given that the information obtained from the study was gather from secondary schools, the generalizability might
be limited. future research may consider expanding the scope from secondary schools to primary schools' teachers
and then to university lecturers. Perhaps the scope is expanding, so more information could be obtaining and help
researchers understand the teachers’ competencies in e-teaching, psychological status and work motivation.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tajulas@upm.edu.my (T. Sulaiman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08238
Received 13 October 2020; Received in revised form 23 November 2020; Accepted 19 October 2021
2405-8440/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
K.Y. Wong et al.
1. Introduction
The unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic is affecting almost every
country, and none was prepared for it. Consequently, it brings chaos,
uncertainties, confusion and panic to every sector, including education.
This situation has affected the closure of all educational institutions, and
teaching forces have been transferred to the entire country in remote or
online forms to ensure the prevention of Covid-19 social distancing
practices. During the Covid-19 pandemic, education faced the greatest
challenge because of the greatest pedagogical transformation in teaching
methods. Traditional classrooms have been taken away from teachers,
students and parents, and mobilized classroom or a digital classroom
have been replaced (Daniel, 2020; Ali, 2020). Now, teachers teach from
home and students learn at home (McCarthy, 2020) because face-to-face
classes become security threats (Murphy, 2020). This has never been
experienced before and it is overwhelming and full of uncertainties for
all, especially teachers for they are to teach in a way they have not done
before. Thus, it is important to find out the psychological status of the
teacher during this Covid-19 outbreak in order to recognise the issue
early.
Now, this brings teaching and learning into a new dimension. Online
teaching has replaced face-to-face classrooms and teachers have no
choice. The practices in normal pedagogy like application, monitoring
and evaluation has been completely converted to some new forms in e-
teaching, and this emerging pandemic pedagogy has become necessary
for the sustainability of national education system (Yao et al., 2020a,b).
In the current research, e-teaching also refers to emergency remote
teaching as stated by Hodges et al. (2020). As in the sudden outbreak of
Covid-19, it severely affected Malaysia's education movement and
schools were temporarily closed. Therefore, emergency remote teaching
is applying to replace face-to-face classes until the Covid-19 pandemic
abated. Whilst, in order to adapt to emergency remote teaching,
e-teaching is the only options. e-teaching is incorporate Information and
Communication technologies (ICT) tools into teaching. Hence, teachers
use various digital tools in synchronous and asynchronous environments
using different technologies devices (such as, laptops, tablets, smart
phones) to provide students with learning experiences to support
continuing education (Hodges el al., 2020; Dhawan, 2020).
In this situation, teaches are required to master the application of e-
teaching and technology-based pedagogical skills, such as distributing
learning materials through Google Classroom; having discussion through
Zoom; and, monitoring student learning goals, as well as evaluating
students’ learning outcomes through any chosen application to ensure
the continuity of school curriculums (Al-Awidi and Aldhafeeri, 2017). In
some countries, the evolution of e-learning has developed and practiced
quite extensively where teachers and students are getting comfortable
and used to the new mode of teaching and learning. Teachers are
adopting e-teaching and they are now comfortably transforming the
normal practices of application, monitoring and evaluation to a new
dimension (Stanojevic et al., 2017). Therefore, the current study aims to
examine secondary school teacher at e-teaching competencies, psycho-
logical status and work motivation during the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.1. Literature review
The teaching with the assistance of ICT tools has been widely used
worldwide, e-teaching is also considered to be efficient, easy-to-use and it
can enhance teaching and learning (Zhou et al., 2020), but it is mainly at
tertiary level education. Moreover, there are problems with the avail-
ability of hardware among teachers and students, and in the internet
systems. Students who are less able and stay in remote areas are more
likely to be unable to enter in the learning group. However, teachers still
have the responsibility to continue the syllabus to maintain the rapport
between teachers and students, so that teachers can understand the ac-
ademic needs of student and help students maintain their motivation to
learn (Sulaiman et al., 2017). The teacher's motivation is very important
2
Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238
because it can encourage teachers to be high in teaching spirits. There-
fore, it is important to study the level of motivation among secondary
school teachers in the face of this Covid-19 situation.
The transition from face-to-face classrooms to online teaching is full
of challenges and stressful, because all teachers need to instantly acquire
new skills in e-teaching (Byrne and Donlan, 2020). Teachers are facing
sudden changes in their pedagogical routines. For instance, students’
responses may not be available immediately and teacher feedback may
not be reached to students immediately. Eventually, teachers need to
spend more time and energy to modify pedagogy strategies, which puts
pressure on teachers. Moreover, according to a research, during the
pandemic, teachers would also face psychological problems such as
stress, anxiety, depression and insomnia due to the pandemic create
havocs in the lives of teachers (Dhawan, 2020). The psychological state
of this teacher is important to ensure that teachers are mentally and
emotionally prepared in the face of difficult and challenging situations.
On the other hand, teachers who are less competent in computer use
have to immediately make themselves competent. This is not that easy
and it take time and energy. Consequently, the process may likely incur
stress, pressure and anxiety too. Being used to face-to-face situation they
can be burdened by difficulty to apply questioning strategies to evaluate
learning and expand students’ imagination and thinking. Techers most
likely feel unhappy for they are not sure about the outcome of what they
are teaching and, it is understandable that teachers can easily get panic
under the circumstance (Merrill, 2020).
However, teachers should understand that the sudden switch of
teaching mode and the implementation of online teaching and learning
may require trial an error basis with constant evaluation and upgrading,
far from conforming to ordinary standard (Merrill, 2020). Despite the
stress and challenges teachers should always remember that this is a
crisis response measure and it is unprecedented (Merrill, 2020). The
emergence of pandemic pedagogy has become necessary and teachers
need to quickly adapt to the changes in teaching methods. The source of
work stress by students’ misbehaviour, task load, time constraints, and
interpersonal relationships and rewards are the factors that contributing
to teacher work stress (Ooi and Ismail., 2015) are now replaced by other
new ones. Thinking about the new challenges and urgent demands may
cause stress to some teachers and, they are simultaneously worried about
the safety and well-being of their family members, and the burden of
overthinking may lead to anxiety and depression (Jadhav, 2020), at
worse, these excessive pressures and stresses may cause burnout, and
affect teaching effectiveness (Ismail, Sulaiman and Roslan, 2020). In
addition, the long-term effects of natural disaster could develop certain
mental health issues, such as stress, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and depression (Gaston et al., 2019).
Similarly, based on the study done by Aperribai et al. (2020), the
teachers' psychological status was definitely affected during MCO, but
the aspects that may be affected have not yet been explored, for instance
e-teaching competencies. Thus, the current study aims to explore the
relationship between teachers’ psychological status and e-teaching
competency, either positively or negatively correlated with the variables
of e-teaching competency. Is there a positive correlation (such as: posi-
tive psychological status is associated to positive competencies in
e-teaching and vice versa) or a negative correlation (such as: positive
psychological status is associated with negative competencies in
e-teaching and vice versa). The present Covid-19 pandemic maybe
causing teachers to experience some mental health issue, which may
directly or indirectly affect their motivation in online teaching during the
MCO period.
In Malaysian case, teachers are reported to have positive attitude
towards the integration of e-learning and e-teaching, but they are not
ready for total transformation to e-teaching and e-learning yet (Ranjit
Singh and Chan, 2014). This is a good sign of positivism and it is inter-
esting to see how the unprecedented enforcement of e-learning due to
Covid-19 affects the teachers in terms of application, monitoring and
evaluation. In this case, the critical factor is the status of teachers’
K.Y. Wong et al.
motivation pertaining to the shift from face-to-face pedagogy to online
pedagogy. Despite all the challenges, it is the motivation and the drive of
the teachers that will ensure the effectiveness and the success of this
sudden e-learning emphasis and, it must be noted that professional stress
and pressure can cause demotivation among teachers (Han and Yin,
2016.) Among others teachers can be demotivated due to conceptuali-
zation and operationalization, pedagogical outcomes, ambiguous roles
and changes of measurement in the pedagogical process.
Therefore, current study applied quantitative research design to
examine secondary school teacher at e-teaching competencies during the
Covid-19 pandemic. This study also aims to examine the psychological
status and work motivation of the secondary school teachers during the
Covid-19 pandemic. In the meantime, numerous studies have adopted
qualitative research approach, but in order to comply with the Standard
Operating Procedure set for MCO to prevent the Covid-19 transmission
chain, online quantitative surveys are more suitable to ensure the safety
of participants and researchers. In addition, the flexibility of qualitative
research methods is low, and it is difficult to recruit participants in the
current epidemic (Eyisi, 2016). Therefore, quantitative research methods
are adopted. Quantitative research approach allows statistical data to be
used as a tool to save energy, reduce time costs and the results present in
data (numbers, percentages, line graphs, bar chart and etc) provide a
straightforward answer to the research questions.
2. Research objective
1. To determine teachers' psychological status (stress, anxiety,
depression) during the Covid-19 outbreak.
2. To determine teachers' competencies in e-teaching (application,
monitoring, evaluation).
3. To determine examine teachers' working motivation.
4. To determine the relationship between secondary school teachers'
psychological status and competencies in e-teaching during Covid-19.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research methodology
This is a descriptive-correlational quantitative survey to determine
teachers’ psychological status, e-teaching competencies and working
motivation during Movement Control Order (MCO) to contain the Covid-
19 pandemic. Quantitative research was chosen because it able to obtain
information about a given phenomenon and because to adhere the
Standard Operating Procedure set for the MCO, online quantitative sur-
vey is suitable to ensure that the safety of participants and researchers
and the subjectivity of the researchers are not affected (Queir os et al.,
2017).
3.2. Sampling and data collection
A total of 595 responses received from the secondary school teachers in
good condition and they are selected via convenient sampling. Conve-
nience sampling could be considered as a limitation of this study, it is a
specific type of non-probability sampling method that could lead to the
under-representation or over-representation of particular groups in the
sample. This limitation undermines the ability to generalize from the
sample to the population (Sulaiman et al., 2021). The data for this study
were collected through an online self-administered survey questionnaire.
The survey questionnaire technique is chosen was due to the advantages it
offers, for instance, time-efficient and flexible, interactivity without
interviewer bias, personalized messages and questions, cost-effectiveness,
targeted sample selection and desensitize sensitive subjects less process-
ing errors (Chang and Vowles, 2013). Since the current study would like to
examine secondary school teachers’ psychological status, e-teaching
competencies and work motivation, therefore similar characteristics of
the participants are captured. The secondary school teacher participated
3
Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238
in the online survey questionnaire are national secondary school teachers
with at least 2 years of teaching experiences, and they are from the same
district (Hulu Langat, Selangor, Malaysia), have experienced Movement
Control Order (MCO), and performed the Pengajaran Dan Pembelajaran Di
Rumah (PdPR) known as Home teaching and learning, during the
Covid-19 outbreak also called e-teaching as described in the current study.
The on-line questionnaires are distributed to all teachers over a
period of two weeks and they are selected through convenience sampling
method. In addition, prior to the data collection for this study, the ethics
permission has been approved by Professor Dr. Muhammad Nazrul
Hakim Abdullah from Malaysia Association of Research and Education
for Educator.
3.3. Instrumentation
The instrument was originally developed in Malay Language, and
three (3) native Malay Language experts were invited to evaluate the
content of the translation instrument to ensure the content validity of the
instrument and the translated instrument tested through pilot tests. The
instrument is divided into 2 parts, the first part includes 4 demographics
part related to the respondents' background, and the second part is to
collect data from the respondents pertaining to their psychological status
(stress, anxiety and depression), e-teaching competencies (teaching,
monitoring and evaluation) and teaching motivation. This instrument
consists of seven (7) constructs; 1) teachers' stress level; 2) teachers'
anxiety level; 3) teachers' depression level; 4) teachers' e-teaching com-
petencies; 5) teachers' monitoring in e-teaching; 6) teachers' evaluation
in e-teaching; and, 7) teachers’ motivation. Each construct consists of ten
(10) items with Likert scale: 1 ¼ Strongly Disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly Agree,
to enable respondents to make the most appropriate choices (Likert,
1932). The Cronbach Alpha value of each construct is presented through
Table 1 below.
Table 1 presents the pilot test Cronbach Alpha values for each
construct of the questionnaire. The pilot test of Cronbach Alpha's
teachers' psychological status (stress, anxiety and depression) and
teaching e-teaching competencies (application, anxiety and evaluation)
are stress (0.906), anxiety (0.920), depression (0.845), application
(0.813), monitoring (0.856), evaluation (0.891) and teachers' working
motivation are (0.957), respectively, with high reliability. This shows
that each variable has a good item and can be used in actual research
(Lim, 2007).
However, for the actual study of the Cronbach Alpha value of each
construct are tested. The first three columns are the constructs of
teachers' psychological status, stress, anxiety and depression, and the
Cronbach Alpha values are .929, .922 and .611 respectively. The next
three columns are the construct pertaining to teachers’ competency in e-
teaching for application, monitoring and evaluation, and the Cronbach
Alpha values are .817, .859 and .881. The last column is the working
motivation of the teachers with Cronbach Alpha value of .964. The
minimum acceptable reliability value is .60 (Hair et al., 2006) and, since
all the constructs range between .611 to .964 which are higher than .60,
so the questionnaire is valid and reliable.
Table 1. Reliability and quantity of items in every construct.
Construct Number of Items Pilot Test Cronbach Alpha
Cronbach Alpha
Stress 10 items 0.906 0.929
Anxiety 10 items 0.920 0.922
Depression 10 items 0.845 0.611
Application 10 items 0.813 0.817
Monitoring 10 items 0.856 0.859
Evaluation 10 items 0.891 0.881
Working Motivation 10 items 0.957 0.964
TOTAL 70 items
K.Y. Wong et al. Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238

3.4. Data analysis

Table 3. Psychological status and e-teachning on teachers’ work motivation
during the movement control order (MCO).
In the current study, SPSS 25 (software) was applied for data analyze.
In quantitative data analyses, the researcher applies statistics to analyse Variable Mean Standard deviation (SD)
as statistics is a mathematical procedure (Creswell, 2011). The statistical Stress 2.71 0.8435
measures such as Cronbach's alpha, means, percentage and standard Anxiety 2.82 0.7470
deviation were employed to analyze the data to obtain the value of the Depression 2.75 0.5247
school teachers' psychological status, e-teaching competencies and Application 2.87 0.5644
teaching motivation. Consequently, a Pearson correlation table was Monitoring 3.19 0.5877
created to show the analysis of the school teachers' psychological status Evaluation 3.25 0.5534
and competencies in e-teaching. Work Motivation 3.36 0.7376

4. Findings
and teacher's work motivation has the highest mean scores among vari-
As stated early, the respondents in the current research are secondary able which is 3.36. The overall mean value of each variables is higher
school teachers who currently provide services at government secondary than the mean value of 2.5, but all are less than 3.5. Therefore, it can be
schools. Nonetheless, Table 2 is describing the demographic variable inferred that the teachers' psychological factors in stress, anxiety and
from these 595 secondary schools' teachers. There are 87 male teachers depressed are moderate, the teachers' competencies in e-teaching is
(14.6%) and 508 female teacher (85.4%) participating in this current moderate as well as teachers' working motivations is also in the moderate
research. In addition, the age of these teacher is 21–50 years old and level (according to Table 4).
above. Among them, there are 34 (5.7%) teachers are between 21 to 29 Table 5: Mean and standard deviation for psychological status (stress,
years old, and 164 (27.6%) teachers are between 30 to 39 years old, there anxiety, depression).
are 210 (35.3%) teachers aged between 40 to 49 years old, and the Table 5.1, Table 5.2, and Table 5.3 lists the mean and standard de-
remaining 187 (31.4%) teacher are over 50 years old. Along with, viation of the respondents' psychological status and pertains to the first
teachers experience in teaching also obtained, between a year to fifteen research question, to determine teachers’ psychological status (stress,
years, only 37 (6.2%) teachers have a teaching experience less than 5 anxiety, depression) during the Covid-19 outbreak.
years, there are 48 (8.1%) teachers with 5–9 years of teaching experi- First, according to Table 5.1, the overall mean score of teachers' stress
ence, 135 (22.7%) teachers with 10–14 years of teaching experience and level is 2.71 (SD ¼ .305). At the same time, according to Table 5.2, the
375 (63.0%) also the most participant has above 15 years of teaching overall mean score of teachers' anxiety level is 2.82 (SD ¼ .482), hence,
experience. Majority teachers’ obtained an undergraduate degree with the overall teachers' depression level is 2.75 (SD ¼ .832). Therefore,
491 (82.5%), Master degree, 100 (16.8) and only 4 (0.7%) teachers ob- according to Table 5.1, Table 5.2, and Table 5.3, compared with stress,
tained a PhD. anxiety and depression, the mean of teachers’ psychological status in
Table 3 is the teachers' responses regarding their psychological status, anxiety level is the highest, whilst the mean score of stress is the lowest.
such as stress, anxiety and depression, as well as their competencies in e- However, the difference between the mean score of stress and depression
teaching regard application, monitoring and evaluation and teachers' is only a slight difference of 0.04. Correspondingly, there are two points
motivation to work. These responses answer to the first research ques- more than three, these are teachers feel pressure due to they feel many
tion, to determine teachers' psychological status (stress, anxiety, barriers (mean ¼ 3.21) and they are experiencing “excessive thinking”
depression) during the Covid-19 outbreak and the result would be pre- (mean ¼ 3.17).
sented by the mean scores in Table 3, with the lowest mean in psycho- Likewise, the highest mean score of anxiety factor among the teachers
logical status variable, stress (2.71), follow by depression (2.75) and during the period of MCO. The factors that causes teachers to worry is
anxiety (2.82). Also according to Table 3, the second research question, that teachers “worry about themselves and their family” (mean ¼ 3.77),
to determine teachers' competencies in e-teaching (application, moni- which higher than the 3.5 score on Table 5.2, and another factor close to
toring, evaluation) show is having lowest mean scores in application 3.5 score is that teachers' become “sensitive to sad news” (mean ¼ 3.44).
(2.87), monitoring (3.19) and evaluation (3.25). However, the third However, an extreme low mean score item is a reverse item about teacher
research question is to determine examine teachers' working motivation, able to keep “rational thinking (-)”, therefore, on average, rational
thinking is not an important factor that contribute to teachers’ anxiety.
Whereas, Table 5.3 is describing the teachers' depression emotion
Table 2. Demographic variable.
during the MCO. There are three highest points in the table, but two
items have a mean score higher than 4.00 and one item has the mean
Demographic Respondent Frequency % score higher than 3.5. The item mean score of 4.00 and above is describe
Gender Male 87 14.6 averagely teachers depress because of “I'm always positive about what's
Female 508 85.4 going on” (mean ¼ 4.01) and “I'm always looking forward to doing the
Total 595 100.0 daily” (mean ¼ 4.00). Following the item above the 3.5 is “I feel less
Age 21–29 34 5.70 happy with the current situation” (mean ¼ 3.75).
30–39 164 27.6
Table 6: Mean and standard deviation for e-teaching competencies
40–49 210 35.3
50 above 187 31.4 (application, monitoring, evaluation).
Total 595 100.0
Table 6.1, Table 6.2, and Table 6.3 is presents the mean and standard
Work Experience 2–4 years 37 6.20
deviation of the respondents' e-teaching competencies. In regards to the
second research question, through tables 6, to determine teachers' com-
5–9 years 48 8.10
10–14 years 135 22.70 petencies in e-teaching (application, monitoring, evaluation), as each
15 years and above 375 63.0 mean and standard deviation shows from each item construct items of the
Total 595 100.0 e-teaching competencies' variable. Table 6 shows that the overall mean
Qualification Bachelor 491 82.5 score of teachers' competencies in application e-teaching is 2.86 (SD ¼
Master 100 16.8 .473), while the overall mean score of teachers' competencies to monitor
PhD 4 0.70 through e-teaching is 3.19 (SD ¼ .351), also the overall teachers' com-
Total 595 100.0 petencies in evaluation through e-teaching is 3.25 (SD ¼ .42). Therefore,

4
K.Y. Wong et al. Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238

Table 4. Determines the psychological level (stress, anxiety and depression) e-teaching competencies (application, monitoring and evaluation) and working motivation.

Mean Scale Mean Level Mean Mean Mean Depression Mean Mean Mean Mean Working Motivation
Stress Anxious Application Monitoring Evaluation
1.00–2.33 Low
2.34–3.67 Moderate 2.71 2.82 2.75 2.87 3.19 3.25 3.36
3.68–5.00 High

Table 5.1. Mean and standard deviation for stress. Table 6.1. Mean and standard deviation for e-teaching application.

Items Mean SD Items Mean SD

Feeling uneasy 2.87 1.201 Suitable for all 2.77 1.024
Tend to overreact 2.35 1.258 Suitable small groups 2.22 .794
Too anxious 2.44 1.065 Problem-based teaching 3.27 .875
Feel irritated easily 2.55 1.103 Ideal platform 3.36 .867
Feeling calm 2.43 .881 Stimulate student creativity 3.33 .856
Many barriers 3.21 1.054 Get feedback easily 2.79 1.282
Easily offended 2.54 .983 Active involvement 2.76 .917
Excessive thinking 3.17 1.069 Not focus 2.35 .785
Difficult to focus 2.82 1.045 Difficulty delivery lesson 2.26 .819
Emotions change quickly 2.76 1.068 Interesting and fun 3.44 .765
Total-STRESS 2.71 .305 Total-APPLICATION 2.86 .473

Table 5.2. Mean and standard deviation for anxiety. Table 6.2. Mean and standard deviation for e-teaching monitoring.

Items Mean SD Items Mean SD

Worry about myself and my family 3.77 .947 Identify easily 3.59 .860
Sudden panic 2.63 .972 Appropriate for all 3.49 .794
Rational thinking 2.01 .576 Students attendance 3.78 .733
Feeling scared suddenly 2.70 .993 Teaching materials 3.14 .868
Tired easily 2.81 1.015 Communicate easily 3.20 .877
No energy 2.79 1.001 Good interaction 3.10 .846
Scary things thought 2.73 1.050 Ensured student participation 2.55 .979
Focus is diminish 2.82 1.036 Complete assignments 2.99 .950
Sensitive to sad news 3.44 .972 Assignment submission on time 3.05 .953
Confused easily 2.51 1.045 Student can follow 3.02 .876
Total-ANXIETY 2.82 .482 Total-MONITORING 3.19 .351

Table 5.3. Mean and standard deviation for depression. Table 6.3. Mean and standard deviation for e-teaching evaluation.

Items Mean SD Items Mean SD

Not interested for daily activities 2.52 .984 Various platform 3.57 .741
Being positive 4.01 .671 Easy conduct 3.16 .826
Feel hopeless 2.01 .864 Easily keep track 3.27 .850
Sudden sadness 2.36 1.006 Classroom-based 3.36 .864
Act as usual 2.27 1.479 Students cooperate 3.01 .857
Unhappy with current situation 3.75 .868 Provide rubric 3.37 .798
Don't want to talk 2.24 .981 Preparation took times 2.18 .739
Angry easily 2.37 1.610 Refer easily 3.51 .791
Looking forward daily life 4.00 1.369 Easily evaluate 3.46 .793
Not interested to know 1.91 .883 Save and review easily 3.61 .750
Total-DEPRESSION 2.75 .832 Total-EVALUATION 3.25 .42

according to Table 6.1, Table 6.2, and Table 6.3, compare with the
teachers’ e-teaching competencies mean score in application, moni-
toring, and evaluation the mean score of evaluation is the highest, whilst
the mean score of application e-teaching is the lowest. However, the
different between monitoring and evaluation mean scores is just a
different of 0.06.
However, there is a positive sign that teacher can conduct e-teaching
during the MCO. Regarding to the highest mean score of the perspective
in application e-teaching, and the highest mean score is perceiving e-
teaching is “fun and interesting” (mean ¼ 3.44), following by the factor
of teachers feel e-teaching is the “ideal platform on-line teaching” (mean
¼ 3.36), e-teaching enable teachers “implement teaching activities that

5
K.Y. Wong et al. Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238

stimulate student creativity” (mean ¼ 3.33) and “problem-based teach-

ing activities can be conducted” (mean ¼ 3.27). However, the two low Table 7. Mean and standard deviation for work motivation.
mean score item is reverse item “On-line teaching is suitable for small Items Mean SD
groups” (mean ¼ 2.22) and “Teachers find it difficult to deliver well- Fun and interesting 3.16 .907
organized and organized teaching” (mean ¼ 2.26). Confident in usage 3.19 .851
In addition, the highest mean score of the item in e-teaching moni- Easy to use 3.23 .880
toring, several factors are higher than the mean score of 3.5, there is
Motivation for further teaching 3.33 .864
teachers can more easily "recognize the student's attendance/participa-
Develop my profession 3.62 .841
tion in Google Classroom" (mean ¼ 3.78) and "easily identify students
Make the work more systematic 3.38 .848
actively participating in the meeting" (mean ¼ 3.59). However, the
Get more creative 3.56 .832
lowest man score is teacher difficulty in make all the student participant
Satisfied using 3.26 .870
in class discussions (mean ¼ 2.55).
Easier to manage 3.33 .813
When teaching take place, evaluation would be taking place as well.
Will continue to be use 3.46 .852
However, through e-teaching, the mean value of teachers’ competencies
in e-teaching evaluation is 3.25. Table 6 is regarding the mean and Total-WORK MOTIVATION 3.35 .152

standard deviation of e-teaching in evaluation. Regarding the highest

mean of the perspective in e-teaching evaluation, several factors is above
the mean of 3.5. First, the highest mean value of teachers towards e-
Table 8. Pearson correlation between psychological status and competencies in
teaching evaluation is “easy to save and review” (mean ¼ 3.61),
e-teaching.
following by teacher use a “variety of platforms to evaluate learning”
(mean ¼ 3.57) and “teachers can easily refer to my friends when pre- Variables/Dimension e-Teaching Application Monitoring Evaluation

paring materials for e-evaluation” (mean ¼ 3.51).
Last but not least, Table 7 pertained to the third research question, to
determine examine teachers' working motivation. The overall e-teaching
of teachers' teaching motivation is the highest, with a mean value of
3.35. According to the table, teachers' teaching motivations are all
higher than the mean value of 3. Table 7 is regarding the mean and
standard deviation of teacher motivation to work during the MCO.
Pertaining to the highest and lowest mean of the perspective in teachers'
working motivation, the highest mean is teachers’ teaching motivation
is “developed my professionalism as an educator” (mean ¼ 3.62), where
lowest mean is teachers find it fun and more interested in using e-
teaching (mean ¼ 3.16).
Table 8 showed the relationship between psychological status and
competency e-teaching during COVID-19 among teachers. Besides, the
Table also reported the relationship between dimension of psychological
status (stress, anxiety and depression) and competency e-teaching
(application, monitoring and evaluating). Overall, the result showed a
negative relationship between psychological status and competency e-
teaching (0.286, p < 0.01), as well as reported a negative relationship
between dimension of psychological status and competency e-teaching.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The current study was conducted during the Movement Control Order
(MCO) in preventing towards the epidemic Covid-19 outbreak. During
the period of MCO, schooling has been break off, academics have been
interrupted, yet, teaching and learning has shifted to online classroom.
Findings from the study indicated that, during the MCO, the teachers'
psychological status highest mean is anxiety, depressed and stress. Even
though anxiety is an inseparable part of people's daily life (Sulaiman
et al., 2013), during the Covid-19 outbreak, based on the findings, the
teachers feel angst the most is due to the worried about themselves and
family members. However, the highest mean value of depression is “I'm
always positive about what's going on” and “I'm always looking forward
to doing the daily” these item projects show that teachers are still have
positive thinking during MCO. After this, teachers “feel less happy with
the current”, the anxious and depression level in line with Jadhav (2020),
MCO leads to isolation oneself, therefore, being far away from family
could lead to overthinking and consequent teachers feel anxiety and
depression among teachers. Above all, from the current findings, the
teachers' source of stress is “obstacles” and “overloaded of thinking”,
because e-teaching has become a mandatory requirement to the current
pandemic pedagogy, however, this new practice would lead to an in-
crease in the amount of task load and influence teachers stress level (Ooi
and Ismail., 2015).
Psychological Status -0.286** -0.296** -0.186** -0.290**
Stress -0.293** -0.306** -0.197** -0.286**
Anxiety -0.275** -0.284** -0.181** -0.276**
Depression -0.194** -0.196** -0.112** -0.216**
N ¼ 595; **p < 0.01.
For e-teaching competencies for application, monitoring and evalu-
ation, this study finds that application has lower mean scores compared
to monitoring and evaluation. This situation cuts across the group but the
range between the highest and the lowest score is small, which means
they generally have the same problem and more or less at the same level.
There seem to be the issue of choosing and operating the various tools
among respondents. They seem to struggle using and application the
applications or tool but they can monitor and evaluate the learning
process well. Monitoring and Evaluation it is quite surprising that these
two have higher mean scores. This may be due to their competencies to
synthesize and adapt the normal teaching and learning procedures into e-
learning mode. Teachers maybe applying suitable and reasonable ways of
evaluation to suit the situation. Teachers competencies to make appro-
priate adjustments enable monitoring and evaluation to function
accordingly.
The findings of e-teaching implication concurs with Unal and Unal
(2012) view that good teachers must provide effective and conducive
environment for optimal learning and ready with preventive problems
strategies help ensure good learning. Ministry of Education Malaysia also
published to manual of teaching and learning at home to help teachers
carry out teaching and learning at home as an alternative learning of new
norms (Ministry of Education, 2020). At the same time, the schools also
need to carry out a professional development course to exposes teachers
with the new norm in e-teaching. In addition, the study found that during
the MCO, teacher competencies in application, monitoring and evalua-
tion e-teaching, the highest mean value was that teachers found
e-teaching to be “fun and interesting”, and teachers is getting easier and
capable to identify student attendant in e-teaching. At the same time,
teacher able to utilize in e-teaching, teacher also find evaluation records
are easier to refer and save. In contrast with Ranjit Singh and Chan
(2014), from the current research, teachers seem to able to conduct
comprehensive and fully e-teaching right now.
Likewise, the impact of natural disaster and prolonged disaster could
cause people emotion down (Gaston et al., 2019). During the outbreak of
COVID-19, teachers' psychological status was at a moderate level and
competencies in conduct e-teaching lesson is also at the moderate level.
Fortunately, teachers’ work motivation is also moderate and it is the
highest overall mean among the variables. Starting from the highest item

6
K.Y. Wong et al.
“e-teaching has developed my professional as an educator”, this indicates
that the findings imply that e-teaching provide teachers with professional
development opportunities (Toropova et al., 2020), this showed teacher
are in a very positive motivation in teaching through e-teaching even
though in the circumstance of epidemic Covid-19.
Besides, the study finds working motivation on e-learning for
pandemic pedagogy is moderate on the higher end, with the highest
score of 3.47 and the lowest is 3.35. This is a good indicator that e-
teaching and learning is going to get better and improving despite the
challenges. With positive and strong motivation all challenges might be
dealt with effectively and sooner e-learning will be smoother and more
effective though it may not be able to equate face-to-face sessions. Inef-
fectiveness or effectiveness of teaching caused by teachers’ motivation
(Busbyet al, 2012), the basic energy and drive that move people to do
something. In the context of the study, despite the complexity of the
challenges due to contextual and situational factors that need immediate
comprehension (Han and Yin 2016) teachers are hanging on fine. This
might due to their educations (Van Der Vijver, 2007; Palmer et al., 2019)
and computer knowledge and skills that enable them to evaluate the
situation rationally, as mentioned by Podolsky et al. (2019).
Besides, the study shows a negative relationship between psycho-
logical status and competency e-teaching, as well as reported a negative
relationship between dimension of psychological status and competency
e-teaching. This results indicates that the lower psychological status can
enhance the competency of e-teaching, involving application, monitoring
and evaluating among teachers during COVID-19.
Excessive pressures and stress can lead to teacher burnout (Ismail,
Sulaiman and Roslan, 2020) and supported by Aperribai et al. (2020),
during the MCO, variables related to teaching and teacher's personal
conditions are having an impact on teachers' psychological status. Hence,
the findings of the current study indicate that there is a negative corre-
lation between the variables of the teachers' psychological status and
e-teaching competency during the Covid-19 pandemic. Which is the
lower psychological status (such as: stress, anxiety and depression) can
have a positive impact on e-teaching competency.
Overall, the study shows that e-teaching during Covid-19 pandemic is
promising though every teacher is caught by surprise and overwhelmed.
Though they face stress, anxiety and depression but it is at moderate
level, and they are not deterred from fulfilling their responsibility.
Despite of that e-teaching is conducted effectively by teachers at mod-
erate level on the higher end due to team spirit and cooperation among
teachers. It is also driven by strong motivation among teachers to carry
out their responsibilities. Last but not least, a negative correlation was
determined between Malaysia secondary school teachers’ psychological
status and competencies in e-teaching during Covid-19.
6. Limitations and implications
This study has identified several important implications for educators
as well as educator stakeholders. It is remarkable to concern on the
teachers' psychological level especially in the teachers' anxiety. As regard
to the Covid-19 outbreak, teachers as normal human being are dealing
with the stressful environments at the same time adapting their skills to
the new teaching norms. In addition, teachers' e-teaching competencies
in e-teaching application, monitoring and evaluation are at a moderate
level but contrary to the psychological status, it ought to find ways to
improve the competencies in e-teaching as well as promote the work
motivation. Even the survey findings indicate that stress, anxiety and
depression are at a moderate level, but it is important to prevent any
possibility that may increase the teachers' level of stress, anxiety and
depression. This is to ensure that teachers’ competencies in e-teaching
maintain at a better level, at least during this unpredictable conditions
during the Covid-19 pandemic.
This study has its limitations. This study is included only Selangor
teachers and given that the information obtained from the study was
gather from secondary schools, the generalizability might be limited. The
7
Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238
current study applied convenience sampling as a non-probability sam-
pling technique conducted in this study. Future studies can consider
random sampling or probable sampling techniques to undermine the
generalizations from the sample to the population Moreover, a more
comprehensive study is advisable in order to get a clearer picture of
interconnectedness, relationship and influence of various variables on
pandemic pedagogy in Malaysia.
Last but not least, future research may consider expanding the scope
from secondary schools to primary schools' teachers and then to uni-
versity lecturers. Perhaps the scope is expanding, so more information
could be obtaining and help researchers understand the teachers' com-
petencies in e-teaching, psychological status and work motivation. In this
way, future school crisis management could provide recommendations
and prevent teachers’ attrition. In addition, beside descriptive qualitative
methods, further research may include multivariate statistics to enable
obtain better understanding from these constructs provided from the
teachers along the study.
Declarations
Author contribution statement
Kai Yan Wong and Tajularipin Sulaiman: Conceived and designed the
experiments.
Abdul Gaffar Kunchi Mohd: Performed the experiments.
Omrah Hassan @Hussin: Performed the experiments; Wrote the
paper.
Amalina Ibrahim and Wan Marzuki Wan Jaafar: Contributed re-
agents, materials, analysis tools or data.
Funding statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability statement
The data that has been used is confidential.
Declaration of interests statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Supplementary content related to this article has been published
online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08238.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks Malaysia Association of Research
and Education for Educators (MAsREE) for conducting of this study based
on investigation the effect of e-evaluation on work motivation among
teachers during the Movement Control Order in COVID-19. The authors
are grateful for the contributions of Malaysia teachers and educational
psychology and pedagogy.
References
Al-Awidi, H., Aldhafeeri, F., 2017. Teachers’ readiness to implement digital curriculum in
Kuwaiti schools. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 16, 105–126. Retrieved from. http://www
.informingscience.org/Publications/3685.
Ali, W., 2020. Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: a necessity in
light of COVID-19 pandemic. High Educ. Stud. 10 (3), 16–25.
 2020. Teacher’s physical
Aperribai, L., Cortabarria, L., Aguirre, T., Verche, E., Borges, A.,
activity and mental health during lockdown due to the covid-2019 pandemic. Front.
Psychol. 11.
K.Y. Wong et al.
Busby, R., Iingram, R., Bowron, R., Oliver, J., Lyons, B., 2012. Teaching elementary
children with autism: addressing teachers; challenges and preparation needs. Rural
Educat. 33 (2), 27–35.
Byrne, V.L., Donlan, A.E., 2020. Formative Feedback on On-Line Teaching: Tools for
Pandemic Pedagogy (Pandemigogy). Retrieved 24 April, 2020, from. https://nobaproje
ct.com/blog/2020-04-29-formative-feedback-on-online-teaching-tools-for-pandemic-
pedagogy-i-e-pandemigogy.
Chang, T.Z.D., Vowles, N., 2013. Strategies for improving data reliability for online
surveys: a case study. Int. J. Electron. Commer. Stud. 4 (1), 121–130.
Creswell, J.W., 2011. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. In: The Process of Conducting Research Using
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Pearson, United State (4th Eds.).
Daniel, S.J., 2020. Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects 49, 91–96.
Dhawan, S., 2020. Online learning: a panacea in the time of Covid-19 Crisis. J. Educ.
Technol. Syst. 49 (1), 5–22.
Eyisi, D., 2016. The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in
researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. J. Educ. Pract. 7
(15), 91–100.
Gaston, S.A., Galea, S., Cohen, G.H., Kwok, R.K., Rung, A.,L., Peters, E.S., Jackson, C.L.,
2019. Potential impact of 2020 US decennial census data collection on disaster
preparedness and population mental health. Am. J. Publ. Health 109 (8), 1079–1083.
Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate
Data Analysis, sixth ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Han, J.Y., Yin, H.B., 2016. Teacher motivation: definition, research development and
implication for teachers. Cogent Edu. 3 (1).
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A., 2020. The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educ. Rev. 27. Retrieved from. https
://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-betweenemergency-remote-te
aching-and-online-learning.
Ismail, A.A., Sulaiman, T., Roslan, S., 2020. Models of relationship between emotional,
spiritual, physical and social intelligence, resilience and burnout among high school
teachers. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 8 (1A), 1–7.
Jadhav, V.V., 2020. Health education: during lockdown. Int. J. Phys. Edu. Sports Health 7
(2), 143–146.
Likert, R., 1932. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of psychology.
Lim, C.H., 2007. Penyelidikan Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif Dan Kualitatif.
McGraw-Hill Education.
McCarthy, N., 2020. COVID-19's Staggering Impact on Global Education. Retrieved 13
April, 2020, from. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/infographic-co
vid19-coronavirus- impact-global-education-health-schools/.
Merrill, S., 2020. Teaching through a Pandemic: A Mindset for This Moment.
Ministry of Education, 2020. Manual Teaching and Learning at Home. https://www.m
oe.gov.my/muat-turun/lain-lain/manual-pdp-di-rumah/3728-slaid-manual-pdpdr/file.
Murphy, M.P.A., 2020. Covid-19 and Emergency E-Learning: Consequences of Securitization
of Higher Education for Post-Pandemic Pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy.
8
Heliyon 7 (2021) e08238
Ooi, C.H., Ismail, Aziah, 2015. Schools’ upper management support towards teachers’
work stress in National Schools and Chinese National Schools. Jurnal Kepimpinan
Pendidikan 2 (2), 42–57.
Palmer, C., Cruikshank, V., Drummond, M., Rei, D., 2019. Male School Teachers,
Masculinity and Identity Work in Regional Australia. Sport Education and Society.
Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Darling-Hammond, L., 2019. Does teaching experience increase
teachers’ effectiveness? A review of US Research.
Queiros, A., Faria, D., Almeida, F., 2017. Strengths and limitations of qualitative and
quantitative research methods. Eur. J. Edu. Stud. 3 (9), 369–387.
Ranjit Singh, T.K., Chan, S., 2014. Teacher readiness on ict integration in teaching-
learning: a Malaysian case study. Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci. 4 (7), 874–885.
Stanojevic, D., Stankovic, Z., Maksimovic, J., 2017. Electronic evaluation in teaching
class: assessment value of educational software. Teach. Learn. Teach. Educ. 1 (2),
185–197.
Sulaiman, T., Ibrahim, A., Motevalli, S., Wong, K.Y., Hakim, M.N., 2021. Effect of E-
Evaluation on Work Motivation Among Teachers during the Movement Control Order
in COVID-19: the Mediating Role of Stress. Interactive Technology and Smart
Education.
Sulaiman, T., Kuppusamy, S.K., Mohd Ayub, A.F., Abdul Rahim, S.S., 2017.
Relationship between critical thinking disposition and teaching efficacy among
special education integration program teachers in Malaysia. AIP Conf. Proc. 1795,
020027-1–020027-8.
Sulaiman, T., Motevalli, S., Roslan, S., Hamzah, S.G., Hassan, N.C., Garmjani, M.G., 2013.
New study skills training intervention for students who suffer from test anxiety. Asian
Soc. Sci. 9 (7), 85–96.
Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., Johansson, S., 2020. Teacher job satisfaction: the importance
of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educ. Rev. Retrieved 24
April, 2020.
Unal, Z., Unal, A., 2012. The impact of years of teaching experience on the classroom
management approaches of elementary school teachers. Online Submiss. 5 (2),
41–60.
Van Der Vijver, F.J.R., 2007. Cultural and gender differences in gender-role beliefs,
sharing household tasks, and child-care responsibilities and well-being among
immigrants and the majority members in The Netherlands. Sex. Roles 57,
813–824.
Yao, J., Rao, J., Jiang, T., Xiong, C., 2020a. What role should teachers play in online
teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from China. Sci. Insights Edu.
Front. 5 (2), 517–524.
Yao, J., Rao, J., Jiang, T., Xiong, C., 2020b. What role should teachers play in online
teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from China. Sci. Insights Edu.
Front. 5 (2), 517–524.
Zhou, L., Li, F., Wu, S., Zhou, M., 2020. School’s out, but class’s on, the largest online
education in the World today: Taking China’s practical exploration during the
COVID-19 epidemic prevention and control as an example. Best Evid. Chin. 4 (2),
501–519.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 5 - 8, 2021

School Readiness in the New Normal Era of Online Teaching

and Learning at Junior High School
Agung Suharyanto
Public Administration Study Program, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,
Universitas Medan Area, Indonesia
agungsuharyanto@staff.uma.ac.id

Rezky Fernanda
Department of Pancasila and Citizenship Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara, North Sumatra, Indonesia
rezkyfernanda13@gmail.com

Jamaludin & Hodriani

Department of Pancasila and Citizenship Education, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Universitas Negeri Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia
jamaludin@unimed.ac.id & hodriani@unimed.ac.id

Wiflihani
Music Education Study Program, Faculty of Language and Art,
Universitas Negeri Medan, North Sumatera, Indonesia
wiflihani@unimed.ac.id

Ahmad Muhajir
Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara, North Sumatera, Indonesia
ahmadmuhajir.history@gmail.com

Yurial Arief Lubis

Government Science Study Program, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,
Universitas Medan Area, North Sumatera, Indonesia
yurialarief@staff.uma.ac.id

Abstract
This study aims to determine school readiness for the application of online learning (E-learning) at SMP
Muhammadiyah 8 Medan by looking at the factors that affect the increase in the application of E-learning. This is a
quantitative study that uses a questionnaire-formatted instrument. The readiness of teachers and school infrastructure
is the focus of this research. 11 SMP teachers took part in this study and became respondents. Muhammadiyah 8
Medan. The results of this study suggest that there is learning readiness when using E-learning, but it takes habituation
to make online learning more effective.

Keywords: School Readiness, Learning and Teaching Process, E-Learning

1. Introduction
Education is a process that is carried out and organized with a conscious effort by educators and students to be able to
explore and develop potential so that they can achieve the desired goals. The purpose of education has been stated in
(Republic of Indonesia Law No.20 of 2003) which states about the National Education system Chapter II, article 3,
which contains the potential of students to become human beings who believe and have devotion to God Almighty,
have a noble character, healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent and become democratic and

© IEOM Society International 596

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 5 - 8, 2021

responsible citizens. Education in Indonesia is divided into three parts, namely formal, non-formal, informal, formal
education is a clear and structured pathway consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Middle formal
education can be taken to improve the quality of human resources, one of which is SMP (Junior High School) which
can be taken after taking previous education, namely elementary school.

Education plays an important role in national development, so it must be improved in all aspects and keep up with the
times, given the world of education's increasing demands and fast-paced changes. The minister of education,
technology, culture, and research argued that to advance the Indonesian nation, it is necessary to improve the quality
of education for all populations so that the human resources produced can dominate and bring about positive change
(Suharyanto, 2017a; Suharyanto, 2017b). Schools are formal educational institutions that play an important role in the
educational process. Through the learning process in schools, they can choose the method used inappropriate learning
to achieve the educational goals. (Foundation, 2013).

Knowledge is becoming increasingly important in the era of accelerated information and technology because it is the
source required to create human resources with high skills, as well as the principles that are followed, which are also
related to the application of knowledge and technology. The impact of the information era on the world of education
in Indonesia can be assessed well because it provides a change in a good direction from the previous era Suharyanto,
2015; Suharyanto, 2013). Distance and time are no longer an issue when it comes to expanding one's knowledge. The
current technology in the world of education, one of which is the E-Learning learning system, E-Learning technology
is present as a means of supporting education at this time. World conditions and especially in Indonesia are being hit
by the Covid-19 virus outbreak which makes schools unable to carry out learning, as usual, namely face-to-face, so
schools must implement an online learning system.

According to (Stockley, 2003) \"E-Learning can be used as a solution with the current situation where E-Learning is
present to bring a new color in the changes in the education system. E-Learning (electronic learning) is one aspect of
the application of technology and information at a school institution, E-Learning is defined as the delivery of learning
content or learning experiences electronically using computers or cellphones, or computer-based media.

However, the provision of technology infrastructure and human resource training does not guarantee the success of
E-Learning, organizational culture and leadership factors have a major influence on the success of E-Learning. Several
other researchers also define it with almost the same meaning, According to (Clark, R, & Mayer, R., 2011) stating that
we define E-Learning as instruction delivered on digital devices such as computers or mobile devices that support
learning. Similar statements were conveyed by Ong and his friends. His instructional content or learning experiences
were conveyed or activated by electronic technology (Ong C,-S, Lai, J., & Wang Y, 2004). "Another argument states
that the implementation of E-Learning is expected to improve the quality of education. To compete, schools must be
able to adapt and adopt E-Learning. According to the opinion (Wannemacher, K., 2006), this is the same as the opinion
(Gotthardt, 2006) states that the use of technology in learning can create a competitive environment, students and
teachers become more creative and innovative.

Learning is essentially a process that must be student-centered, which means that students must process knowledge or
take an active role in seeking and finding knowledge themselves (Eveline, 2010). the implementation of E-Learning
is expected to improve the quality of education. To compete, schools must be able to adapt and adopt E-Learning.
According to the opinion (Wannemacher, K., 2006), this is the same as the opinion (Gotthardt, 2006) states that the
use of technology in learning can create a competitive environment, students and teachers become more creative and
innovative. cost-effective because it does not require many tools, and electronic-based learning methods (E-Learning)
are considered capable of complementing conventional learning that has been taking place.

E-Learning is an educational or learning activity that utilizes network and multimedia technology in delivering
material (Rusman, 2012; Wijoyo, 2020) Stating that E-Learning is the application of electronic communication,
education and training activities that have characteristics. 1) Interactivity, 2) Independence, 3) Accessibility, 4)
Enrichment. Continued (Wirastwan G., 2005) Defining E-Learning as a form of information technology applied in
the field of education in the form of a virtual school. The use of information technology can be combined with a direct
or face-to-face learning process in class. Many educational institutions have used electronic learning as a method in
achieving the goals of education. Not only domestic institutions that use this learning method, including Germany,
England, France, the United States, Italy, Singapore, London.

© IEOM Society International 597

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 5 - 8, 2021

Rusman (2012), further argued that E-Learning can have a positive impact on learning material access activities in its
application in a school. Students can use e-learning to access any information that has been taught by teachers from
anywhere, without having to wait for class meetings. When a teacher is unable to attend or is unable to oversee his
students, the teacher can use online learning to ensure that students do not lose out on the learning materials that the
teacher will deliver. Furthermore, online learning can be utilized as an enrichment program for students who do not
understand the material previously transmitted by the teacher in the classroom teaching and learning process, and it
may also be utilized to complement classroom learning.

In addition to the many advantages obtained by online learning in schools, there are also drawbacks from this online
learning, namely because of the lack of socialization between teachers and students or between schools. Because the
learning process is carried out online, it means that the geographical location is different from each use, this can be
overcome by not eliminating the learning system in the classroom and giving group assignments in online classes so
that students can communicate with each other and can also work together and share opinions other. But not
necessarily online learning can be used directly in a school environment, the success or failure of online learning
depends on how the learning process experienced by students while implementing learning using the E-Learning
system.

Slameto revealed that in the learning process that was experienced and the most influential thing for this educational
goal was what took place, one of the factors was the psychological factor in it, namely readiness (Slameto, 2013).
Readiness is the overall condition of a person that makes him ready to give a response or be able to provide an answer
in a certain way to a situation. Furthermore, Slameto stated that the factors in education are divided into five types,
namely, 1) objective factors, 2) educator factors, 3) student factors, 4) factors of tools, 5) natural factors surrounding
it (Sutari, 1995). Explaining the educator factors, one of which is the learning system that will be used in the teaching
and learning process, the student factor is one of which is closely related to the readiness of the teaching and learning
process, because without the readiness of students (Teddy & Swatman, 2006)

The test method in the E-Learning development approach is critical since the outcomes of the analysis will define the
next development stage. As a result, determining the next steps in the development of E-Learning requires a thorough
examination of e-learning readiness. E-learni ng preparedness is divided into three categories: student preparedness,
teacher preparedness, and organizational readiness of teachers, and infrastructure at school.

According to Jamaludin, Teaching and learning process readiness (PBM) in the new normal era, during the emergency
response period like this, there are many things that teachers can do to make the distance learning program successful
or remote learning with the term "Learning at home". Following the health protocol from the government so that the
world of academic education seeks to build cooperation with various parties that focus on developing an online
education system (in the network) because all parties have a big responsibility to ensure the continuity of the process
of running the education of the nation's children (Jamaludin 2020). In remote learning, many online learning
applications can be applied in the world of new normal education at this time, for example, WhatsApp or google
Classroom is used by teachers to be used as tools or online learning media used during the teaching and learning
process in the new era. normal at this point (Jamaludin et al, 2020; Gusty et al, 2020).

SMP Muhammadiyah 8 Medan is one of the junior high schools that are widely known by the wider community with
good achievements and facilities, this SMP is one of the most advanced schools characterized by fairly complete
facilities including good classrooms, laboratories, field, prayer room, and other facilities which are classified as good.
One of the facilities in the SMP is Wifi which is intended for students and all employees at the school, this wifi facility
is one of the technologies that allows students and educators to access all the learning needs needed via the internet.
This Wifi makes it easier to access the internet anywhere and anytime, of course, in a school environment. expected
to broaden the knowledge of students and educators.

However, the school does not yet have a forum for students and educators to exchange materials or teaching materials
when the teacher is unable to attend school, and there is no direct feedback on the assignments given by the teacher to
students online. Based on the results of direct observations in the field, the principal of SMP Muhammadiyah 8 Medan
wishes to take advantage of existing facilities by implementing E-learning but is constrained by the lack of readiness
from s
hool.

© IEOM Society International 598

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 5 - 8, 2021

Knowing the level of readiness for online learning that will be used, it is hoped that the school will be able to determine
the next steps that the school will take, the level of readiness in each category being tested in addition to knowing the
overall level of readiness, it can also be seen that the readiness category is still very low. The low category's level of
preparedness will be in a low category will be followed up and the level of readiness in the high category will be
maintained.

2. Research Method
The method used in this research is a quantitative descriptive research method that tries to find appropriate and
sufficient explanations of all activities, objects, and teaching and learning processes, so by collecting facts and
identifying data, and strengthening it with a questionnaire instrument containing a series of questions about a problem
or field. which will be researched, distributed to respondents, namely all teachers in the school to obtain data that will
be used as relevant information. The data obtained from the questionnaire were then analyzed using measuring
instruments using the product-moment.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Teacher Readiness for the Online Teaching and Learning Process
The results of the score in teacher readiness reached 33% lower than the previous factor, but based on the ELR rating
scale, the score has reached the target category ready and E-learning can be used, but some improvement is required.
Among the indicators in this category are: The teacher is aware of what E-learning is. E-learning is viewed positively
by teachers as a means of improving teaching and learning outcomes. Teachers believe the time is right for online
learning, especially since the pandemic is far from over. Teachers are eager to integrate and collaborate with E-
learning. The teacher is prepared to use Google Classroom to prepare the material for learning to take place.

From the indicators above, ten questions are described in determining teacher readiness. These questions include, Q1:
teacher knowledge about E-learning, Q2: the usefulness of E-learning in improving the teaching and learning process,
Q3: the need for implementing E-learning, Q4: the readiness of E-learning integration in classroom learning, Q5: the
ability of teachers to use computers and the basic internet, Q6: the ability of teachers in following the instructions on
the computer screen, Q8: the teacher's ability to use technology, Q9: the difficulty of the teacher getting internet
access: and Q10: the cooperation of teachers with students in completing assignments.

Table. 1 Score of Data Teacher Readiness

Question Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10
Total score 41 42 40 47 40 45 43 41 38 39
Total score factor 416
Mean per Quastion 3.7 3.8 3.6 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.5
Mean of factor 3.74
Source; data processed by researcher using product-moment 2021

Teachers' understanding of E-learning with an ELR score of 3.7 so that there is still a little bit to be improved so that
it can be said that E-learning is ready and continued to be applied, E-learning knowledge in teachers can be overcome
by schools carrying out socialization or training for teachers that aims to enable teachers to apply distance learning
system (Online). 8 other indicators must also be improved slightly because the ELR score obtained is not adequate
and there must be an increase, 4.2, namely the minimum score to be said to be ready and to be continued in the
application of E-learning.

E-learning is said to be unable to fully assist in unifying classroom learning because teachers' knowledge of E-learning
also still needs to be improved, with the existence of E-learning socialization and training, it is hoped that teacher
knowledge can increase about E-learning and can improve teacher tasks in the process. teaching and learning in class
even with an online learning system. As for other things that must be improved by teachers, the ability to use
computers/laptops as the basis for teachers can also be improved by the school organizing training for teachers. So
that teachers at these schools can improve their abilities in using computers/laptops so that they can facilitate the role
of teachers in implementing learning methods from the network (online).

© IEOM Society International 599

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 5 - 8, 2021

Teacher readiness in online learning is very important because apart from the teacher as a very important component
in carrying out the teaching and learning process and also its role in these activities, students need it. So that all aspects
of the teacher need to be considered, including readiness. Teachers' readiness in carrying out ongoing learning will
determine learning outcomes, improvements in this aspect are deemed necessary so that teacher readiness increases
in implementing online learning.

3.2 Infrastructure Factors in The Implementation of the Online Teaching and Learning Process
The result of the overall score of the infrastructure factor is 33%, meaning that it is said to be ready but requires a little
improvement, the three indicators that are considered to provide an ELR score, 3.4 <x <4.2 in the range of values and
categories used in the study, the score shows that the measured factor is adequate. ready but still needs a little
improvement in its implementation. In this infrastructure factor, there are 5 indicators of teacher perception that are
assessed in this aspect, namely; Q1: Can the IT infrastructure in the school support the implementation of E-learning;
Q2: Can the school laboratory support the implementation of E-learning; Q3: Does the Technician at the school have
strong enough support for the implementation of Online learning; Q4: Is the school willing to help the cost of
implementing online learning in carrying out the teaching and learning process; Q5: Does the school add internet
access to support teachers' facilities in carrying out the teaching and learning process at school

The three indicators, the researcher can describe the five questions that will be used by the researcher in the form of
an ELR table for infrastructure factors.

Table. 2 Score of Readiness School Infrastructure Data

Question Q1 Q2 Q23 Q24 Q25
Total Score 38 40 40 42 41
Total score factor 201
Mean of quastion 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.7
Mean of factor 3.62
Source: data processed by researcher using product moment 2021

School infrastructure that supports E-learning requires a little improvement, such as by increasing the number of
computer laboratories and increasing the number of computers used by teachers in terms of technical improvements
that support remote learning made by schools so that online learning can run optimally.

Additional school budget costs for implementing E-learning or the proposed additional budget for the government to
implement E-learning, especially during the Covid-19 epidemic, schools simply cannot implement face-to-face
learning systems. So that almost all existing schools implement an online learning system so that students can continue
to learn as usual, then the school must also increase internet access in schools which is used to support the facilities
of teachers in carrying out the teaching and learning process in schools amidst limitations. As a result of this pandemic,
teachers access learning through applications such as Google Classroom and also Google Meet to carry out online
learning.

4. Conclusion
The researcher's conclusion reveals that the school is ready for the application of online learning based on
the score described by the category of assessment. However, it also requires habituation so that learning can be carried
out optimally, this habituation also supports improvement and improvement-oriented to the quality of online learning.
In terms of teacher readiness, some teachers at the school have been unable to use computers or Android mobile
phones in carrying out teaching and learning in the new normal era, so they require special assistance and training for
some teachers who are still not optimal in using ICT. The readiness of infrastructure in schools is not maximally
adequate due to limited access to Wi-fi networks, so it is necessary to increase access capacity and balance its capacity.
So that the implementation of remote learning does not experience network and connection barriers.

References
Clark, R, & Mayer, R., E- Learning and the Science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of
multemedia learning. proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multemedia learning, 2011.

© IEOM Society International 600

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 5 - 8, 2021

Eveline, Teori Belajar Dan Pembelajaran. Ghalia Indonesia, Bogor, 2010.

Foundation, D., Tokoh Kita: Anis Baswedan Intelektual Muda Peduli Bangsa, 2013.
Gotthardt., How to succesfully implement E-Learning for both students and teachers. Academic Radiology, 2006.
Gusty, S., Nurmiati, N., Muliana, M., & Sulaiman, O.K., Belajar Mandiri: Pembelajaran Daring di Tengah Pandemi
Covid-19. Yayasan Kita Menulis, Medan, 2020.
https://WWW.maxmanoroe.com/vid/umum/pengertian sekolah.html. (n.d.). Pengertian Sekolah.
Jamaludin., Gusty, S., Sulaiman, O., & Muliana, M., Belajar Mandiri: Pembelajaran Daring di Tengah Pandemi
Covid-19. Yayasan Kita Menulis, Medan, 2020.
Jamaludin., Membangun Nalar Pengetahuan Warga Negara Melalui Buku Digital Dikalangan Mahasiswa . Journal of
Education, Humaniora and Social Sciences (JEHSS), Vol 3, No. 2, pp. 300-304, 2020.
Ong C,-S, Lai, J., & Wang Y. Factors affecting engineers acceptance of asynchronous e-Learning sytems in high-tech
companies. Informasi & managemen, 795-804, 2004.
Rusman, Belajar Dan Pembelajaran Berbasis Komputer. Alfabeta, Bandung, 2012.
Slameto, Belajar Dan Faktor Mempengaruhinya. Rineka Cipta, Jakarta, 2010..
Stockley, D., E-Learning Deffinition and Explanation. 2003. Diambil kembali dari http://derekstockly.com.au/e-
learning- definition.html.
Suharyanto, A. Dilema Multikulturalisme Pada Masyarakat Multikultur Di Medan. Jurnal Kewarganegaraan 25
(PPKn, FIS, Universitas Negeri Medan), pp., 118-127, 2017b.
Suharyanto, A. Pemahaman Siswa Tentang Konsep Demokrasi Dalam Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan, dalam Prosiding
Seminar Nasional Tahunan Fakultas Ilmu Sosial Universitas Negeri Medan Tahun 2017 vol. 1, no. 1 2017, pp.
530-534, 2017a.
Suharyanto, A. Pendidikan dan Proses Pembudayaan dalam Keluarga, JUPIIS: Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 162-165, 2015.
Suharyanto, A., Peranan Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan Dalam Membina Sikap Toleransi Antar Siswa, JPPUMA:
Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan dan Sosial Politik UMA (Journal of Governance and Political UMA), vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 192-203, 2013
Sutari, Pengantar Ilmu Pendidikan Sistematis, Andi Offset, Yogyakarta, 1995.
Teddy, & Swatman, P.M.C., E-Learning Readiness of Hongkong Teachers The Journal of Education Research
Universty of South Australia. Vol.4, No.7, pp. 20-23, 2006.
Undang-Undang RI No.20 Tahun 2003. Tentang Penyelengaraan Sistem Pendidikan Nasional
Wannemacher, K., Fuctional Diffrentiation of incentives for E-teaching at Universities. Current Developments in
Technology-Assisted Education, 72-76, 2006.
Wijoyo, H & Indrawan, I., Model Pembelajaran menyongsong new normal, jurnal sekolah PGSD Unimed. Vol.4. No.
3,pp. 205-212, 2020.
Wirastwan, G, Membuat CD Multemedia dan Interaktif untuk Bahan Ajar E-learning, Alex Media Komputindo,
Jakarta, 2005.

Biography / Biographies
Agung Suharyanto, completed his undergraduate education at the Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts,
Yogyakarta Indonesian Institute of the Arts (1999), obtained his Postgraduate degree from Social Anthropology Study
Program, Postgraduate Program, Universitas Negeri Medan (2010) and currently pursuing doctoral studies in
Development Studies, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University Sumatra Utara. Now as a lecturer at the
Public Administration Study Program, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Medan Area. Becoming
the Head of the UMA Journal Center Unit which manages several scientific journals at the Universitas Medan Area.
Has established the Mahesa Research Center to accommodate publications in the form of Online Scientific Journals
and independent research in Social Sciences, Arts and Culture.

Rezky Fernanda, born in Medan on June 9, 1998, completed his undergraduate studies at the FKIP majoring in
Pancasila and Citizenship Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara. Currently he will become a
Pancasila and Citizenship Education Teacher, and entrepreneurship by opening an online shop and being active as a
futsal coach and university futsal team.

Jamaludin, born in Bengkalis on February 19, 1988, completed his undergraduate studies at FKIP, Universitas Riau
and master's studies at the Indonesian Education University. Currently, he is a lecturer at Pancasila and Citizenship
Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universitas Negeri Medan. And has taught at several private universities. He

© IEOM Society International 601

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 5 - 8, 2021

is actively involved in writing books and research on education and learning, and participates as a resource and
moderator in several public discussions

Hodriani, she is a lecturer at Pancasila and Citizenship Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universitas Negeri
Medan. She completed her undergraduate degree in Public Administration Departmen, Faculty of Social and Political
Sciences, Universitas Medan Area and obtained her Postgraduate degree from Public Administration, Universitas
Medan Area and her Postgraduate degree from Manajemen Educations Departemen Universitas Negeri Medan

Wiflihani, She is a lecturer at the Department of Sendratasik/Music Arts Education, Faculty of Language and Arts,
Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia. She completed her undergraduate degree in Music Arts Education at Universitas
Negeri Medan and obtained her Postgraduate degree from Music Arts Education at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia,
Bandung. West Java, Indonesia. Home address Jl. Enggang 14 No. 195 Perumnas Mandala Medan, North Sumatra,
Indonesia, email: wiflihani@unimed.ac.id.

Ahmad Muhajir, Ahmad Muhajir, completed his undergraduate degree from Department of History Education,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Universitas Negeri Medan, obtained his postgraduate degree from Department of History,
Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Diponegoro. Now, he run his career as a lecturer at Department of History
Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara, Indonesia

Yurial Arief Lubis, completed his undergraduate education at the Department of Political Sciences, Faculty of Social
and Political Sciences, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Indonesia, obtained his Postgraduate degree from Political
Sciences, Postgraduate Program, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia and now as a lecturer at the Public Administration
Study Program, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Medan Area. Government Science Study
Program, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Medan Area, North Sumatera, Indonesia.

© IEOM Society International 602

 276

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 276-291, April 2022
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.4.16
Received Feb 6, 2022; Revised Apr 12, 2022; Accepted Apr 30, 2022

Glimpses of Teaching in the New Normal:

Changes, Challenges, and Chances
Janet Mananay and Rivika Alda
Cebu Normal University
Osmena Blvd., Cebu City, Philippines

Maria Salud Delos Santos

Cebu Technological University Main
MJ Cuenco Ave., Cebu City, Philippines

Abstract. The current context on virtual education has provided a

plethora of studies investigating educational institutions’ response
strategies to remote and online learning formats. However, to provide a
much-grounded description of the realities in the field, this study
explored the role of teachers in the virtual learning environment through
their narratives reflective of their experiences. Furthermore, it employed
a qualitative narrative and descriptive research method anchored on the
tenets of Husserlian descriptive phenomenology. Six higher education
professors from different colleges and universities in Central Visayas,
Philippines served as the participants of the study. Data were collected
from in-depth interviews done virtually via Zoom. Based on participant
narratives, the following emerged as themes: changes, challenges, and
chances, respectively, in all the teaching-learning phases, from
preparation and implementation to assessment. These changes, challenges,
and chances shared by the participants have shed light on teaching being
a multifaceted profession, putting emphasis on teachers as innovators of
change. Thus, it is recommended that colleges and universities should
establish an institutional based framework for emergency remote
teaching. The framework should highlight policies on virtual education,
upscale and upskill teachers, address learning losses, and promote
strategies to build resilience in students and teachers.

Keywords: glimpses of teaching; teacher experiences; teacher roles;

virtual learning environment; virtual teaching

1. Introduction
The unprecedented shift made by educational institutions from face-to-face
instructional delivery to virtual teaching and technology-enhanced learning has
left school administrators, faculty, parents, and students in a quandary as to how
this will impact the worldwide educational arena. The current context has caused

©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
 277

the frantic and abrupt launching of policy initiatives since schools have been
closed and people instructed to stay at home. Higher education institutions (HEIs)
in the Philippines have implemented proactive measures to ensure that learning
still takes place despite the situation.

When COVID-19 resulted in the closure of schools worldwide, the education

sector made a great leap from face-to-face teaching and learning to remote
teaching and digital learning. The changes brought by the pandemic have been
observed not only in the use of technology in education but also in pedagogical
aspects. Academic institutions have been compelled to respond to the challenges
by implementing appropriate and timely restructuring to continue to provide
education and sustain the continuation of student academic progress (Amir et al.,
2020). There are four memorandum orders (MOs) for HEIs in the Philippines
related to the current situation, one of which is MO no. 4, series of 2020. MO no. 4
contains guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning and teaching
options, approaches, strategies, systems, pedagogies, and modalities in higher
education programs by all private and public Philippine HEIs (Republic of the
Philippines. Commission on Higher Education [CHED], 2020). The government
has initiated certain measures for alternative teaching and learning to still take
place. For instance, the Commission on Higher Education (Republic of the
Philippines. CHED, 2020) through CHED MO no. 4, series 2020 stipulated the
guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning. It calls for HEIs to explore
various innovative learning modalities that are customized, flexible, and
responsive to the different needs and current situation of the learners.

Online learning includes synchronous sessions, where lectures are delivered in

real time virtually. There are also asynchronous sessions, which may include but
are not limited to pre-recorded video lectures, tasks for skills reinforcement, and
other assessments which are time independent (Oztok et al., 2013, in Joaquin et
al., 2020). In some schools, students are categorized based on the availability of
devices and internet access. Students are given the opporunity to choose their
mode of learning or mode of instructional delivery used the teachers. Students
may opt for either solely online or offline or where modules are used. However,
catering to all the three groups may be challenging for teachers with regard to
conducting synchronous classes, designing asynchronous activities, and creating
the module.

During the pandemic, teachers resorted to virtual teaching almost immediately.

Virtual teaching is teaching that happens in a virtual classroom, which refers to
an online learning environment, with the use of technological tools such as
computers, laptops, tablets, cellphones, and the internet. There is one common
denominator which links the terms (online learning, open learning, web-based
learning, computer-mediated learning, blended learning, m-learning), and that is
the use of a computer or electronic device and being able to connect via the
internet. This provides opportunity to continue learning despite the absence of a
physical classroom and synchronized time (Cojocariu et al., 2014, in Dhawan,
2020). Online learning is defined as learning encounters in both synchronous and
asynchronous environments utilizing the internet with mobile phones, laptops,

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 278

etc. (Singh & Thurman, 2019). This provides students opportunities to learn and
interact with their teachers anywhere and anytime. Virtual teaching has become
a necessity and not an option for most schools, especially in higher education
institutions in the country.

The abrupt change to deliver instruction online has compelled everyone in the
academic environment, including teachers and students, to welcome and adjust
to the virtual academic endeavors. Teachers have had to, almost overnight,
become designers of digital tools and writers of books/modules, aspects with
which they have limited to no experience at all. Although faculty have undergone
technology trainings and have had access to a plethora of online resources and
digital tools, no one was prepared for the sudden new experiences of online
education and challenges related to technology.

Both teachers and students have reported challenges in virtual teaching. The
availability of appropriate tools as well as strong internet connectivity is just one.
Online teaching and learning require teachers to have certain technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) when designing their lessons
incorporating varied technologies. Teachers and students also must reflect on
their capacity of navigating through various digital tools. Usually in a technology
workshop, teachers are introduced to new tools and are trained on how to use
these tools. However, teachers prefer using readily available materials online
mainly to save time. Considering the new shift from the physical classroom to
online teaching, teachers must go beyond the task of teaching to designing
materials and technology to accomplish the teaching objectives (Koehler et al.,
2004). Teachers most especially are prompted to reimagine education and find
ways to humanize the learning process by focusing on students’ needs first to the
best extent possible (Dhawan, 2020).

Moreover, the abrupt transitioning of courses from the traditional physical class
to a virtual one has also added to teachers’ stress and workload. The preparation
that is entailed for teachers to write the modules to cater to those who have
limitations in terms of gadgets and internet connectivity is also overwhelming.
Added to that is their personal time allotted for practice in navigating the different
digital tools and learning how to design activities using the different software.
Teachers are also managing their online classrooms and conducting synchronous
classes. The top issues expressed by teachers concerning virtual classes include
access to the appropriate tools required for learning, exposure and training aside
from the lack of instructional materials, and lack of exposure to online curricula
(Navarosa & Fernando, 2020). These issues are also affected by the problems and
concerns brought about by the pandemic and teachers being detained at home.

However, despite this, the study of Miyagawa and Perdue (2020) revealed that
many instructors found teaching in the new normal not just challenging but also
rewarding since the situation has made them become more creative. It has also
made them evaluate the curricula and reflect on what is essential. In addition, they
have been able to explore and challenge their own capabilities in using varied
digital tools. This has made teachers realize that they are not mere users of

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 279

technology but also designers this time (Koehler et al., 2004). In HEIs, teachers are
encouraged to write up research, develop utility models, and be frontliners of
innovation. With the current situation, teachers not only learn significantly how
to use existing hardware and software in creative, novel, and situation-specific
ways; they also learn to develop their own materials to accomplish their teaching
goals. Considering the heavy task to balance teaching, research, and other
obligations, designing materials and other tasks related to the novel environment
of online teaching has added to the stress and workload of faculty (Joaquin et al.,
2020).

It is in this context that we would like to get a glimpse through teachers’ narratives
of their transition from face-to-face teaching to virtual teaching, and how this
scenario has changed their role as technology users and creators in the new
teaching environment. Teachers’ pedagogical role has also been challenged as
they are compelled to reflect on the general nature of education. Thus, this study
aimed to explore the role of teachers in HEIs in the current context. It further
sought to provide a clearer picture of teacher experiences as they embrace their
role in the new normal. It is hoped that learning institutions would be able to craft
and plan policies to support the emerging roles of teachers in the virtual learning
environment.

2. Domain of Inquiry
This study takes glimpses of the role of teachers in the virtual learning
environment through their narratives reflective of their experiences as they
embrace their role in the new normal.

3. Research Method
This study employed the qualitative narrative and descriptive research method.
The goal was to comprehensively describe and summarize the narratives of the
participating teachers on their experiences in the virtual learning environment.
The method is anchored on the tenets of Husserlian descriptive phenomenology,
whose philosophical underpinning is that of the human lived experience. The
qualitative descriptive method drew emphasis from naturalistic inquiry, which
elicits participants’ experiences in their natural state (Lambert & Lambert, 2012).
The varied perspectives were considered in studying participant narratives.
Following the principles of data saturation, six higher education professors from
different state universities and local colleges in region 7, Central Visayas were
selected as research participants.

In-depth interviews were conducted virtually using open-ended exploratory and

interpretive questions to facilitate the sharing of experiences on the phenomenon
being studied. Trough ethical practice, their identities were protected using the
principle of anonymity. The study was also subjected under the scrutiny of the
Research Ethics Board of the Cebu Normal University, Cebu City, Philippines.
The collected data were transcribed and analyzed using thematic steps developed
by Colaizzi (1978), which is consistent with Husserl’s descriptive
phenomenology.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 280

4. Results and Discussion

After participant interviews had been conducted, their interviews were
transcribed and the data analyzed and clustered into themes. The following
emerged as themes: changes, challenges, and chances, respectively, in all levels of
teaching and learning, from preparation and implementation to assessment.

4.1 Theme 1: Changes

Change means to undergo transformation, to substitute or make a shift from one
to another (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). In order to keep up with the demands of the
abrupt shift from face-to-face classes to virtual teaching, it is imperative to make
changes to the usual way of preparing, delivering, and assessing students’
learning.

4.1.1 Preparation
The preparation of instruction requires modifications to syllabi, trainings for
technology use, and mind-setting for the new normal. Teachers need all the
support in transitioning teaching from the physical to the virtual learning
environment (Griffin, 2020).

The interviews revealed that the participants were provided with avenues for
upskilling, such as webinars, workshops, and trainings, to prepare them for the
online platform environment. Regarding this, participants commented:
“We had a lot of meetings and webinars. Our university organized
seminars because we are facing a different kind of setup now with our
education.” (P5)

“We were taught how to use the different applications, especially that we
have veteran teachers. We were taught how to navigate these applications
and other tools in teaching using technology. … The administrators
conducted a college-wide webinar on module making and design, like how
to craft interactive modules, etc.” (P3)

Participants also mentioned that the preparation of the faculty has changed with
the time required being doubled to include setting up of the virtual classroom.
“We had revisions done for our syllabus to enhance and fit for the virtual
classroom setup. We need to change some activities that will not be
applicable anymore. … Time really is not enough for the preparation of
the opening for the new semester.” (P5)

“There are many things to be done, yet so little time.” (P2)

“While preparing the printed modules, we also prepare for the virtual
classrooms. We are not ready and time was running fast.” (P1)

Participants have had to modify their ways of preparing for instruction since it is
a key element of success and there has been a great change in the
teaching-learning landscape.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 281

4.1.2 Implementation
Participants acknowledged the need to tailor their usual teaching classroom
practices to suit the current need for distance learning. They highlighted three
major changes when it comes to the implementation of virtual teaching. These are
changes in teachers’ roles, strategies, and use of technology.
The participants claimed that they now perform other roles due to the
learning shift from a public space (classroom) to a personal space (online).
Teachers are no longer mere conduits of knowledge, but contributors to it. Other
than being a facilitator, guide, mentor, and guidance counsellor, they are also
designers, content creators, and content coaches. Participants said that:
“It’s something beyond teaching, because you will be like a creator; aside
from being a facilitator, you will be something more beyond resourceful.”
(P5)

“I’m not just a consumer but a creator. I study some applications; I go

over it and then I try to see how it works. And then I do trial and error
before I introduce it to my students. And I also asked my colleagues to try
the applications if it works. I learned so many things from that since I just
don’t use but I also create something, and it is a nice experience and
fulfilment on my part.” (P3)

“It’s different right now that I am really the one creating the Google
Classroom, navigating it; I post, I assign, I develop the topics, etc., etc.”
(P4)

Aside from changes in the teacher’s role are changes in teaching strategies. With
online teaching, the usual lecture method may not be very appealing to students
anymore. Research has shown that for student satisfaction and retention,
interaction between students and teachers and among students is critically
important both for face-to-face and virtual learning environments (King &
Doerfert, 1996, in Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006). Teachers are prompted to use
more creative ways of engagement and receptivity. Concerning this, participants
shared:
“I make use of Canva in my presentations since PowerPoint presentation
sometimes may appear boring for them. Sometimes reading would take
time, so I do audio reading or the audio recording, and then they also do
the same. Students also do video character portrayals so that they can
better appreciate the literary piece.” (P1)

“I do video recordings and demonstrations aside from the live classes

online.” (P3)

“I use songs as motivation, eBooks, and YouTube videos to supplement

my discussion.” (P4)

These participants also supplement their synchronous classes with informal

consultations using other online platforms that students can easily access. Social
media plays an important role, especially in the new normal. In this digital age, it
is impossible to deny the impact of social media (Mananay, 2018), as echoed by
some participants:

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 282

“I want to interact with my students more, but the time in synchronous

class is limited. So, what we did is that students will just chat about their
questions and concerns after our synchronous class, and I will answer
them one by one.” (P1)

“Aside from the LMS [learning management system], I also do

interactions with my students in (Facebook) Messenger.” (P2, P5)

“I provide them with pre-recorded materials and whatever

supplementary materials are provided for those in print; I also upload
them in Messenger and Google Classroom.” (P4)

Participants reinforced their teaching by using technology. All participants

claimed that there is really a big change in how they regard and integrate
technology before and after the transition to online learning. Most of them were
not so familiar with the use of digital tools before the pandemic. The current setup
has “forced” them to explore these tools and to learn how to navigate them.
“During pre-pandemic, my self-evaluation is that I was just a consumer
of technology and materials. So, pre-pandemic, I did not really integrate
much technology, so I regret it that I did not use technology more when
we had face-to-face classes.” (P3)

“I learned how to apply add-ons in Google Docs. I use Adobe Spark aside
from Canva; I produce posters, banners for the Google Classroom. I use
PowerPoint to produce an mpeg video form. I adopt some content, some
I create. I get from the internet, I develop, I edit, I read the content.” (P4)

“I am both the consumer and the creator of technology. During the

pre-pandemic, I was expected as a teacher to make use of technology. But
now in the pandemic, I have observed that not only me but most teachers
have optimized the use of that technology.” (P6)

Educators have had to change from being facilitators of learning to innovators

(Saxena, 2020). With the current changes in education, teachers are expected to
meet not only the academic needs of students but also their social and emotional
needs (Bacus & Alda, 2022). Teachers have to be versatile in implementing
significant strategies and classroom practices and confront the structural changes
in the learning environments. Moreover, to attain effective and successful lesson
delivery, teachers must be able to actualize and apply technology with content
and relevant pedagogy (Izhar et al., 2021). The TPACK model highlights the
importance of this knowledge and skills among teachers – where teachers must
create more engaging, relevant, and enduring teaching-learning experiences.
Participant 6 even specifically mentioned that:
“The TPACK has been materialized. It appeared to some that it was
something difficult to do, but with the pandemic, we are left with no
choice but to optimize the use of technology, and I can say that it’s really
helpful.”

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 283

With a lot of changes going on, teachers are expected to revisit and recalibrate
teaching practices and innovate to address the diversity and current needs of
students.

4.1.3 Assessment
Participants became more flexible in the different aspects of the teaching-learning
process and embraced the importance of gradual and consistent integration of
technology in education regardless of the situation. Some willingly shared:
“… feedbacking happens in Messenger, private conversations between me
and my students.” (P4)

“Formative assessments are uploaded ahead of time for the students to

read and then I give them time to answer. … I upload the midterm, or
tests, 15 mins before the time and then they can take it, 1 hour.” (P5)

Different forms of assessment with approved content, including product-based

assessment, are employed to address differentiated learning. Participant 1 shared:
“Aside from my activity sheets, we have what we call extension of
learning. Usually, there is a performance task, which is a differentiated
situation analysis based on their program. We don’t usually give a
summative test like multiple choice or a paper and pencil test or supply
type. What we give is a situation analysis for the major exam.

According to participants, the teacher has become a lover of technology, which

comes in handy in terms of giving assessment to the students. Some participants
shared their experiences in the use of technology to deliver assessment.
“… with technology, I can give formative and summative assessments
aside from the Google Class.” (P2)

“For summative assessment, I usually let them access QuizStar.com. It’s

an online quiz where my students register. That is my formative
assessment.” (P4)

Student are assessed holistically through an array of varied assessments of

learning. This is to ensure the authenticity, validity, and reliability of the answers
of the students. Assessment comes in both authentic and non-authentic forms and
is differentiated for the two learning modalities. Participant 1 shared their
experience as follows:
“Aside from attendance, sa module itself nakasudnadidto ang iyahang
[there is also the inclusion of the students’ written output]. … So, the
projects … is the extension of learning.”

Besides attendance of the module itself, the module contains the written
outputs and projects. The projects serve as an extension of learning, as
explained by Participant 3:
“So, this is a combination of, like, a video that I will show to them and
then I have guide questions, maybe five of them. Then there are also
multiple choice and I also ask for a brief explanation for each question,
maybe two questions.”

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 284

The process of change is painful. In addition to the changes made by the

participants in their roles during virtual teaching, they also encountered
challenges during the course of the changes.

4.2 Theme 2: Challenges

With all the changes happening during the transition to online learning,
challenges and anxieties beset teachers in terms of addressing their teaching role
in the new normal. In this study, challenges refer to the difficulties encountered
by teachers in the delivery of lessons and classes during the pandemic. Teachers
encountered varied challenges, from preparation of instruction to implementation
and assessment. Education programs rarely prepare teachers for a virtual
teaching environment (Archambault, 2011).

4.2.1 Preparation
Not all participants were very adept at the online setup and so they felt it a burden
to prepare their virtual classrooms and conduct the classes. They felt they were
not ready for this setup.
“Using the technology is really a challenge on my part, especially since I
am not very young like the other modern teachers.” (P5)

“When it comes to technology, I am an immigrant, I am not native. … No, it’s

not easy. We are not ready, to be honest.” (P1)

Teachers need to ensure that materials and activities are engaging, and doing this
on the online platform is challenging since there are no benchmarking
experiences. Everything is new and always in the experimental stage. The fastest
growing phenomenon in the use of technology in education is online learning
(West et al., 2012). Thus, teachers are challenged regarding the kind of activities
that will engage students and to ensure that learning occurs.

4.2.2 Implementation
As teachers assume varied roles such as facilitator, guide, mentor, counsellor,
friend, and confidante, they are also expected to realign teaching practices
vis-à-vis online learning platforms. Many teachers have reported that they have
limited experience in online teaching, and this causes the lack of online teaching
skills among them (Izhar et al., 2021). Thus, they have difficulty not just in
preparing the materials but also in creating suitable teaching methods for
students, especially during synchronous classes. Regarding this, participants
shared:
“I’m not used to virtual classes and the interaction is minimal. I got used
to hearing them one by one, so I did that at first. But it was very time-
consuming, especially in a one-hour synchronous class.” (P1)

“But then, during the virtual session, it was really difficult at the very
start; it’s a struggle. Students don’t want to talk, so I have to find activities
that would make them talk. They are sometimes passive and distracted by
household chores” (P2)

“There are challenges, yes, especially the internet connection. And when
you have that very high momentum when you discuss and then suddenly

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 285

the computer or the internet stops working and students have left the
meeting. So, the challenge is you cannot make sure if students are
learning.” (P4)

“It’s something beyond teaching, because you will be like a creator; aside
from being a facilitator, you will be something more, beyond resourceful.
The patience that you need to have, it’s because there are internet issues.”
(P5)

“So, one is, isolation in this time is a challenge, because there is no physical
presence. You know, in real work, it’s different when you face on-screen,
so we can feel the person in that sense. You know the energy, there is more
life when we are in person. Sometimes we feel lonely. I can maximize the
interaction, but the energy level, the power, the liveliness is still different.”
(P6)

4.2.3 Assessment
During the pandemic, there is no other option for continuing education, especially
higher education, besides online learning (Mahyoob, 2020). To ensure continuity
and delivery of academic services, universities across the Philippines embraced
innovative educational delivery means, such as distance education, modular
remote learning, blended education, online teaching, and/or mobile learning
(Rotas & Cahapay, 2020).

The greatest challenge encountered by the participants in conducting online

classes when it comes to assessment was the authenticity, validity, and reliability
of the answers given by the students. Guangul et al. (2020) identified the main
challenges in remote assessment as academic dishonesty, infrastructure, coverage
of learning outcomes, and commitment of students to submit assessments.

Some of the participants expressed concern over dishonesty and cheating during
exams, be it synchronous or asynchronous. The following utterance proves such
claim:
“But what I have noticed with my students when it comes to essays or
brief explanation, it seems that they really copy answers from each other.”
(P2)

Additionally, assessment results do not give teachers the assurance that learning
has taken place. Even if the teacher makes an effort to measure higher order
critical thinking and maximize the validity of student answers, still the students’
output does not guarantee learning. Participants shared the following:
“I’m not very satisfied … they are really not that responsive. … I would
not say that I’m using the right nets [assessments].” (P4)

“Most serious – the formative assessment from time to time to make sure
that they really learned. … Like making sure that students really have
learned, that’s really a big challenge in assessment.” (P3)

Another challenge was the type of learning management system used and
unstable internet connection. Participants struggled to get connected:

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 286

“Yes, and the students really had difficulty in accessing the online
platforms.” (P1)

“As to the challenges, especially online is the challenge of connectivity,

both for my students and me.” (P6)

Students’ prompt and appropriate responses to the given tasks and expectations
were not satisfying. Participant 3 shared regarding this: “There were instances where
students don’t attach anything to the course material.”

The assessment process requires feedback. Student achievement is also dependent

upon teachers’ feedbacking (Hattie, 1999). One of the main objectives of feedback
is for students to develop their capability to monitor, evaluate, and regulate their
own learning (Nicol, 2010). Assessment and feedbacking are limited and
untimely.

According to Nicol (2010), feedback needs to be constructive, timely, and

meaningful in order to benefit student learning. This is challenging to attain,
especially in this time of the pandemic where people are struggling to survive and
cope in the new normal. In addition to changes and challenges, participants also
experienced chances.

4.3 Theme 3: Chances

With change comes challenges, and between all these teachers are trying to
survive with all educational and psychological demands. As such, participants
also acknowledged the opportunities or chances that surfaced amidst the
challenges.

4.3.1 Preparation
Left with no choice, teachers consult and benchmark with colleagues, family, and
other stakeholders. There is a need for teachers to collaborate, as well as to be
resourceful and creative. Teachers have become team players in these trying times
as they work closely together with their professional learning community.

Participants shared that they have become resourceful in finding ways to cope
with the demands and to do something to mitigate stress with the hope of
producing positive outcomes. They uttered:
“We really have to deliver what needs to be delivered. We have to push
and carry on.” (P3)

“I had to optimize the available resources; you just had to be resourceful

in this time of pandemic even in the teaching and learning.” (P6)

“I have to ask my husband who is more knowledgeable and even my son

to help me in my preparation of the Google Classroom. And also my
other co-teachers in the department; they are very willing to help as well.
And for this I am very thankful.” (P5)

Participants’ creativity and problem-solving skills developed a lot. With

everyone’s support and cooperation, participants concerted all efforts in the

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 287

creation of self-learning modules and activities for online classes. In this regard,
they said:
“I learned how to become a technician, fixing problems.” (P3)

“Teachers are now focused to extract and create content. Before and
during the pre-pandemic, I just assigned topics for reporting, but now I
reflect on how else to present the lesson creatively.” (P4)

“My role as a teacher has improved. But technically and primarily as a

facilitator of learning, it has to stay. But the approaches, the attack,
attached to the learning process has improved.” (P6)

4.3.2 Implementation
Participants narrated embracing the changes and accepting that they have to
adjust their practices, as the current setup has become the new normal.
“There is so much collaboration, then we looked for resources. We asked
for help. The younger generation teachers were also challenged to assist
other faculty members who have difficulty, especially in technology.” (P3)

“My students are very creative and hardworking. And sometimes they
go beyond my expectations. I partner and collaborate with my students.
I prefer to collaborate with my students, because I have really proven that
they are more advanced compared to me when it comes to technology.”
(P6)

From this perspective, participants saw the opportunities that come with their
struggles in navigating the different tools online. Instead of concentrating on the
problem, they tried to find ways to do something about the problem. As the time
for synchronous classes is limited, they extended their help and assistance to their
students through informal consultations and chats. Where students complained
about their internet connection and “choppy” discussions, participants would
upload pre-recorded and recorded live lectures for their students. These recorded
lectures allow students to watch and listen to the lectures at any time. Lastly,
participants mentioned that during the second year of implementation of distance
learning, they embraced a positive mindset and devised strategies that would
make things better for them and their students. Looking forward to things getting
better has also helped them develop a more positive attitude towards the current
situation.
“And the good thing is that students although you provide applications
that they can use, will also try their best to look for another application
which is somehow better than what you’ve introduced. So, it challenges
me more to do better as well and learn more.” (P3)

“I decided to take a risk in trusting technology. I took it as a learning. And

together with my students, we try to learn how to do things.” (P4)

“As long as I can see the student being able to learn; as long as I can see
the student’s thirst to learn, I am ready to take the challenge. I just look at
it as if I just consider myself as if I am a fresh graduate and trying to cope
with the new environment. … I guess my role in the new setup is that – I

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 288

became more alive. I become more oriented with technology and apply it
in all my lessons. I get amazed at how technology works. Every day is
learning with technology for me.” (P1)

Participants were indeed resilient and robust in taking the challenges head-on,
and were also able to transform these challenges into opportunities for learning,
collaboration, and improvement.

4.3.3 Assessment
Considering that the authenticity and validity of the answers of the students was
the greatest challenge for participants, they created assessments with different
dynamics. Participants determined different ways and means in order to ensure
the validity of the answers of the students and, if not, to eliminate, or at least
minimize, the occurrence of cheating.
“Summative tests are usually done non-authentically. I follow the more
structured and formal way, but the formative is more authentic.” (P6)

“That is why I combine varied test types.” (P2)

Participants would make sure that the design and content of the assessment are
relevant to the course and discipline of the students.
“… if my students are coming from the Education Department, I will use
board exam questions. But when I’m teaching students from other degree
programs, I also use different test types.” (P1)

Participants saw the need to embrace technology as aids in assessment. In so

doing, they have become experts and masters of these technological applications.
“It is already now thanks to the Quillbot app. So, in checking the output
online, the teacher is more on reading [assessing and clarifying] the idea.”
(P1)

“… with technology, I can give formative and summative assessments.

Aside from the G Class that I am using, there are also websites they will
access. What is good in the QuizStar is that it can give the results right
away.” (P2)

Participants indicated that the roles played by the teacher in terms of assessment
in case of dishonesty during assessment are that of a guidance counsellor, judge,
and jury. The teacher also exerts an effort to correct the acts of the student/s for
the purpose of realization, remorse, and reformation, as indicated by participants:
“But what I did is that I asked the student to come to school to talk with
me about what happened, so I need to know the scenario. Still, the
guidance counselling is a part of it.” (P1)

Participants acknowledged that there are points to improve and were willing to
act on them. One participant observed proper time management and tried her
utmost in order to address the issue of meeting deadlines. This is what she said:
“But I try my best so that I can measure … evaluate the performance of
my students. … I would try to reach out to them and ask them what made
it difficult. I can find a solution … We try to reconsider as well if
everything.” (P4)

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 289

Even with the difficulties, students still manage to submit their assessments on
time. Participant 2 shared: “They can submit right away due to the time limit, especially
in the formative … the same with the summative.”

Participants shared that there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to
assessments. They embraced the importance of gradual and consistent integration
of technology in education regardless of the situation. Participant 3 shared:
“Teachers made a tutorial video on what students will do in case they
encounter problems.” (P3)

Participant 5 rated their overall experience in terms of assessment of learning:

“I am giving it an 8 for the tool, because I still need to find
resources/sources, then my assessment will be very fitting. … In terms of
competencies, I rate myself 7 in a virtual setup, although it is very difficult
to compare, since face-to-face is more tangible than virtual. Unlike in the
classroom, we see them eye to eye.”

In the final part of the interview, participants were asked about their satisfaction
in terms of the right kinds of assessment tools used and the right competencies
that they were able to measure. They shared:
“Yes, I am quite satisfied with the results, even with the limitations of
online tools for assessment.” (P1)

“I can claim that I have succeeded very satisfactorily. The proofs of that
claim are the immediate feedback, the performance of the students, the
evaluation of the students.” (P6)

“… maybe somehow, I did it well, because I can see that my students

learned something and that they were able to elicit the skill that I want
them to see, that I wanted to see from them after the term … perhaps not
really perfect, but I just tried my best.” (P3)

With the proper guidance and mentoring, participants tried their best so that no
student would be left behind. Teachers are thus reinventing themselves and their
occupation to better serve schools and students.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

In the parlance of teaching and learning in the new normal, the role of teachers
has been greatly emphasized to be more that of innovators of change. The changes
and challenges prompted by the virtual learning environment shed light on
teaching being a multifaceted profession. Teachers are not only expected to be
experts in curriculum and pedagogy. They are also expected to meet the social
and emotional needs of a diverse learner population, implement ever-evolving
pedagogical practices, deal with major structural changes in the new learning
environments, and promote digital collaboration. In terms of technology use,
teachers have become content creators and designers with the emergence of the
online learning space.

This research is based only on qualitative research methods and not on statistical
results. Additional research on this topic may support the key findings of the

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 290

study on the emerging themes of changes, challenges, and chances, respectively, on

the role of teachers in a virtual learning environment. We thus recommend that
local colleges and state universities encourage research on this topic and establish
institutional based frameworks for emergency remote teaching environments. In
addition, we recommend that local colleges and state universities create policy on
how to conduct virtual education encompassing preparation, implementation,
and assessment; and continuously upscale and upskill teachers.

6. References
Amir, L. R., Tanti, I., Maharani, D. A., Wimardhani, Y. S., Sulijaya, B., & Puspitawati, R.
(2020). Student perspective of classroom and distance learning during COVID-19
pandemic in the undergraduate dental study program Universitas Indonesia.
BMC Medical Education, 20, 392. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02312-0
Archambault, L. M. (2011). The practitioner’s perspective on teacher education: Preparing
for the online classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 73-91.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/31410/
Bacus, R. C., & Alda, R. C. (2022). Senior high school teaching: A phenomenological
inquiry. Malaysian Journal of Learning & Instruction, 19(1), 242-276.
https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2022.19.1.9
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In
R. S. Valle, & K. Mark (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology
(pp. 48-71). Oxford University Press.
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Sage Journal,
49(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
Griffin, J. (2020). Teacher observation, feedback, and support in the time of COVID-19: Guidance
for virtual learning. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders at the
American Institutes for Research.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610628.pdf
Guangul, F. M., Suhail, A. H., Khalit, M. I., & Khidhir, B. (2020). Challenges of remote
assessment in higher education in the context of COVID-19: A case study of
Middle East College. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32,
519-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09340-w
Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. University of Auckland.
https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/education/about/research/documents/infl
uences-on-student-learning.pdf
Izhar, N. A., Na, Y. M. A., & Na, K. S. (2021). Teaching in the time of COVID-19: The
challenges faced by teachers in initiating online class sessions. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(2), 1294-1306.
https://hrmars.com/papers_submitted/9205/teaching-in-the-time-of-covid-19-
the-challenges-faced-by-teachers-in-initiating-online-class-sessions.pdf
Joaquin, J., Biana, H., & Dacela, M. (2020). The Philippine higher education sector in the
time of COVID-19. Frontiers in Education.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.576371
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T., & Graham, C. (2004). The technological
pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook
of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111).
http://www.matt koehler.com/publications/Koehler_et_al_2014.pdf
Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable
design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-256.
https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/PRIJNR/article/view/5805

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 291

Lewis, C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices:
Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2). 83-98.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006- 9010-z
Mahyoob, M. (2020). Challenges of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic
experienced by EFL learners. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 351-362.
https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.23
Mananay, J. (2018). The lived experience of college teachers on the use of social media in
teaching. International Journal of Research Science & Management, 5(8), 106-114.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1401358
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Change. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 15,
2021, from https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/change
Miyagawa, S., & Perdue, M. (2020). A renewed focus on the practice of teaching. Inside
Higher Education.
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/11/11/switching-online-
teaching-during-pandemic-may-fundamentally-change-how-faculty
Navarosa, D., & Fernando, C. (2020). Education in the new normal: A closer look at the
Philippines’ learning solutions amidst the pandemic. UNDERSCORE Online.
https://medium.com/underscore-online/education-in-the-new-normal-a-
closer-look-at-philippines-learning-solutions-amidst-the-pandemic-
ba0adc339d8f
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in
mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5),
501-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Republic of the Philippines. Commission on Higher Education (CHED). (2020). CHED
memorandum order no. 4, series of 2020: Guidelines on the implementation of flexible
learning. https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-4-s.-2020-
Guidelines-on-the-Implementation-of-Flexible-Learning.pdf
Rotas, E. E., & Cahapay, M. B. (2020). Difficulties in remote learning: Voices of Philippine
university students in the wake of COVID-19 crisis. Asian Journal of Distance
Education, 15(2), 147-158. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4299835
Saxena, A. (2020). The changing role of the educator in the new normal. Education Digest.
https://www.highereducationdigest.com/the-changing-role-of-the-educator-in-
the-new-normal/
Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A
systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988–2018).
American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289-306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082
West, E., Jones, P., & Semon, S. (2012). Promoting community for online learners in special
education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(3), 108-116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784688

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355804566

The Relationship of the Strategies and Practices of the School Heads and Master
Teachers and Teachers’ Competencies and Skills in the New Normal

Article  in  International Journal of Theory and Application in Elementary and Secondary School Education · October 2021
DOI: 10.31098/ijtaese.v3i2.665

CITATIONS READS

5 263

1 author:

Noruel molera Donato

dila elementary school
1 PUBLICATION   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Noruel molera Donato on 25 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Relationship of the Strategies and Practices of the School
Heads and Master Teachers and Teachers’ Competencies and
Skills in the New Normal
Donato, Noruel M.
Master Teacher II, Deped Sta Rosa City Laguna
donatonoruelm@gmail.com

Abstract – Monitoring and supervision are essential practices of the school leaders to determine the various
aspects of the school’s performance as well as teacher’ competencies. This study aimed to determine the
relationship between the monitoring and supervision strategies and practices of School heads and Master teachers
and teachers’ competencies and skills in the new normal. The study employed a descriptive-correlational
explanatory research design to determine the correlation between the variables. A stratified sampling method was
utilized to select the respondents. A total of 385 teachers and of 267school heads, and master teachers were the
respondents of the study. A survey questionnaire was the primary data gathering instrument. Results of the study
show that there is a relationship between the school heads and master teacher's practices and strategies. It also
reveals that observance of school heads and master teacher's practices of monitoring and supervision of teacher
has a relationship to teachers’ competencies and skills. In addition, only staff development influences teachers’
competencies and skills. The researcher recommended that the school heads and master teachers may continuously
attend professional development activities to further improve some of their strategies and practices in monitoring
and supervising teachers and to acquire strategies that are applicable and appropriate to the new normal; the
school may offer and conduct activities that may improve and sustain the competencies and skills of teachers
especially on the strategies and technology-aided materials and applications that can be used in teaching in
distance learning.
Keywords – new normal, practices, skills, strategies, teachers’ competencies
1. INTRODUCTION According to Peklaj (2015), teacher
Education is necessary for a country‟s competency is a factor that impacts students learning. In
development. It provides preparation for the citizens to his study, it shows that teachers‟ competencies are vital
be valuable participants in the development of the for promoting cognitive, motivational, and social
community. It is undeniable that education is one of the processes. The development of these processes will
most significant accomplishments of an individual. eventually lead to students‟ achievement. Teachers must
However, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly know the concepts of teaching strategies, teaching
changes the life of every individual living in a methods, and activities (classroom management,
community. It does not only affect human health; it also communication, problem-solving). They must also
makes a general shift in the education sector. The possess values and attitudes that are appropriate for all
students are the ones who are greatly affected by the learners. All of these have a relationship to student
said health emergency. The process of education was achievement. Similarly, through DepEd Memorandum
affected because of the current situation (UNESCO, No. 50 series of 2020, the organization was able to
2020). At this time, the role of teachers is essential. identify and present the priorities for teachers‟ and
There is a need to adapt to the so-called new normal in school leaders‟ professional development. It also
education. Emerging to the recent changes in the mode presented the important competencies that teachers
of delivering quality education is a great challenge for must possess especially in the new normal. Teachers
teachers. However, teachers are the heart of this must apply varied techniques in teaching that will
education improvement process. Thus, teacher‟s improve the performance of the learners, especially in
recognition and collaboration with the monitoring and numeracy and literacy. They must also demonstrate
supervisory strategies and practice, therefore, the mastery of the content in their field of specialization
methods, processes, forms, or procedures utilized by with integration in other learning areas and must
school heads and master teachers at schools, produce develop activities that improve the higher-order
the mechanism for any educational achievement. thinking skills of the students. These identified
competencies are vital in the implementation of the
1
different learning delivery modalities in the new
normal. Moreover, in the study of Hero (2020), he
emphasized that in this time of the pandemic, teachers
should update themselves about the newest trends in
teaching methodologies and attend an educational
conference that focuses more on 21st-century teaching
methodologies, approaches, and strategies. Teachers
should expose and enhance their skills in using
technology in teaching for better outcomes for the
students. The complex demand to these competencies is
in-need and a challenge for the public elementary
teachers to meet in this new normal.
On the other hand, since teacher competencies
are essential, there is a need to properly monitor and
supervise teachers. Because of this, improving
supervision is one of the major concerns of the
Department of Education (Dep Ed). The enactment of
RA 9155, otherwise known as „The Governance of
Basic Education Act of 2001‟ provides the framework
for the governance of basic education which sets the
general directions for educational policies and
standards. This framework established authority,
accountability, and responsibility for achieving higher
learning outcomes.
At present, teachers‟ competencies and skills
were based on the competencies stipulated in Philippine
Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) which are
related to the presented Competency Model of Thach
and Murphy (1995). These competencies are (1)
Content Knowledge and Pedagogical skills, (2)
Knowledge of Distance Education Field, (3)
Organizational Skills, (4) Planning Skills, (5)
Communication and Interpersonal Skills, (6) Basic
Technology Knowledge, (7) Technology Access
Knowledge, (8) Feedback Skills, and (9)
Collaboration/Teamwork Skills
Likewise, since one of the concerns of this
study is the supervision strategies and practices of
school leaders in the new normal, Systems Theory of
Management is significant to the current study.
According to Chikere and Nwoka (2015), systems
theory explains the domination of management during
contemporary society. It also clears the functions of
multifaceted organizations in modern society; and
forecasts that will be a continuous increase in the
responsibility of supervision in the intricacy of
organizations. It describes the internal and external
behavior of an organization. Internally, it provides a
clear view about the reasons why and how do its
member execute their task as well as their collaborative
task. Externally, it can assess the contracts of the
organization with the other organizations and
2
institutions. In addition, in the article written by Smith
(2009), she stated that in the systems approach, the most
important feature of supervision is the connection
between supervisor and supervisee, which is commonly
concerning and intended at granting control to both
members (Holloway, 1995). In this theory, the
components of supervision were defined, all associated
by the main administrative affiliation.
The statement of theory provided
enlightenment to the researcher that there is a need to
identify and assess the specific strategies and practices
rendered by school leaders to help teachers who
experienced the challenges specifically in terms of
competencies in their teaching activities, because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers‟ assessment of
monitoring and supervision strategies and practices of
school leaders is a manifestation of a relationship
between them. Insights that will arise from this research
are expected to contribute to a better understanding of
the importance of proper monitoring and supervision
strategies and practices of school leaders. Results of this
also helped the researcher to craft a learning and
development program appropriate for teachers in the
new normal.
1.1 Research Questions
This study generally aimed to determine the
relationship between the monitoring and supervision
strategies and practices of School heads and Master
teachers and teachers‟ competencies in the new normal.
Specifically, this sought answers to the
following:
 What is the teachers‟ mean level of observation
on the strategies and practices of the School heads
and Master teachers in the monitoring and
supervision of teachers in the new normal?
 What is the mean level of the Teachers‟
Competencies and Skills in Distance Education?
 Is there a significant relationship between
teachers‟ mean level of observance of school
heads and master teachers‟ practices of
monitoring and supervision and teachers‟
competencies and skills?
 Do the teachers‟ mean level of observance of
School Heads and Master Teacher‟s Practices
singly or in combination influence teachers‟
competencies and skills?
 What Learning and Development Programs for
Teachers can be offered to further develop
teachers‟ competencies and skills in the new
normal?
1.2 Hypotheses
 The researcher was guided by the following
hypotheses. The hypotheses of the study are presented
in the following null form (H0):
 There is no significant relationship between
teachers‟ mean level of observance of school
heads and master teachers‟ practices of
monitoring and supervision and teachers‟
competencies and skills.
 The teachers‟ mean level of observance of School
Heads and Master Teacher‟s Practices singly or in
combination do not influence teachers‟
competencies and skills.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Strategies and Practice in Monitoring and
Supervision
According to Etor (2020), there are arguments
between teachers, school leaders, and legislators
regarding how instructional supervision is implemented
and its ultimate purpose. Also, based on Iroegbu & Eyo
(2016), in the absence of the school head, there is
always a person who will assume the role and functions
of the principal. The efficiency of the institution mainly
depends on the capacity of the school to perform
supervisory activities. It is important to have a clear
instructional goal and work collaboratively for the
improvement of teaching and learning (Smylie, 2020)
Instructional supervision involves
professional continuous and cooperative process. Its
main purpose is to improve the instruction of teachers.
It requires management, support, expressing ideas,
assistance, or innovation to improve teacher‟s ability in
handling different learning situations. It will also
improve the quality of learning in the schools. It may
depend on the collaboration among its members and the
school leaders. These leaders must possess greater
understanding and knowledge regarding the school
environment. They must facilitate collaboration to
create improvement of the school and its professional
learning community.
According to Glickman (2020), developmental
supervision is another supervisory approach that can
help teachers in improving their instructional
competencies. Educational experts introduced the term
differentiated instruction. In this kind of supervision,
the teachers have an opportunity as to how they want to
be supervised and evaluated. Some of them assumed
that majority of the teachers will be involved in teacher
assessment, staff development, and casual observations.
These processes are very necessary for improving
instruction no matter what their experiences or
competencies. experience or competence. There is a
need for a harmonious setting to have successfully
differentiated supervision. It nurtures a collaborative
relationship anchored on mutual aid and participation.
In addition, according to Sullivan and Glanz
(2020) and Zepeda (2020), there are different changes
in the term supervision. The concept of clinical
supervision has constantly encountered numerous
criticisms. As time passed by, there are transitions in the
idea of clinical supervision. It was due to modern social
issues, scholastic responsibility, and electoral mandates.
Experts try to provide a clear view regarding the
changes in the supervisory processes and produce an
impression on the challenges correlated with
instructional supervision. Reflection and knowledge
creation are a more collaborative foundational learning
concept than traditional and teacher-centered learning.
The presented supervision styles were presented
already different times for it is said to improve the
supervisory practices of every school leader. Aseltine
et al. (2016) named this as performance-based
supervision and evaluation model (PBSE). They truly
believe that the practices coupled with this model can
help re-professionalize teachers' performance, which
will enable them to acquire effective strategies that may
help improve the critical and instructional ability of
schools. It was established and initially executed in their
home state of Connecticut, where it showed a useful
way of improving instruction and student learning and
a enhancing professional culture.
Based on the study conducted by Lopez (2016),
on classroom supervisory practices in the Philippines,
the participants agreed that the principal sometimes
records familiar words, phrases, and sentences for the
teacher to provide the teacher with more accurate
feedback. Results of her study also revealed that she
sometimes records the series of questions asked by the
teacher to improve the teacher's question techniques and
occasionally records directions given by the teacher in
the course of the lesson. To say that supervisors are
providing their assistance to the teacher in the
classroom is to explain that the observation records
serve as a valuable and informative picture of follow-up
work, which can be used to monitor suggestions.
Regardless of the type of recording method employed, it
is essential to capture as much of the visit as possible
within a minimum amount of time and energy. It is
essential to do this for the teacher, and the learner can
benefit from the information in the classroom.
Teachers’ Competencies and Skills in the New
Normal
Teachers play a significant role in the so-called
New Normal in Education. The role is broader as
compared to the typical classroom setup. Even though
3
they are working at home in the new normal, they must
always be available for queries from the students and
parents. Tarek (2016) emphasized since distance
learning entails greater responsibility because it requires
an interaction between the teachers and students.
Teachers must always consider the individual needs of
the learners. Teachers may provide collaborative
virtual learning activities to motivate learners. they
must demonstrate creativity in whatever they are doing
since it has an impact on the learners. It enables the
learners to participate in virtual learning activities and
engage them in deeper learning to meet the desired
learning outcomes (Tuscano, 2020).
Saxena & Saxena (2020) constructed a
framework highlighting the role of teachers in times
of pandemic. It also emphasizes the levels of
teaching for effective learning. As the learners have
distinct personalities and learning styles, teachers must
develop and implement varied teaching strategies
appropriate to learners‟ ability. Aside from the different
teaching strategies, in the study of Warden, Stanworth,
Ren & Warden (2013) they presented that the primary
source of the problem in synchronous learning is
behavior. Thus, teachers must still employ effective
virtual classroom management. It is a measure of
success in the new normal of teaching.
However, Bower, Dalgarno & Kennedy (2013)
stipulated that the main struggle in blended learning
was communication and split attention. Looking at the
present situation worldwide, teachers portray a very
vital role in lessening the anxiety of the learners due to
this pandemic. Educating learners in this time of
pandemic is not easy. That is why teachers must be
trained appropriately to facilitate teaching in the new
normal. There is a need for certification and training
programs utilizing different online platforms. Teachers
must also be given complete and appropriate
instructional materials, learning modules, and other
resources needed in teaching in the new normal.
Teachers are the most important in classroom teaching.
They play a very essential role in the development of
learners. Thus, the responsibility to mold and shape
pupil‟s abilities lies in their hands. For teachers to
perform at their best and to improve their teaching
competencies, they must improve their efficacy.
Developed teaching efficacy in this time of pandemic is
very important. The personal belief of teachers
regarding their teaching capabilities contributes to their
self-efficacy. These beliefs are related to their behavior
demonstrated in the classroom. It established a
difference in terms of types of teaching strategies and
methodologies.
4
As a support to the statement mentioned,
Prytula and Weiman (2012) mentioned that a teacher
understands their personality. They also recognize their
strengths and weaknesses. It is highly associated with
the practices and traditions of the school. The identity
of teachers will be known more if they will examine
their learning and professional development according
to the elements of teacher identity and comprehend how
the different factors such as the environments, forms,
and works habits affected the progress of schools. The
study of Mojavezi and Tamiz (2012) concluded that
teacher self-efficacy could affect students‟ enthusiasm
and success in different settings, thus, it is not context-
bound. It is also essential that educational contexts and
school administrators provide clear opportunities to
improve the efficacy of the teachers since it can develop
motivations among learners and eventually improve
their academic performance.
Learning and Development Programs for Teachers
According to Ertmer et al. (2012), inadequate
professional development and training are the most
prominent reasons why there is a failure in the
application of technology in the classroom. The study of
Johnson et al. (2016) stated that newly hired teachers
must still undergo professional training to maintain their
skills even though they are already equipped with
current classroom technology. They also stated that
necessary resources are needed in providing specialized
training for teachers. The specific kind of preparation
available to teachers is an essential consideration.
They also added that even there are many
available technologies appropriate for teaching.
Teachers must be knowledgeable and confident in using
these technologies. It is a fact that many teachers grew
up without access to different kinds of technology. At
present, these kinds of teachers will be intimidated by
their learners because they are advanced in terms of
technological knowledge.
Similarly, the study of Johnson et al. (2016)
regarding the challenges and support to teachers'
utilization of technology in teaching presented
recommendations to improve using technologies in the
classroom. Some of the recommendations include
looking for assistance from the ISTE to find useful
professional development platforms. Capacitate the
ability of school leaders in the provision of professional
education. Appeal for training regarding the new
scholastic package adopted and provide enough and
suited technological, organizational, and peer assistance
to teachers.
Also, in the study of Ghavifekr and Rosdy
(2015), it was also discovered that professional
development training programs for teachers performed
a vital function in improving students‟ quality of
learning. Other researchers may consider studying the
other concepts of ICT integration, especially from a
management perspective regarding strategic planning
and policymaking. Similarly, Burns (2015) stated that
there must be a guide on how a teacher will utilize
technology in teaching. Constant follow-up and support
are needed so that teachers can plan for activities related
to technology.
Professional technology advancement should
destress the significance of teachers‟ expertise with
software and hardware and emphasize teachers‟ security
and trust in utilizing computers. She emphasized that
encouraging teachers to imagine themselves as project
managers of a particular activity is very useful.
Moreover, careful planning is also needed when
teachers want to use technology in their classrooms. It
only implies that integrating technology in the
classroom needs a participative action of teachers,
scholastic technology specialists, and school leaders;
that is why assisting teachers is essential, most
specifically this time of the pandemic.
Likewise, beginning teachers are the most
vulnerable to different challenges in education. For this
reason, they are the ones who have low self-efficacy
and must need to be improved. Older teachers must
foster a positive attitude and must encourage them to
develop themselves. Also, the results of this study
indicated a positive correlation between teacher self-
efficacy and students‟ motivation and achievement. For
Mendoza, as cited by Canon (2015), a teacher plays an
essential function in guiding and directing learning
outcomes. Teachers should determine ways on
understanding the clients. It is not sufficient that he
knows the learners‟ role. He should also know his role
in the group, plus the factors behind his function and
reaction to certain stimuli. He must instill that driving
desire for continuous development of his abilities.
Because of the struggles brought by the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education is
pursuing different measures to provide quality
education. Enclosure to DepEd Order No. 012, s. 2020
is the Learning Continuity Plan which will be used
during the time of the pandemic. This LCP aims to
ensure the continuity of the delivery of learning by
offering different learning delivery modalities. Through
the National Educators Academy of the Philippines
(NEAP), the Department of Education commits to
providing and supporting professional development for
teachers and school leaders. Also, through DepEd
Memorandum No. 50 series of 2020, the organization
5
was able to identify and present the different priorities
for the professional development of teachers and school
leaders. It will enable teachers to improve their teaching
competencies.
3. METHODOLOGY
The descriptive-correlational explanatory
research design was employed in this study to
determine the correlation between the variables using
statistical analyses such as weighted mean, Pearson r
and Hierarchical stepwise multiple regression analysis.
Weighted mean was used to determine the teacher's
mean level of observance of School Heads and Master
Teacher‟s strategies and practices in monitoring and
supervision of teachers in the new normal as well as
teachers‟ competencies and skills. Pearson r was
employed to establish the relationship between the
assessed level of observance of school heads and master
teachers‟ monitoring and supervision strategies and
assessed level of observance of school heads and master
teachers‟ monitoring and supervision. The relationship
between teachers‟ competencies in the new normal and
assessed level of observance of school heads and master
teachers‟ monitoring and supervision practices, the
Pearson product-moment correlation was employed.
Hierarchical stepwise multiple regression analysis was
used to measure the influence of School Heads and
Master Teachers‟ Supervision and Monitoring Practices
and Teachers‟ Competencies in the new normal. It is
utilized in order to calculate the contributions of
predictors above and beyond previously entered
predictors. This is also a sequential process that
involves the entry of predictor variables into the
analysis in steps (Lewis, 2007). It is also typically adds
to the researcher's understanding of the phenomena
being studied, since it requires thoughtful input to the
researcher in determining the order of entry of
Independent Variables and yields successive tests of the
validity of the hypotheses which determine that order.
The respondents of the study were composed of
108 public elementary schools, of which were 385
teacher respondents and 267 elementary School Heads
and Master Teachers/ Head Teachers in the city
schools‟ divisions of Biñan, Cabuyao, Calamba, and
Santa Rosa. Sample size was calculated using
Cochran‟s Formula at 95% confidence level with a
margin of error equal to (0.05). After determining the
number of schools per division, stratified sampling was
utilized to determine the number of respondents.
The study utilized two survey questionnaires.
The first instrument employed was a two-part survey
questionnaire. It was designed to determine the mean
level of observation on the strategies and practices of
the School heads and Master teachers in the monitoring the face-to-face delivery of learning to online and
and supervision of teachers in the new normal. The modular distance learning requires the teachers to be
domains that were assessed include the following knowledgeable in the use of the technology. Because of
strategies; Assisting Teachers in the Use of Technology this, assistance from school leaders is highly valuable.
in the Teaching Process, Conducting Virtual It also implies that school leaders were also
Observation, Conducting Online SLAC Session, Online considerate about the struggle experienced by the
Monitoring of Teachers’ Instruction and Teaching teachers in the new normal. Even though they advise
Delivery. While the domains that were assessed the teachers to employ active learning in teaching, they
regarding their practices include; Instructional are not pressuring the teachers. It is a good sign that
Supervision, Staff Development, Curriculum they are employing appreciative inquiry in the conduct
Development and Mentoring and Instructional Support of virtual observation. The most recent work by Murphy
for Teachers. (2013), which highlights various aspects of classroom
The second instrument is designed in observation, served as the support of the study results.
determining the level of teachers‟ competencies and Also, based on the study of Iroegbu and Eyo (2016)
skills. The domains included were Content Knowledge classroom observation offers an opportunity for
and Pedagogical Skills, Knowledge of Distance supervisors to assess teachers' styles, their classroom
Education Field, Organizational Skills, Planning skills, management skills, and various aspects of teaching that
Communication and Interpersonal Skills, Basic are difficult to attain through other forms of evaluation.
Technology Knowledge, Technology Access Knowledge, Moreover, it allows teachers to receive constructive
Feedback skills, and Collaboration/Teamwork skills. feedback on their teaching techniques and methods to
These survey questionnaires were answered improve them further. In a nutshell, it is one of the most
through Google form with the respondents‟ written common ways of reflecting on pedagogical practices
consent that was approved by the LSPU ethics (Farrell, 2020), which can help teachers evaluate their
committee and validated by experts. Proper treatment strengths and weaknesses.
and handling of the documents were considered and Table 1. Teacher’s Mean Level of Observation on Strategies
handled appropriately. The researcher assured the Implemented by SH and MT
confidentiality of the answer of the respondents. Master School Head
Indicator Teacher
4. RESULTS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Mean Verbal Me Verbal
This chapter presents the findings on the Interpr an Interpreta
assessments of the observation on the practices and etation tion
implementation of the School heads and Master 1. Assisting Teachers in
teachers in the monitoring and supervision of teachers the Use of Technology in 3.61 Highly 3.5 Highly
the Teaching Process Observe Observed
and teachers‟ competencies in the new normal. It also
d
reports the identified relationship between the 2. Conducting Virtual 3.64 Highly 3.64 Highly
monitoring and supervision strategies and practices of Observation Observe Observed
School heads and Master teachers and teachers‟ d
competencies. 3.Conducting Online
Table 1 reveals the assessments of teachers on SLAC Session 3.63 Highly 3.65 Highly
school heads and master teachers/head teachers‟ Observe Observed
4. Online Monitoring of d
observance of implementing strategies in monitoring Teachers’ Instruction and 3.62 Highly 3.62 Highly
and supervision of teachers. Teaching Delivery Observe Observed
The presented data shows that in most of the appropriately; d
indicative statements, the school head and master
teachers/head teachers‟ implementation of strategies in
monitoring and supervision of teachers in the new 1.00-1.49(Not Observed);1.50-2.49(Moderately Observed);2.50
3.49(Observed);3.50-4.00(Highly Observed)
normal is Highly Observed. The teachers perceived that
Likewise, it denotes that school heads and
school heads and master teachers were doing their part
master teachers follow the same routine, framework,
in assisting teachers in the use of technology. Being the
and strategies to conduct school learning action cells.
school leaders, they are initiating activities that
The level of observations provides a clear manifestation
motivate teachers to utilize technology to be able to
that they are knowledgeable in providing and enhancing
deliver quality learning for the learners. They also
teachers' knowledge, skills, and attitudes through
encourage the teachers to be innovative. The shift from
different learning development activities and programs.
6
This claim was supported by the study conducted by
Gumban (2019). She found out teachers' work
performance is significantly correlated to the
implementation of school learning action cells. It
indicates that teachers become more effective with the
implementation of the school learning action cell.
Binauhan (2019) reiterates that if the group (LAC)
facilitator consistently undertakes the functions
mentioned above, they eventually learn and exhibit
these skills themselves. It also implies that school
leaders were offering ways to improve the teachers'
professional learning since it is indispensable at this
pandemic. It may also mean that they believe that the
teacher's performance in the new standard will be
improved through the school learning action cell.
It infers that school heads and master teachers
have provided a toolkit that can be used to monitor
teachers‟ instruction and teaching delivery since both
are raters in the classroom observation of teachers. It
entails as well, that at present, despite the limitations in
the face-to-face monitoring due to the COVID-19
pandemic, still, the school leaders were making
different strategies to be able to monitor teacher‟s
instruction and teaching delivery. It is a good indication
that they are ensuring that despite the hindrances
brought by this pandemic, still teachers‟ instruction and
the delivery of learning will be of quality. According to
Laska (2016), school leaders' most crucial
responsibilities are monitoring and evaluating teachers.
Through observation and analysis, the school leaders of
the school tend to know what is happening in the school
Table 2 shows the results and analyses on the
assessments of the teacher respondents on the
observance of the practices of School Heads and Master
Teachers in monitoring and supervision of teachers in
the new normal.
Table 2. Teacher’s Mean Level of Observation on
Practices Implemented by SH and MT
Master Teacher School Head
Indicator Mean Verbal Me
Interpr an
etation
1. Instructional 3.61 Highly 3.63
Supervision Observed
Highly
2. Staff Development, 3.61 Observed 3.63
3.Curriculum 3.59 Highly 3.62
Development Observed
Highly
4. Mentoring and 3.61 Observed 3.60
Instructional Support
for Teachers
1.00-1.49(Not Observed);1.50-2.49(Moderately Observed);2.50
3.49(Observed);3.50-4.00(Highly Observed)
Table 2 indicates the teacher‟s mean level of
observation on practices implemented by school heads
and master reveals that both the school heads‟ and
master teachers‟ practices are Highly Observed in all
the given indicators. The effectiveness of the school
mainly depends on the ability of the school to perform
supervisory activities. It is important to have a clear
instructional goal and work collaboratively for the
improvement of teaching and learning (Smylie, 2020).
It also implies that master teachers and school heads are
working hand-in-hand, and they have the same practices
towards staff development. It also entails that they are
regularly having conferences and staff meetings. It is an
exemplary manifestation of their consistency in
monitoring teachers. They may be doing this practice to
determine the concerns of the teachers immediately.
According to Ekyaw (2014), to improve the instruction
of teachers, the school leaders must plan for the
effective delivery of staff development programs. They
must ensure that these efforts will have an allotted
budget and enough time for planning and
implementation of the program.
Likewise the data shows that both school heads
and master teachers are key players in the development
of curriculum since they are the ones who serve as the
frontliners on its implementation, monitoring,
assessment, and evaluation, which make them
familiarize with the different processes, frameworks,
and principles about the curriculum. This claim is
supported by the study of Ornstein & Hunkins (2012).
According to them, the curriculum development process
is usually carried out by educators in committees
working together. Also, Bas and Senturk stipulated that
for the curriculum development to be successful and
effective, all groups (i.e., teachers, parents, students,
administrators, and inspectors) affected by the current
curriculum need to be involved. Therefore,
instructional leaders such as school heads and master
teachers must spend more time developing knowledge
Verbal and implementing the curriculum and instruction and
Interpreta assessment rather than sticking to the traditional and
tion conventional way of doing it.
Highly Results indicate also that both school heads and
Observed master teachers serve as a coach and mentor to the
teachers regarding instructions and delivery. The
Highly
coaching and mentoring to the teachers are one of their
Observed
Highly key result areas and indicators. According to Dolorosa
Observed (2020), instructional leaders and supervisors are tasked
to perform supervisory practices. Through this, the
Highly teachers were able to obtain support for their
Observed professional improvement.
It shows that in all the indicators, the teachers
are Highly Proficient. It implies that teachers are
7
competent and possess the appropriate skills in dealing participative and even be interested in modular distance
with the new normal in education. They are also learning. Teachers may utilize different online
equipped with the needed skills and competencies to applications to be able to sustain the interest of the
handle classes in the new standard set-up wherein learners. This was supported by the study of Litman
different learning modalities provide continuous (2020) stated in the Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
essential education services to the students. The study According to him, planning refers to a person's strategy
of Puteh (2016) supported the result of this study in preparing how an activity will be conducted. It
regarding the importance of content knowledge and occurs at different levels, and it is an example of
pedagogical skills. According to him, it plays an complex decision-making. His statement is a clear
essential role in classroom instructions. manifestation that planning skill is essential for
Table 3 presents the mean level of teachers‟ teachers.
competencies and skills in distance education. Moreover the result reveals that teachers are
Table 3. Mean Level of Teachers Competencies and Skills in adaptable to the changes brought by the pandemic.
Distance Education Teachers provided different options to both the students
Indicator Mea SD Verbal and parents as to how they will help each other in
n Interpretatio monitoring the achievement and progress of the
n students and the platforms that they will use to have
1. Content Knowledge and 3.61 .50 Highly open communication with them. They are also
Pedagogical Skills Proficient introducing new applications to continuously reach
students and parents so that they can address the needs,
2. Knowledge of Distance 3.57 .49 Highly
Education Field Proficient
answer their queries, and provide feedback regarding
the status of each student.
3. Organizational Skills 3.60 .49 Highly Such findings are also seen in a recent report in
Proficient the literature. According to Ferreira, Behrens, Torres,
and Marriott (2018), an online education teacher must
4.Planning skills 3.59 .49 Highly explore and use all the technological possibilities
Proficient
related to teaching and learning and have a clear
5.Communication and 3.66 .47 Highly
Interpersonal Skill Proficient understanding of the knowledge embedded in this
network.
6.Basic Technology 3.55 .49 Highly Table 4 shows the test of the relationship
Knowledge Proficient between teachers‟ observance of school heads and
master teachers‟ practices of monitoring and
7. Technology Access 3.58 .49 Highly supervision and teachers‟ competencies.
Knowledge Proficient
Table 4. Correlation Matrix for School Head/Master
8. Feedback skills 3.63 .48 Highly Teachers’ Practices and Teacher’s Competencies
Proficient School Head/Master Teacher Practices
9. Collaboration/Teamwork 3.65 .47 Highly
Mentori
skills Proficient Teacher’s Instru Staff Curricul ng &
1.00-1.49 (Below Basic); 1.50-2.49 (Basic); 2.50-3.49 (Proficient); 3.50-4.00 Competencies ctional Develo um Instructi
(Highly Proficient)
Super pment Develop onal
Likewise, the study of Ferreira, Behrens, vision ment Support
Torres, and Marriott (2018), stated that an online
education teacher must explore and use all of the
technological possibilities related to teaching and
learning as well as they should have a clear
understanding of the knowledge embedded in this
network. Therefore, when using technological
resources, the teacher must clearly understand that these
resources are designed to foster learning in the same
way that ICT fosters socialization and collaboration in
knowledge production.
At present, the challenge pose by this pandemic
shows that teachers may make fun-filled activities to
motivate the learners to attend online classes and be
8
 collaboration and teamwork among them. It means that
Content Knowledge .133* .045 -.105 .194** in this time of the pandemic, there is a need for the
and Pedagogical school leaders to appropriately guide the teachers to
Skills help them overcome the challenges brought by COVID-
19 through collaborative efforts. It also implies that
Knowledge of .053 -.035 -.122* .006
Distance Education reasonable staff development practices may encourage
Field the teachers to participate in whatever programs the
school will implement in this new normal.
Organizational Skills .031 .019 .089 -.007 Furthermore, in terms of curriculum
development as a practice of the school heads/master
Planning Skills .187* .022 .134* .044 teachers, it has a significant negative relationship on
*
Communication and .005 .020 .061 .001
knowledge of distance education field (r=-.122) and a
Interpersonal Skills significant positive relationship on planning skills
(r=.134) at 0.05 level of significance. In contrast, the
Basic Technology .036 .009 -.081 .006 remaining indicators have no significant relationship to
Knowledge curriculum development.
It implies that school leaders' curriculum
Technology Access .040 -.025 .084 .052
development practices may improve teachers'
Knowledge
competencies in the new normal. If the SH/MT
Feedback Skills .007 .007 .044 .033 involved the teachers in developing the curriculum, it is
more likely that they will be abreast of how the
Collaboration/Team .007 .214** -.039 .031 curriculum should be implemented in the new normal.
work Skills However, the study results also imply that curriculum
**significant at .01 level development practices undesirably affect teachers'
*significant at .05 level
knowledge in distance education. It means that when
Findings show that school heads/master
SH/MT implements activities on curriculum
teachers' practices in terms of instructional supervision
development, it is most likely that teachers will have
have a significant relationship to content knowledge and
lesser knowledge in distance education. It may be
pedagogical skills (r=0.133) at a 0.05 level of
because, at present, teachers are still adjusting to the so-
significance. It also has a highly significant relationship
called new normal in education. The more changes are
to planning skills (r=.187) at a 0.01 level of
implemented in our curriculum, the more uncertainty
significance. The remaining indicators of teacher
the teachers feel about it.
competencies have no significant relationship to the
Moreover, for mentoring and instructional
instructional supervision of school heads and master
support as a practice of the school heads/master
teachers.
teachers, only content knowledge and pedagogical skills
It implies that effective implementation of
(r=.194) at 0.01 level of significance has high
instructional supervision practices can improve the
significant relationships while the remaining indicators
teacher's competencies. School heads and master
have no significant relationship.
teachers, as instructional leaders, should properly
It implies that mentoring and instructional
execute these instructional supervision practices to
support practices of SH/MT affect teacher's competence
motivate teachers to perform at their best. There must
in delivering conceptual approach, relational
be guidance, assistance, sharing of ideas, facilitation, or
understanding, and adaptive reasoning of subject
creation from the school leaders to help teachers
matter. At present, there is a need for school leaders to
improve the learning situation and quality of learning in
conduct mentoring and provide instructional support to
the schools.
teachers because they are still embracing the changes in
On the other hand, staff development as a
the manner of delivering the lesson to the learners.
practice of the school heads/master teachers has a
Therefore, mentoring them influences them to further
highly significant relationship on
improve in terms of content knowledge and pedagogical
collaboration/teamwork skills (r=.214) at 0.01 level of
skills.
significance. In contrast, all other indicators have no
Table 5 presents the test of prediction on the
significant relationship to the staff development of
influence of SH and MT practices singly or in
school heads and master teachers.
combination with teacher‟s competencies.
It implies that the practices of SH/MT on staff
development enable the teachers to promote
9
 Table 5. Test of Prediction on the Influence of SH and MT It implies that the curriculum development
Practices to Teacher’s Competencies practices of MT and SH do not predict what might be
Standar the performance of the teachers. It does not give a
St Predictors Unstandardiz dized t- p- guarantee that if school leaders properly implement
e ed Coeffici value valu
curriculum development practices it will improve the
p Coefficients ents e
B Std. Beta
competencies of the teachers. As a result, the researcher
Error should consider reducing the influence allotted to
curriculum development and even possibly omit them
1 Constant 2.473 .221 11.16 .000 from consideration as influences on teacher
Staff .235 .061 .230 9 .000 competencies.
Development 3.846 The article was written in the blog
“trenducation” (2019) may support the researcher's
2 Constant .2.63 .220 11.96 .000
Staff 4 .062 .286 3 .000
findings and claim. Curriculum development may not
Development .293 .030 -.228 4.750 .000 predict the performance and competence of teachers
Curriculum -.113 -3.791 because it is more on the implementation of different
Development types of strategies and methods by which its ultimate
1 F (1 , 265) = 14.790; p < .01; R2 = .053
goal is on students' achievements and outcomes.
Dependent Variable: Teacher’s Competencies Similarly, Bayrakci and Karacaoglu (2020)
2 F (2, 264) = 14.954; p < .01; R2 = .049 presented in their study one feature of curriculum
A two-step hierarchical stepwise multiple developments. Their study stipulated that curriculum
regression tests were employed to determine which development can identify possible learning outcomes to
among the four (4) important practices of SH/MT make appropriate programs for students.
influence teacher‟s competencies. Since only the „staff These presented pieces of literature served as
development‟ and „curriculum development‟ were evidence that curriculum development does not directly
among those who exhibited a significant relationship affect teachers' competencies because curriculum
with the independent variable, the summarized data of development aims to improve learners' achievement.
staff development was entered in step one of the This study proposes a Learning and
regression procedure and curriculum development Development Program that would help sustain and
followed suit in step two. improve further the competencies and skills of teachers
The regression estimate procedure revealed that in the new normal. This program highlighted the three
the „staff development at step one significantly learning competencies that somehow do not appear to
contributed to the model where F (1, 265) = 14.790; p < be related to some of the school heads and master
.01, and explained 5.30 percent of the variance in teachers‟ practices but seem necessary in the new
teacher‟s competencies. It appears here that the staff normal.
development as one of the identified practices of
SH/MT provides moderate influence for the teacher to 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
perform at their best. Considering the regression The said new normal in education does not only
coefficient in Table 2, it can now be claimed that an pertain to the delivery of learning to the students but it
increase of 1 point in teacher‟s appreciation of the also changes the monitoring and supervision strategies
SH/MT initiative for staff development, will be resulted and practices of school leaders. In this time, teachers‟
in an average increase of at least twenty-three tenths competencies and skills were also glazed with different
(.235) of a point on the 5-point teacher competency challenges brought by the present pandemic. Teachers
scale. need to adapt to the said new normal and must adopt the
The impact of the curriculum development as different learning delivery modalities presented by the
the predicting variable entered step two is less certain. Department of Education. However, teachers‟
Though these two variables were included in the competencies and skills still manifest Highly Proficient
stepwise solution, the curriculum development had a considering the present situation. Thus, teacher‟s
reversed sign (-.113) in the model which in a way will recognition and collaboration with the monitoring and
represent a result contrary to the current practices used supervisory strategies and practices of the School Heads
by the SH/MT. The explained variance of the and Master Teachers considered being Highly
curriculum development as one of the predicting Observed. Likewise these imply that the strategies and
variables was only .004 out of an overall model R2 of practices implemented by the SH/MT has significant
.053. relationship to teachers‟ competencies and skills. That
10
the methods, processes, form, or procedures utilized by
school heads and master teachers at schools, produced
the mechanism for any educational achievement and
professional attainment. Moreover, it denotes that the
proper strategies implemented has significant
relationship to the practices employed by the SH/MT. It
explains that if they effectively and efficiently
performed the different ways in implementing the
activities aligned to the stipulated practices it will be
manifested in their actions on providing proper
instructional support to the development of the
competencies and skills of the teachers. Finally, it is
concluded that staff development implemented by the
SH/MT, moderately influence teachers‟ competencies
and skills. It signifies that they are giving the proper
advancements to teachers; however, these
advancements might be limited and does not completely
address the needs of the teachers in this new normal
considering the present distance learning implemented.
In light of these conclusions school heads and master
teachers may continuously attend professional
development activities offered by the Division, Region,
and Central office to further improve some of their
strategies and practices in monitoring and supervising
teachers and to acquire strategies that are applicable and
appropriate to the new normal. Teachers, Master
Teachers and School Heads are encouraged to pursue
graduate or post-graduate studies and may attend
professional learning activities to further improve their
competencies and widen their professional network.
Additionally, the school may offer and conduct
activities that may improve and sustain the
competencies and skills of teachers. The school may
implement activities that may cater the needs of the
teachers especially on the strategies and technology-
aided materials and applications that can be used in
teaching in distance learning. The division office may
conduct and implement programs that may improve
further the skills of school heads and master teachers in
monitoring and supervising teachers in the new normal
particularly on instructional supervision, staff
development, curriculum development, and mentoring
and instructional supports for teachers. Likewise, the
school officials may validate or may adopt the
developed Learning and Development Program
developed by the researcher before its implementation.
REFERENCES
[1] Aseltine, M. J., Faryniarz, J. O. and Rigazio-
Digilio, A. J. (2016). Supervision for earning: A
Performance-based Approach to Teacher
Development and School Improvement. Virginia:
11
Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
[2] Binauhan, Rochelle C. (2019). Learning Action
Cell Implementation in The Public Elementary
Schools In The Division Of Cavite. International
Journal of Advanced Research and Publications.
Volume 3 Issue 11
[3] Bayrakcı, Mustafa & Karacaoğlu, , Ömer Cem
(2020). Determination of learning outcomes of
curriculum development in education according
to questions in KPSS (public personnel selection
examination) educational sciences test.
International Journal of Curriculum and
Instruction. Vol. 12(2), pp 507-532
[4] Burns,Mary. (2015). Distance Education for
Teacher Training: Modes, Models and Methods.
Education Development Ceter, Inc. Washington,
DC.
[5] Canon, Crisostomo B. (2015), Level of
Awareness among Grades 7 and 8 Teachers and
the Level of Support of DepEd Calamba City to
Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) Approach
(Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, Laguna College
of Business and Arts).
[6] Chikere, Cornell C. & Nwoka, Jude (2015). The
Systems Theory of Management in Modern Day
Organizations - A Study of Aldgate
CongressResort Limited Port Harcourt.
International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, Volume 5, Issue 9.
[7] DepEd Order No. 12, s. 2020. Adoption of the
Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan for
School Year 2020-2021 in Light of the COVID-
19 Public Health Emergency.
[8] DepEd Memorandum No. 50, s. 2020. DepEd
Professional Development for Teachers and
School Leaders for School Year 2020-2023.
[9] Department of Education (2020). Instructional
Supervision: Standards, Procedures and Tools.
Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda, Teacher
Education and Development.
[10] Dolorosa, Rodrigo S. (2020). Administrators‟
Performance in Compliance with the Standards
for Instructional Supervision in the National
Capital Region: Basis for Enhanced Supervisory
Plan. International Journal of Creative Research
Thoughts (IJCRT). Volume 8, Issue 7, ISSN:
2320-2882
[11] Ekyaw, BA. (2014) The Practices and Challenges
of Instructional Supervision in AsossaZone
Primary Schools, Jimma University of Education
and Professional development Studies of
Educational Planning and Management, Jimma
 Ethiopia. Retrieved from:
http://my.spc.edu.ph:70/e
[12] Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O.,
Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher
Beliefs and Technology Integration Practices: A
Critical Relationship. Computers & Education,
59, 423-435.
[13] Ghavifekr, Simin & Rosdy, Wan Athirah Wan
(2015). Teaching and Learning with Technology:
Effectiveness of ICT Integration in Schools.
International Journal of Research in Education
and Science. Volume 1, Issue 2, Summer 2015
ISSN: 2148-9955..
[14] Glanz, J. (2020). Paradigm Debates in
Curriculum and Supervision: Modern and
Postmodern Perspectives. Westport, CT: Bergin
and Garvey.
[15] Glickman, C. D; Gordon, S. P., and Ross-Cordon.
2020. Supervision of Instruction:
Developmental Approach. (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
[16] Gumban, Herchel (2019). School-Based Learning
Action Cell (SLAC) Activities: A Tool to
Enhance Work Performance of Teachers in
Norala Districts. Mindanao State University
Graduate School
[17] Hero, Jesson L. (2020). Level Shifting,
Workload, School Location, Teacher
Competency and Principal Leadership Skills in
Public Elementary Schools. International Journal
of Academic Pedagogical Research (IJAPR),
Vol. 4 Issue 7, July – 2020, Pages: 8-13.
[18] Holloway, E. (1995). Clinical supervision: A
systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
[19] Iroegbu & Eyo (2016). Principals‟ Instructional
Supervision and Teachers‟ Effectiveness. British
Journal of Education. Vol.4, No.7, pp.99-109
[20] Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. E.,
& Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and Solutions
When Using Technologies in the Classroom. In
S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.)
Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy
Instruction (pp.13-29). New York: Taylor &
Francis. Published with acknowledgment of
federal support.
[21] Laska, Lon (2016). Monitoring and Evaluating
the Performance of Teachers Through the Process
of Observation in the Classroom. European
Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. Vol.1 No. 2.
[22] Lewis, L., & Parsad, B. (2008). Distance
education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions:2006–07 (NCES 2009–044).
Washington: Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdfInstitute
[23] Lewis, Mitzi (2007). Step versus Hierarchical
Regression: Pros and Cons. University of North
Texas.
[24] Litman, Todd (2020). Planning Principles and
Practices. Victoria Transport Policy Institute
[25] Mojavezi, Ahmad and Tamiz, Marzieh Poodineh
(2012). The Impact of Teacher Self-efficacy on
the Students‟ Motivation and Achievement.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 2,
No. 3, pp. 483-491.
[26] Murthy, P. 2020. In the New Vision, July 2020.
[27] Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2012).
Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
[28] Peklaj, Cirila (2015). Teacher Competencies
Through the Prism of Educational Research.
A CEPS Journal. Vol.5. No 3.
[29] Prytula, M. & K. Weiman, (2012) “Collaborative
professional development: An examination of
changes in changes in teacher identity through
the professional learning community model.
“Journal of Case Studies in Education 3 (Jul
2012): 1-19, 2012.
[30] Puteh, Marzita (2016). Effective Teaching:
Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Universiti
Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI). Retrieved
January 07, 2021, from
https://www.researchgate.net
[31] Saxena R., Saxena S.K. (2020). Preparing
Children for Pandemics. In: Saxena S. (eds)
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Medical
Virology: From Pathogenesis to Disease Control.
Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-15-4814- 7_15
[32] Smith, Kendra (2009). A Brief Summary of
Supervision Models. Retrieved. January 05,
2021, from https://www.marquette.edu
[33] Sullivan, S. and Glanz, J. 2020. Supervision the
Improves Teaching: Strategies and Techniques.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
[34] Tarek, S. (2016). Distance Learning: The Role of
the Teacher, Available online at
www.docuri.com, Date Accessed, 15 August
2015Thach, E.C., Murphy, K.L.(1995).
Competencies for Distance Education
Professionals. ETR&D 43, 57-79 (1995).
https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02300482
[35] Tuscano, F. (2020). It’s not about Online
Learning: A Reflection on the “New Normal” in
Education, Available online at

12
 www.francisjimtuscano.com, Date Accessed 16
August 2020
[36] Zepeda, S. J. 2020. Instructional Supervision:
Applying Tools and Concepts. Larchmont, NY:
Eye on Education.

13

View publication stats

1022480
research-article2021
EER0010.1177/14749041211022480European Educational Research JournalNilsberth et al.

Education in Europe and the COVID-19 Pandemic

European Educational Research Journal

Digital teaching as the new normal?

2021, Vol. 20(4) 442­–462
© The Author(s) 2021

Swedish upper secondary teachers’ Article reuse guidelines:

experiences of emergency remote sagepub.com/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211022480
DOI: 10.1177/14749041211022480

teaching during the COVID-19 crisis journals.sagepub.com/home/eer

Marie Nilsberth
Department of Educational Studies, Karlstad University, Sweden

Yvonne Liljekvist
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Karlstad University, Sweden

Christina Olin-Scheller
Department of Educational Studies, Karlstad University, Sweden

Johan Samuelsson
Department of Political, Historical, Religious and Cultural Studies, Karlstad University, Sweden

Claes Hallquist
Department of Educational Studies, Karlstad University, Sweden

Abstract
This paper takes an interest in how schools and teachers dealt with new demands when teaching
rapidly went online during school closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, in what we see as
an example of emergency remote teaching. The aim is to make visible how schools and teachers
dealt with the demands that they were confronted with while under hard pressure during
emergency remote teaching, and what discursive frames are used in upper secondary teachers’
pedagogical considerations. Fifteen teachers of history, mathematics and Swedish (five from each
subject) are followed in recurring interviews between April 2020 and September 2020, resulting
in a total of 41 interviews. A narrative approach is used in the analysis and results show how
teachers made large efforts to maintain teaching in what can be described as a crisis organization.
Three main discourses are identified: (a) a strong assessment discourse; (b) a relational discourse;
and (c) a compensatory discourse. The findings are discussed in the light of educational policy

Corresponding author:
Marie Nilsberth, Department of Educational Studies, Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, Karlstad 651 88, Sweden.
Email: marie.nilsberth@kau.se
Nilsberth et al. 443

based on the so-called Nordic model and the idea of one-school-for all, and in relation to what
becomes possible to teach as well as what is not possible to do in times of crisis.

Keywords
COVID-19, education policy, digitalisation, learning platforms, one-school-for all, upper
secondary, narrative analysis

Introduction
School systems all over Europe have had to adapt to some level of online remote teaching during
the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO, 2021), more than half of the world’s students still face significant dis-
ruptions to their education, where the European average is about 17 weeks of school closures.
Also, in Sweden, which is the case in this article, upper secondary schools were forced to shift to
full online teaching at extremely short notice in March 2020, a situation that lasted throughout the
remainder of the spring semester. In this article, we investigate this period of transition and the
challenges that teachers faced as they had to move their teaching from the physical classroom to
digital online solutions. Initially, this situation was sometimes described as a ‘great on-line learn-
ing experiment’ (Zimmerman, 2020) that could advance our understanding of digitalisation in
education. And certainly, the unexpected and large-scale changes could be seen as a test and per-
haps a catalyst for wide-spread digitalisation policies in all of Europe and the western world
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2016; Redecker, 2017;
Swedish Ministry of Education, 2017). However, Hodges et al. (2020) argue that there are reasons
to be cautious about jumping to conclusions about the potential for development of online teach-
ing based on this unique situation. Instead, they say, the present situation must be understood as a
response to a very specific crisis and could best be described as Emergency Remote Teaching
(ERT) as it is not teaching that is planned to be online, but ‘a temporary shift of instructional
delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances’ (Hodges et al., 2020). Bearing
this in mind, we still think that the rapid need to mobilise digital solutions that schools were faced
with is an event with unique potential to bring new perspectives into research about education in
the era of digitalisation. In this paper, we start from an understanding that the development taking
place during this specific crisis reveals not only how this emergency situation is managed with the
help of digital technology. It also makes visible educational discourses that become influential in
decisions during a time of crisis. In this study, the aim is to make visible how schools and teachers
dealt with the demands that they were confronted with while under hard pressure during ERT, and
what discursive frames are used in upper secondary teachers’ pedagogical considerations.

ERT in the context of Swedish upper secondary education

The backdrop of this study is Swedish upper secondary schools. In Sweden, almost all adolescents
attend upper secondary school, either in programmes preparing for university studies or in voca-
tional training programmes, and most teachers meet students with a relatively broad variation in
terms of social backgrounds and educational needs. Similarly to the situation in other Nordic coun-
tries, Swedish education has a long tradition of being considered as a key to the development of a
fair and equal society supporting democratic values, welfare and life-long learning under the credo
one-school-for-all (Blossing et al., 2014; Klette, 2018). Even though challenged due to reforms
444 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

regarding school choice, academic performance and the influence of global competition between
schools (Lundahl, 2016, Telhaug et al. 2006), the idea of a Nordic model of education is still based
on a vision that schools should be inclusive, comprehensive and non-tracked until as high an age
as possible.
As the solutions to the challenges brought by the crisis are to a large extent digitally mediated,
another backdrop is digitalisation of education. In a European perspective, use of and access to
information and communications technology (ICT) prevail in Swedish classrooms at a level above
average in the OECD countries (OECD, 2020). Previous studies on digitalisation show that digital
technologies generally have the potential to dissolve the borders between in-school and out-of-
school learning as the ‘when’ and ‘where’ of instruction changes (Erstad and Sefton-Green, 2013;
Kumpulainen and Rajala, 2017; Sahlström et al., 2019). Digital tools (platforms, web resources
and so on) loosen the frames between formal and informal learning, and hence make it possible to
use also tools more associated with leisure (blogs, social media, chat services and so on) for edu-
cational purposes. Further, studies of digital educational settings show that students’ identities may
both coincide and clash when the private sphere and the public sphere overlap (e.g. Kumpulainen
and Mikkola, 2014; Vigmo and Lantz-Andersson, 2014). Allen et al. (2020) note that while there
is a wide range of digital tools, online teaching seems to lead to a return to more traditional ways
of instruction, and Biesta (2019) notices that

some of the most popular technology-mediated forms of education – such as TED talks, MOOCs and the
numerous professional and amateur instructional videos on YouTube – are all staged in traditional ways,
with someone talking and explaining so that others can watch, listen and learn. (50)

Knowledge about the effects of the pandemic and ERT are still limited, and mostly based on
reports and surveys from official stakeholders like the UNESCO, OECD or national agencies.
According to the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2020), principals of upper secondary schools in
Sweden report that the transition to digitally mediated teaching in general worked well. The prin-
cipals had, over a short period of time during school lockdown, managed to create a reasonably
functional structure for their teachers’ working situation, as well as for the students’ learning.
Already available digital tools in schools worked sufficiently well to make the transition from
ordinary teaching to ERT. Also, the Swedish National Agency for Education published a report in
August 2020, describing preliminary results on how schools have been affected in times of ERT.
They conclude that some things have worked fairly well (for instance, the students’ grades have not
decreased), but the overall impression is still worrying (Swedish National Agency for Education,
2020). The teachers’ workload increased, the compensatory assignment of schools had been more
difficult to accomplish, and special needs education deteriorated. This pattern corresponds with the
overall picture of how the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged education in many OECD coun-
tries (Schleicher, 2020).
From the academic field, Sahlberg (2020) discusses the long-term consequences of the pan-
demic and ERT for education and schooling. He thinks that the need to adapt to some level of
online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic will highlight many of the problems within school
systems that we are already aware of, in terms of social inequities, unequal access to digital
resources, and a dominance of traditional teaching, which makes school development difficult. He
points out two main issues that stakeholders need to address: first, the need to work more on reduc-
ing inequalities in education; and second, the need to put more trust in teachers and principals in
relation to decisions on how to improve teaching, including how to organise teaching during school
closures. These issues, Sahlberg argues, were important before the crisis, and will also continue to
be so after it. Hollweck and Doucet (2020), on the other hand, take a more optimistic stance when
Nilsberth et al. 445

they discuss the pandemic from a Canadian viewpoint as an opportunity to rethink the future of
schooling. They do not wish to go back to ‘normal’ teaching, since what used to be normal teaching
never served all students well and equitably. Williamson et al. (2020) reflect upon how remote
forms of teaching during the pandemic have constituted ‘frontline emergency service’ (107) and
point out that it is to be understood as a re-location of digital pedagogies. There are several issues
of importance, one of them being how the pandemic has revealed a significant variety in digital
access and digital competence across schools and educational systems. This fact, they argue, has to
be examined more broadly, also in relation to social inequalities (see also Morgan, 2020). Another
aspect that Williamson et al. (2020) bring to the fore concerns how remote teaching during the
school lockdown radically changes spatial and temporal relations of teaching and learning. In line
with this, Stenliden et al. (2020) highlight, in a preprint of a study based on action research during
ERT, how digital solutions intervene in the material framing of teaching and challenge the bodily
tools with which interaction and communication are mediated in the ordinary classroom. They
argue that if education as a field is going to gain something from this pandemic event, there is a
need to understand remote teaching beyond results in terms of what is possible to measure and
instead to a higher degree embrace teachers’ qualitative experiences and reflective thinking. In line
with these researchers, we think that more empirical studies are needed that can deepen our under-
standing of the consequences of the pandemic, and the present work aims to contribute with such
an empirical study from a teacher perspective.

Understanding teachers’ narratives about ERT

In this interview study, the rapid transition to online teaching is the reason for the conversations
between researchers and teachers, where digitalisation policies form a background and a necessary
condition for the transition taking place. This specific period of ERT is the general context of the
course of events that teachers and researchers work together to interpret in the interviews. We take
a narrative approach (Bamberg, 1997; De Fina et al., 2006; Mishler, 1999) to understanding teach-
ers’ experiences of this specific and unique period of time, based on their accounts in a series of
interviews. From such a perspective, narratives are understood as practical accomplishments and
as acts of performances (Mishler, 1999), that represent a particular occasion in the form of a story.
In Mishler’s terms, narratives are to be seen as purposeful and reflexive praxis and as ‘socially situ-
ated actions; identity performances; fusions of form and content’ (18). Here, this means that the
teachers’ re-tellings of their experiences in response to our (the researchers’) questions are under-
stood as narratives that take into account a multitude of contextual factors such as how they under-
stand the purpose of the study and interpersonal aspects in the meeting itself. Their narratives could
also be constructed in relation to what participants expect to be shared discursive knowledge, or
discursive frames, in relation to teaching in this specific situation. This means that in our under-
standing of the interviews, we must attend to the teachers’ stories as more than texts representing a
certain content in their experiences, but also take into account dimensions of form and how the
teachers’ accounts are produced in the specific situation using structures and discourses in the sur-
rounding context. Hence, Mishler’s (1999) view on narrative as praxis counters a view on dis-
courses as grand master narratives and structures that speak through a person. Instead, we view
discourses as shared understandings, or shared narratives, that people use as social and cultural
resources to interpret, make meaning of and perform their lived experiences. This focus will not
only help us understand the ERT period as such, but it will also, as Sahlberg (2020) highlights,
make visible important knowledge about needs in upper secondary education also beyond the
crisis.
446 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

The interview study

In line with our narrative approach, the interviews follow the characteristics of qualitative research
interviews (e.g. Holstein and Gubrium, 2012; Kvale and Brinkman, 2014), and we have followed
teachers of history, mathematics and Swedish at the upper secondary level (five from each subject)
in three interviews between April 2020 and September 2020. The selection is based on an availabil-
ity sampling procedure where we used our networks of schools (for instance, schools connected to
teacher education) and asked teachers in these schools to contribute to the study. The teachers
worked at 11 different schools (250–2000 students). The schools were situated both in small towns
(< 30,000 inhabitants) and in large cities (> 500,000 inhabitants), and had different municipality
or independent school organisers.
An interview guide was constructed containing background questions (position and subjects;
formal training; years as teacher), and themes guided by six main topics: (a) how the teaching is
organised during ERT; (b) possibilities and challenges of using digital tools such as learning man-
agement systems during ERT; (c) subject-specific issues regarding teaching during ERT; (d)
social aspects of teaching and supporting students during ERT; (e) challenges and possibilities
regarding online classroom interaction during ERT; and (f) issues of assessment. Each theme
contained a set of sub-questions allowing for the theme to be explored further. The interview
guide allowed for a semi-structured design giving a general overview of the interviewees’ experi-
ences during ERT, as well as allowing each interviewee to bring up his or her own thoughts. The
interview guide was adapted before the second and third interview respectively (questions were
reformulated to fit different phases of ERT), but the themes were kept. Each one of the authors
was responsible for a group of participants, and conducted all interviews with them. The inter-
views varied in length between 25 and 50 minutes and the third interview was on average shorter
than the first 2. The plan was to interview each teacher twice during spring 2020, at the beginning
of the ERT period and after about six weeks of ERT. A follow-up interview was conducted in early
September. However, only 12 teachers followed through the whole series, resulting in a total of
41 interviews (see Table 1).
The interviews were conducted via a video-conference tool (Zoom), a choice mainly due to the
pandemic restrictions that made it difficult to meet face to face. There is still limited research about
video conferences as a method, but Archibald et al. (2019) find that Zoom is a viable tool for quali-
tative interviews that permits the participants to communicate with each other, as well as show and
share documents or other teaching resources. This opportunity was used by some of the interview-
ees but not all. Using Zoom also made it possible for us to have a broader geographical sample,
which would otherwise have been difficult to accomplish due to the pandemic restrictions. A criti-
cal aspect of using systems like Zoom, pointed out by Archibald et al., has to do with the safe stor-
age of personal data and the risk of sensitive data becoming accessible to unauthorised persons in
cloud-based solutions. However, such risks were minimised in this study. For our analysis we only
needed audio recordings, hence we used separate unconnected audio recorders that were placed
beside the computer.

Analytical procedure
Holstein and Gubrium (2012) state that that the term ‘narrative analysis’ reflects a wide array of
forms and sites (see also Chase, 2011) from a focus on brief utterances and short topical stories to
long passages of time as well as from an interest in personal stories and identity to an interest in the
ways that stories relate to various conditions of social life and locations. It is an approach that
focuses on how storytelling operates in and relates to its social environment, where the point is to
Nilsberth et al. 447

Table 1.  Overview of the participants including dates of interviews.

Teacher Sex (Male/ School Interview date

alias Female) (id#) (Day Month Year)
First Second Third
Sw A Female 1 30 Mar 2020 4 May 2020 11 Sep 2020
Sw B Female 2 31 Mar 2020 12 May 2020 11 Sep 2020
Sw C Male 1 2 Apr 2020 7 May 2020 22 Sep 2020
Sw D Male 3 3 Apr 2020 16 Jun 2020 -
Sw E Female 4 23 Apr 2020 11 Jun 2020 17 Sep 2020
Ma A Male 2 1 Apr 2020 - -
Ma B Female 2 3 Apr 2020 27 Apr 2020 9 Sep 2020
Ma C Female 1 1 Apr 2020 29 Apr 2020 11 Sep 2020
Ma D Male 5 3 Apr 2020 30 Apr 2020 11 Sep 2020
Ma E Female 6 7 Apr 2020 5 May 2020 -
Hi A Male 7 2 Apr 2020 22 May 2020 28 Aug 2020
Hi B Female 8 24 Apr 2020 28 May 2020 9 Sep 2020
Hi C Male 9 27 Apr 2020 25 May 2020 18 Sep 2020
Hi D Male 10 30 Apr 2020 26 May 2020 3 Sep 2020
Hi E Male 11 4 May 2020 25 May 2020 9 Sep 2020

Note: the alias in the first column also shows the interviewee’s main subject: Sw: Swedish; Ma: mathematics; Hi: history.

ask what is socially accomplished through an account, rather than to seek an objective truth in a
narrative. From this perspective, narratives must also be understood as joint products of narrator
and listener (Holstein and Gubrium, 2012). In our case, we understand the accounts in the inter-
views as joint products between us as researchers and the teachers making use of available social
and cultural resources in the context (Mishler, 1999) to construe meaning about teaching during
ERT. Both in the questions that were posed to the teachers and in the way that they answered, the
particular circumstances of the pandemic crisis and the resulting ERT constitute a more or less
explicit point of departure.
Applying narrative analysis helped us distinguish how the teachers made sense of their experi-
ences, as well as how this sense-making changed and developed over time, in co-constructed dia-
logue between the interviewee and the interviewer. As a first step we conducted a thematic content
analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The thematic analysis is an iterative process, where we first
performed close readings of verbatim transcriptions of the interviews, looking for recurring topics,
resulting in 13 initial codes using the software NVivo. The codes were then collated into possible
themes in relation to our analytical question ‘What pedagogical considerations are present?’ All
excerpts relevant for each theme were again scrutinised guided by the analytical question, finally
resulting in three main themes that each reflected recurring pedagogical problems and considera-
tions in the teachers’ accounts of their experiences of ERT. As described above, our narrative
approach means that aspects of form and content are intertwined, so the ways of telling something
cannot be distinctly separated from what it is about (Mishler, 1999). Holstein and Gubrium (2012)
describe this approach in terms of ‘the way storytelling operates in and relates to its social environ-
ment’ (7), meaning that the production of narratives is not only conditioned by, but also shapes
their circumstances. In the second analytical step, we therefore investigated the three content-
related themes with a focus on how the whats in the content of the teachers’ tellings of their experi-
ences were shaped in relation to the hows in relation to the researchers’ questions as well as the
448 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

institutional framing. This analytic focus made visible the discursive frames that the teachers used
as social and cultural resources to interpret, make meaning of and perform their lived experiences
from ERT in the interview situations.

Analysis of pedagogical considerations during ERT

Here in the results section we begin by giving an overview of the interviews that serves as a back-
drop for analysis. The analysis is then organised in relation to the three recurring themes that were
identified in the first step of the analysis. As described above, we conducted the interviews with the
video-conference system Zoom on three separate occasions, forming a trajectory from the begin-
ning of the ERT period during mid-spring to the beginning of the autumn. Both as a reflection of
the process and the different questions we posed, the interviews turned out to address different
questions as both teachers and researchers successively changed their understanding of the ongo-
ing development.
At the time of the first interviews, in mid-April, use of digital technology was often in focus in
the interviews and there was an orientation to merely coping with the situation, finding ‘good-
enough’ ways to move teaching from the physical classroom to digitally mediated spaces. As most
schools had already worked with one-to-one solutions with personal computers for the students in
combination with some kind of digital platform as an infrastructure for teaching, the teachers con-
sidered themselves quite well prepared in terms of technology. Most of them saw themselves as
digitally competent and talked about their schools as well equipped with digital infra-structures,
programs and devices also before the crisis, except for video-conference systems that for all schools
had to be added in order to make online teaching possible.
In the second round of interviews, in May, the teachers had found some kind of everyday nor-
mality in the crisis, and they talked about different solutions that they had worked into new routines
for teaching. The picture that emerged shows some variation between schools and teachers, in
terms of routines for communication, instructions and assignments. It was clear that the teachers
used not one but many different platforms and programs in their teaching. At this stage it also
became more and more obvious that there were difficulties in keeping some of the students on
track, and many teachers described how they tried to get in touch with students through text mes-
sages or phone calls outside the lessons. They talked about how digital efforts in combination with
time-consuming student contacts resulted in a heavy workload, as they tried to find strategies for
how they could be available for their students and at the same time cope with all the different kinds
of information that each platform, program or app brought them.
At the time for the third round of interviews, in September, the pandemic situation was calmer
and schools opened again. However, many schools still organised different kinds of hybrid forms
between ordinary teaching and online teaching to lower the risk. Different groups of students were
attending school on different week-days, so sometimes they had to work from home one day a
week and sometimes more. Also, some schools tried to provide teaching for students staying at
home with mild symptoms, which meant that in some cases teachers were expected to interact with
students in the classroom and students participating online simultaneously.
The general impression from the interviews is that the technical shift itself was not that chal-
lenging. However, most teachers clearly stated that even if they coped all right with the technology,
they did not consider the online teaching to be equally good as teaching conducted in the class-
room, and in the third round of interviews they also looked back at the spring as a very stressful
period in terms of technology. In the following analysis, organised in three overarching themes, we
investigate what pedagogical considerations the teachers talk about as well as how their narratives
about this are construed with a focus on the discursive frames that the teachers draw upon to
Nilsberth et al. 449

perform their experiences in dialogue with the researchers. The three themes describe considera-
tions in relation to teaching content, classroom interaction and student support.

Theme 1: considerations in relation to teaching content

Our first theme concerns how the teachers dealt with issues of teaching content in relation to ERT.
Generally speaking, a coherent picture emerged showing that they did not seem to have made any
radical changes concerning content because of the situation. Instead, the teachers put effort into
sticking to the plan as much as possible for the end of the spring semester. The challenges they
talked about were to a large extent related to getting enough support to grade the students in rela-
tion to the curriculum. This is the case, for example, in an interview with one of the teachers of
history:

Excerpt 1. Hi E_01 (4 May 20)

I: Are there any aspects of history teaching that you choose to focus more on? Well if you think,
abilities, sources, use of history, developmental trajectories, are there any aspects that, has anything
happened? Is there something you could, like, say about it?

T: I don’t really think that it has changed anything like that, but I would also like to say that when this
finally came we had come quite far in the syllabus. I have courses spanning over the whole year so
that three quarters of the syllabus were already done. So we had already done a lot. It is possible
that some things had been different if this had been from the beginning. But as for example you
mention use of history here for example we had already worked with that quite a lot in the courses
already and in principle as an assignment of its own in any case done with.

In this example, from an interview conducted in early May some weeks into the ERT period, the
interviewer specifically asks the teacher about content focus and refers to some examples of core
content in the subject of history. In his answer, the teacher states that there were no major changes
concerning content and explains this lack of change in relation to the fact that the transition of the
teaching to ERT occurred so late in the school year when most of the content areas in the syllabus
had already been dealt with. However, he opens up the possibility that it might have been otherwise
if the transition had been planned from the beginning of the school year. This opening implicitly
indicates an understanding of the transition as a kind of emergency solution that was unexpected
and implemented with short notice. In this example, the teacher continues to refer to the content
area ‘use of history’ as a central aspect of the subject that was already sufficiently covered so that
there was no need for further student assignments about that. He also refers to his long-term plan
for the year, where most of the content – three-quarters – had already been covered.
In this narrative, the teacher draws on two discursive resources to make his point that there was
no immediate need to make any major changes to the teaching content. First, he refers to the state of
emergency as a context and a reason for sticking to the plan without making too many changes. This
is recognisable also in many of the other interviews where teaching during this period is talked about
in terms of ‘being good enough’ and characterised by a need to ‘cut corners’, or that development of
new content has to ‘wait for another time’ as they currently have to prioritise to keep things going.
Second, he uses the curriculum to account for the fact that his students had already completed major
assignments so that most of the core content was already covered. The significance of the time of
the school year is something that several teachers orient to as a reason for their considerations. In the
next example, a teacher of Swedish talks about it as a good thing that the school closure came so late
450 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

during the spring semester and, similarly to the history teacher above, that she had already com-
pleted most of the necessary knowledge requirements (that is the Swedish curriculum term for
standards set for reaching a passing grade in a school subject).

Excerpt 2a. Sw B_01 (31 March 2020)

T: No, usually you think like this, it was in a way a good thing that this happened during the spring
semester. I usually have a rule that you ought to have done all knowledge requirements before the
Easter holiday. Precisely because you should have time to save the students that have fallen behind
and precisely to create space for the national [tests]. So that in all my courses I have actually gone
through all my knowledge requirements and the core content which means that there is not the same
pressure that I have to make time for language sociology for example or something like that. Instead
it is more that I have created a replacement test for the national [test] mainly in order to catch up
the students who have missed important projects and so on.

In excerpt 2a, this teacher also refers to the time of ERT, late in the school year, as being important
in relation to her pedagogical considerations. She relies on a routine of hers in which she always
tries to complete all the necessary requirements from the syllabus before Easter so that she has
some months left to support or, as she puts it, ‘save’ students who are at risk of not passing, and
also to give all students the opportunity to improve their grades. Another circumstance that is
important in this narrative concerns the national tests in Swedish that are usually given at this time
of the year. During the ERT period, the Swedish National Agency for Education decided to with-
draw these high-stakes tests that are usually used as standardisation tools for equal and comparable
grading across schools nationally. The reason given for withdrawing the tests was that it was con-
sidered difficult to guarantee that they could be carried out without risks of cheating. The with-
drawal of the national tests is something that many teachers of the subjects Swedish and mathematics
talk about as something that affected their teaching, and sometimes also their considerations in
relation to content. In this example, the teacher had planned, even before ERT was implemented,
to use the weeks after Easter to prepare the students for the national tests, but as they were with-
drawn she concentrated on constructing replacement tests in order to make it possible for students
who had missed certain subject content to catch up and receive passing grades.
Similarly to the teacher in history, this teacher also uses her routines and long-term planning as
contextual resources to explain her experiences in relation to the teaching content. But she also
refers to a discourse of assessment that frames her considerations, where the draw-back of the
national tests makes it necessary to find other ways to get support for grading in relation to the
knowledge requirements in the curriculum. In relation to this she also refers to a compensatory
discourse and the teacher’s responsibility to help students catch up and give extra support to stu-
dents at risk of not passing. This interview is also an unusual example from another aspect, as it is
one of few that orients to the ongoing situation with the pandemic in the teaching, something that
otherwise is very scarce in the interview material as a whole. A bit later in the same interview, as
the teacher talks about how she needs to prioritise literature as the students are often reluctant to
read novels, she touches on the topic of the crisis:

Excerpt 2b. Sw B_01 (31 March 2020)

I: Do you plan to work with literature the rest of the spring semester?

T: Yes right now I have made a replacement test for both grade one and three, and then the focus is on
literature. In third grade, we look closer upon dystopias, which has been very timely (laughter). And
Nilsberth et al. 451

as it happened, we based it on a research [assignment] so they have also written a brief report about
this later then.

I: Did you choose dystopia because of the situation or should would you have done that anyway?

T: Ehm, I have done it a bit differently, this is a project that I did two years ago that has often worked
as preparation for the national [tests] actually, and also as Swedish 3 is now what is it called a
university entrance qualification course, they are supposed to understand and feel comfortable
when they come to a university college or similar so that they know what a brief report is, they are
used to scientific texts and so on. So I have often used that project to soften them up a bit for this.

In response to the interviewer’s question about whether she will teach literature for the remainder
of the semester, the teacher defines this content as important in the replacement tests that she has
given in grades 1 and 3, and that was actually something that she has used previously as a prepara-
tion for national tests but now sees as a replacement. In this account, the teacher treats the national
tests and the course requirements as her first priority in planning her teaching, again using an
assessment discourse to account for the fact that the students are given an opportunity to perform
well enough to pass their grades. She puts it as a coincidence, ‘as it happened’, and in her ordinary
teaching this involved working with dystopias as a literary genre in third grade. She comments on
this as very timely, implicitly referring to the pandemic situation as a dystopian topic. The inter-
viewer then asks explicitly if working with dystopias was a deliberate choice in the given situation
or if she would have done it anyway. In her answer, the teacher shows a slight hesitance in her
understanding of the question and then turns not to dystopias but to her priority to teach the third-
grade students in Swedish about academic writing in the form of a brief report. She talks quite
extensively about this subject in relation to course requirements, but a bit later the interviewer
again brings into the discussion the current situation as maybe being dystopian and now the teacher
also develops this topic:

Excerpt 2c. Sw B_01 (31 March 2020)

I: Do you also connect this to the current situation or what?

T: Yes now it turns out that we do that as they have to listen to some pods, and then there is this P3
channel Dystopia, I don’t know if you heard of it, but there are podcasts where they discuss different
scenarios for dystopias. It can be anything from running out of food to climate change or pandemics
and such. So frankly, it is very easy to connect this to our time.

I: What kind of response do you get from the students?

T: Well, they are very interested, they find it very interesting actually being allowed to process it.
Dystopias is exactly about the real-time processing of something that happens right there and then,
and that is something that you notice very clearly with the students that they want to know more and
they want to understand so that they are not afraid. So the more we talk about it the easier it gets,
you know.

In response to the interviewer’s elicitation, in excerpt 2c the teacher develops the topic about how
dystopian literature is easy to connect to our time where pandemics is one of many issues that are
relevant in relation to contemporary global issues. As she tells about this, she treats dystopia as a
thematic content that she has worked with before in this way, and that she has found to be important
452 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

for the students as a way to ‘process’ questions and reflections about difficult issues which might
cause anxiety. As the interview was conducted in late March, quite early in the ERT period and also
when the pandemic situation in Sweden still had not peaked, the teacher at this point could not have
a full overview of how serious the situation would become and she does not here single out issues
related to the pandemic as more relevant than, for example, climate change or food shortage. Still,
this example stands out since it is the only interview where a teacher connects subject content to
the ongoing pandemic crisis that is the societal reason for implementing ERT.
The general picture of pedagogical considerations in relation to content is that there were no big
changes due to ERT, as teachers primarily tried to stick to the core content that was already planned
and that they used to work with at this time of the school year. All through the interviews, the teach-
ers recurringly use discursive frames related to curricular goals, assessment and grading as
resources for explaining their choices and considerations in relation to planning and teaching con-
tent. In addition to this assessment discourse, the teachers also draw upon understandings of a
compensatory discourse, pointing at a sense of responsibility for giving the most support to stu-
dents at risk. We also note that a topic that is hardly mentioned at all in the 41 interviews, either by
the researchers or by the teachers (the teacher in excerpt 2 is a rare exception), concerns reflections
about the ongoing pandemic as teaching content. In a stressful situation, such as the rapid shift to
ERT, it is understandable that the teachers did not have much time to reflect upon new possible
thematic areas to teach about. But in hindsight, if we take a step back to reflect, it is quite obvious
that there are many issues and aspects relating to the pandemic that could have been important to
work with in order to support students’ understanding of the situation. Hence, connecting subject-
specific knowledge to the ongoing pandemic could be considered an absent discourse in the
interviews.

Theme 2: considerations in relation to classroom interaction

The second theme in the analysis concerns how the teachers’ considerations in relation to aspects
of classroom interaction became important in the transition to ERT. As mentioned above, all
schools already used some kind of digital platform and the students all had their own computer, but
in order to meet the increasing demands on digitally mediated interaction many teachers added
several new programs such as, for example, Google Meet or Zoom as a substitute for real-time
classroom interaction in lectures, and also to answer questions from students. One teacher men-
tions ‘written answers to questions in Hangout and also making phone calls to talk to the students
individually’ as communication resources, and another teacher talks about how Office 365 has
added ‘a program called Haldor’ for administration of school assignments. Yet another teacher
introduced the program Discord that he found easier than the official choice of his school and
Google Meet for student group discussions, while some teachers of mathematics use programs for
visual support such as Whiteboard or GeoGebra. In the following example, a teacher of mathemat-
ics describes the challenges he experienced when finding new forms for interaction with the stu-
dents, mediated through the video-conference system Zoom:

Excerpt 3. Ma D_02 (30 April 2020)

I: How does the subject [mathematics] work in relation to distance teaching and use of learning platforms?

T: [I]t’s doable but it is not equally good I would say. Partly because, well there are many problems I
think but one part of it is that they have a harder time, that is it seems to be hard for them to ask for
help, in the beginning I said like – well but I will stay in the zoom room and you can do as you like,
Nilsberth et al. 453

you can leave and so on and come back when you need to ask something. And that was when I didn’t
get any questions. And then I talked to them on the phone and they were like – yes but it is difficult
to get help with assignments. And I didn’t get what they meant because I had told them that I would
be there. Come back in and ask your question, I am just sitting here waiting. No but okay that was
not the way they seemed to have understood it, and so I said – you can also write messages on Its.
You can write – could you give me a suggestion for a solution to this question? And then I got that
from some of the students, mostly from a very strong student who sent messages that related to the
most advanced assignments, and I encourage them, I don’t want only the most advanced assignments,
I want assignments about anything, you can send them anonymously. No, that didn’t work so before
.  .  . luckily I talked to you about breakout rooms. So now I have started opening 30 breakout rooms,
one for each student, and then I tell them that you are supposed to stay in here.

I: Yes, they cannot leave now, right?

T: No and then they sit in the breakout room and the only thing they have to do is to click on a button,
ask for help, and that’s what they do.

This teacher of mathematics tells a story of how he successively changed his understanding of an
important aspect that many of the teachers talked about that has to do with the students’ possibili-
ties to ask questions during individual work. This teacher describes how he initially did not under-
stand the problem, as he thought of himself as being available during the whole lesson in the joint
Zoom room, which could be understood as comparable to how he would be available in the physi-
cal classroom. But like many of the other teachers, he also talked to some of the students on the
phone and understood that from their point of view, asking for help was difficult. The teacher
described how he more and more came to understand that the problem had less to do with being
technically available for the students than with the students’ unwillingness to display their learning
problems to the other students. At first it was only the most accomplished students who asked
about advanced problems who were willing to show their difficulties in front of the entire group.
As the teacher himself incorporated more digital resources, in this case based on advice from the
researcher in the first interview, he created individual breakout rooms for each student so that they
could ask for help without having to show their shortcomings to the others.
In another example, a teacher of history talks about the problem during ERT that many students
do not dare to put on their microphones to ask something. However, this teacher shows a partly
different understanding as she finds it problematic in terms of quality that the digitalised teaching
becomes too individualised:

Excerpt 4. Hi B_01 (24 April 2020)

I: [I]s there something that is different now with the subject [history] in teaching, has something happened?

T: Of course that is hard to say since they have worked on their individual parts, but I suppose it is
exactly that, the thing about learning from each other I would say and about listening to others. And
when you are in a classroom and do this maybe you will pick up certain things and you might feel
that in relation to the subject you have to sort certain things out so that it will be clearer to many
[students] and so on. And that dynamic maybe disappears I think, which turns it more into like
individual learning projects (laughter). Even if we have meetings and such it becomes very much
like that you, it does not become dynamic in that way because of course you could have questions
in the chat and someone dares to put on the mic and ask something but it tends to be rather flat, it
turns out to be me talking which makes it worse really.
454 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

In this excerpt, the teacher relies on a description of the physical classroom as the ideal where it is
possible to pick up things from students and grab opportunities in the moment to explain and sort
out knowledge problems in a way that is beneficial for all students in the room. In line with several
of the teachers in the data, she describes ERT in terms of a lack of dynamics compared to the physi-
cal classroom and that teaching becomes more a question of individual learning projects for each
student. In the digital teaching, students are assigned to pose their questions mainly in a chat forum,
which this teacher finds rather shallow, and she adds that teaching tends to be more teacher-cen-
tred. Drawing on discourses of participation and dialogue as the ideal, a recurring narrative
describes teaching during ERT as ‘flat’, ‘less dynamic’ and ‘more monologic’.
Many of the interviewed teachers lack the small talk and non-verbal responses in the classroom
that they find important for understanding their students’ needs for help and clarifications. However,
one teacher in history also points out that in some aspects, teaching before ERT tended to be rather
individualised as well, and she describes ‘that is how it was before, and it did not change very much
when Corona came actually. Cause it was what it was, it was mainly these group exercises that
disappeared.’ The fact that teaching during the school lockdown is mainly understood as a tempo-
rary emergency solution rather than as an opportunity for further digitalisation processes is some-
thing that, for example, one of the teachers of Swedish reflects upon in the third interview in
September, when schools are open again:

Excerpt 5. Sw C_03 (22 September 2020)

I: If you compare, what was the biggest difference between how you had to organise tasks .  .  . student
assignments during distance [teaching] and what is it that you have returned to?

T: You had to turn your back on certain things. At least I did, well these big, heavy lectures. I took those
away and made smaller sessions of them instead. Adapted that way so that it would be easier to get
access to it. Some people stood there and gave lectures for 60 minutes anyway sort of. Created by a
web camera and built in microphone. So that some of it was not adapted at all, it was difficult
because we are very different colleagues in that way, so that it .  .  . it is hard to say that everyone did
this or that you noticed something about everyone, you know. [. . .] But now we are back to exactly
the same assignments and the same . . . exactly the same lecture methods, so that now we just don’t
send them digitally anymore.

Looking back at the ERT period, this teacher of Swedish identifies a pedagogical concern in rela-
tion to the length of lectures, where the conditions of online teaching are different compared to
lectures in the physical classroom. Looking back, he describes how he had to replace his ordinary
lectures with shorter sessions that students could access easily. The teacher claims that this was a
personal insight, whereas many of his colleagues maintained very long lectures with questionable
technical quality as they only had web cameras and built-in microphones. Here, as well as in other
interviews, adapting teaching to ERT is constructed mainly as an individual problem for each
teacher. This teacher, like several of the other teachers, talks about how there were very few struc-
tured discussions between colleagues about how to maintain teaching quality in the digital class-
room. What is also worth noticing is that this is not mentioned as a big problem in any of the
interviews, since there seems to be an underlying discursive understanding that teachers are indi-
vidually responsible for planning their teaching. Besides a few examples of in-service training,
collegial collaboration in the implementation of ERT seems to have been rare.
From our second theme in the analysis, the general picture from the teachers’ narratives is that
the physical classroom is seen as superior from an interactional and relational point of view. In
Nilsberth et al. 455

their narratives about teaching, the teachers in general refer to themselves as digitally competent
and willing to try new technologies for different purposes. Hence, the challenges in accomplishing
classroom interaction are not primarily related to technological issues but have more to do with the
limitations of digitally mediated interaction compared to how interaction in the physical classroom
works. The teachers draw on discursive ideals about promoting student participation and dialogue,
where the students can learn from each other. This could be understood in terms of a relational
discourse, where some teachers point out the importance not only of verbal interaction, but also of
being able to meet the gaze of students, to notice if someone seems to be stuck and to support stu-
dents by giving feedback and quick responses. The variety and plurality of the different programs,
apps and platforms that the teachers refer to when describing their teaching practices during ERT
are examples of efforts made to keep and maintain an interactional practice similar to that of a
physical classroom.

Theme 3: considerations in relation to student support

A third theme in our analysis is focused on what the teachers tell us about student support during
the ERT period. Already in the first interviews this was a concern that many teachers were aware
of, and their awareness became more manifest as time went on.

Excerpt 6. Ma B_02 (27 April 2020)

I: How do you look upon, we talked about it a little also last time but can we take it a little more,
students’ different possibilities to get support at home can you see that different students win or lose
from this remote teaching? Could parents be of more or less importance? Well, that question.

T: No absolutely, and that is something that I actually thought about a couple of days ago, that is also
that you noticed that these students have difficulties to understand instructions. And now you know
that if you say that, you have written what the meeting should be about, you have started the meeting
and let it lie as a background picture in the plan for the day and I repeat maybe twice, three times
before it is time to start working and so on. And there are still some of them who have difficulties
with that, and I thought about the fact that in the classroom I might not have experienced some of
these students having difficulties with that, because then they could only hang on to their friend, or
the one they sit next to and see what they do and then do the same. So that is something I have found
out now that there are more students that don’t really understand instructions neither in writing nor
orally when you do it in class, but they need it more one-to-one. And there are for sure someone
more that you don’t discover because I have a harder time seeing if they do what they are supposed
to do after I have told them to begin, that’s how it is. It is slightly easier to see when they work in the
book then I can see still, have they logged in, if they haven’t I always send a chat [message] and ask
– are there problems with login? What is happening?

In excerpt 6, the interviewer asks about different students in terms of winners or losers when they
have to work from home, and also refers to differences between homes. In her answer, the teacher
refers to a specific group of students, ‘these students’, who have difficulties in understanding
instructions. The teacher says that despite her efforts to be clear, give visual support and repeat the
instructions, some students still have difficulties that have now become more obvious as the stu-
dents cannot get help from looking at each other, as they can in the physical classroom. Owing to
the platform and the ERT situation, the teacher can identify these difficulties in new ways, as, for
example, when they are logged into their digital textbooks the teacher can give more active support
through the chat. She draws a conclusion that more students than she previously thought have
456 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

problems understanding oral as well as written instructions, but now she can detect it and contact
the students. In this narrative, the teacher draws on a compensatory discourse about the teacher as
responsible for identifying and supporting students’ special needs. Here, as in many of the inter-
views, the teacher also (re)produces a narrative about the physical classroom as a place where not
only the teacher, but also students can be models that scaffold each other in their school work.
The importance of the physical classroom in relation to student support is also shown in the fol-
lowing excerpt from an interview with a teacher of Swedish:

Excerpt 7. Sw B_02 (12 May 2020)

I: So there is some kind of delay in the response there?

T: Exactly, otherwise usually during a lesson, or in a classroom environment, I would have seen that
– oh this was a bit tough. This I have to explain in some other way, or somehow deepen or break
down. In that sense I can see that when I have remote teaching or later when I look through their
texts, that maybe have been submitted or after I have participated in these groups, that – okay
maybe they did not follow. Or maybe someone who is sitting very silent, that I have to like call them
on the phone later – well how did this go? Yes you were very quiet.

I: Well, do you have time to do that, making individual calls?

T: Sometimes and sometimes not. And sometimes what happens is that I don’t have time to do it right
after the lesson, but might have to do it a day later. When I have more time. So I have a notebook
that is completely full now after only a week or so.

I: So it sounds as if a lot of those things you would otherwise solve smoothly during the lessons turn
into extra work during remote teaching?

T: Absolutely.

A bit differently compared to the previous excerpt, this teacher finds it more difficult to identify
students’ needs for support during ERT compared to the physical classroom where she could have
given more immediate feedback and handled learning problems that occur. She describes a delay
in the response, as she cannot see the learning problems until after a lesson and has to take notes
on what to follow up with whom after a lesson. In addition to talking about the physical classroom
as superior from an interaction point of view, she clearly performs and uses a discourse about
working actively to identify and follow up on students’ needs, even if they are silent and do not ask
for help:

Excerpt 8. Hi E_03 (9 September 2020)

T: After a while, I developed a system, at least if I had time, to call everyone in turn and those who did
not actively ask for help. Check if they needed help, to put it simply.

I: What you say now is something I recognise other interviews, that there is a tendency that less ask
for help?

T: Yes
Nilsberth et al. 457

I: Why is that, do you have any idea?

T: Yes, some students have that [problem] also in the classroom. Exactly, but I felt it more with the distance
[teaching], and maybe it seems like a bit more [challenging], in a way, compared to raising your hand
in the classroom and calling for me and it takes just a couple of seconds, it’s a bigger deal. Either they
write me that they want me to call them, which was the system. They wrote me a message; I want you to
call me, in order for me not to be occupied in some other important conversation when they called.
Then it seemed a somewhat bigger deal to do that, and maybe also to think that some of them might feel
that it’s a bit scary, you know, okay, now I am sitting in my boy’s room or girl’s room, and then I call my
teacher or he calls me, and then all of a sudden we sit really close and he sees into my room and so on.
Everyone answered when you called, more or less. But my feeling was that maybe it seemed like a
slightly bigger hurdle and that it might depend on the fact that it felt somewhat more intimate, when you
came so close. I noticed this reaction often, the first time you called someone when we were new with
this, when I appeared on the screen – oops. It was almost like that, you came so close.

Looking back at the spring semester from a slight distance, this teacher talks about how he found
out over time that many students did not ask for help even if they needed support, and therefore the
teacher actively tried to contact them to ask how they were coping. The interviewer comments that
this is something that many teachers seem to have similar experiences with, and asks the teacher if
he has any ideas that could explain this. In his explanation the teacher draws on how the digital
space is much more interactionally challenging for students to expose themselves in, compared to
the physical classroom. The teacher understands this as a question of not only displaying oneself
as a student, but also allowing the teacher to get access to the student’s home environment. This
teacher refers to a pattern of many students being uncomfortable with having the teacher so near
them on the screen – almost as if the teacher would tell them to pull themselves together and tidy
up their room. Here the teacher uses discourses about asymmetric power relations and boundaries
between the institutional role of teachers and the students’ private space at home that can be diffi-
cult to deal with for both teachers and students. This narrative makes visible how online teaching
not only gives the students access to teaching, but also gives the school access to the students’
private sphere at home. In parallel with the examples in the second theme, we see here how the
teachers emphasise the importance of the classroom as a space where students can learn not only
from the teaching, but also from each other. In all examples in this theme, the teachers give exam-
ples of how they work actively, in different ways, to find alternative ways to support students in
their work. They especially stress how they have to find new ways to make contact with silent
students, or students who in different ways show signs of not understanding. These narratives
about their efforts draw upon an ideal to even out students’ different resources in school work that
could be understood in relation to a compensatory discourse strongly rooted in Nordic education.

What major discursive frames are used in the narratives?

The narrative approach to the analysis of teachers’ talk of their experiences highlights the discursive
frames that the teachers rely on and use when they tell about their pedagogical considerations. These
discursive frames consist of formal as well as informal norms, and sometimes show what discourses
are considered superior to others. We find that there are three major discursive frames that emerge
in the teachers’ stories about their teaching practices during ERT: (a) an assessment discourse with
a focus on curriculum and grading; (b) a relational discourse departing from the functions of the
physical classroom; and (c) a compensatory discourse when it comes to student support.
The first discourse, with its focus on assessments, curriculum and grading, is mainly used in
narratives about teaching content during ERT and appears to be a discourse that is superior to other
458 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

grounds for pedagogical considerations about content. The teachers prioritise central content in the
syllabi and do not talk about any substantial changes of content because of the shift to ERT or the
pandemic. They rely on their existing plans for the school year even if they have to find new digital
tools to maintain them. The changes they do refer to have more to do with the withdrawal of the
national tests, which some of them rely on for their grading and therefore have to find other ways
of obtaining grading material through various assignments and tests. The shift to online teaching
challenges ordinary test practices as it makes it difficult to control for cheating, which makes con-
siderations related to testing different from the ordinary.
Second, we also find a strong relational discourse in the teachers’ talk about teaching during
ERT. The different digital platforms, programs and teaching materials that are brought in and com-
bined can hardly replace the physical possibilities of interaction in the physical classroom. We
show how the teachers find it difficult to provide feedback, capture learning problems or visualise
and represent a knowledge content in the digital form. We find that they refer to the physical class-
room as a complex set of verbal, bodily, material and spatial aspects central to students’ learning
process and knowledge development (see also Stenliden et al., 2020).
Finally, our results point to a third clearly prominent discourse that is characterised by a compen-
satory understanding of the teaching assignment. This is shown when teachers talk about how they
actively try to find new ways of supporting all students in their learning process in line with the
traditions of the Nordic school model and the ideal of ‘a school for all’ (Blossing et al., 2014). Here,
the idea is to compensate for students’ different conditions and needs by providing more support to
those who have the greatest need and a readiness to find different paths for different students.

Keeping up the normal: digital resources as substitutes for

classroom interaction
This paper is an empirically grounded account of how Swedish upper secondary teachers, from a
professional position, dealt with and made meaning of an exceptional situation – the shift to ERT
due to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. In a European perspective, Swedish upper secondary edu-
cation was relatively well equipped with technology, and in the interviews the teachers talk about
how they have access to and use a wide range of different platforms, programs, chat forums and
other digital resources in order to keep up the teaching they would have done in the ordinary class-
room, had it not been for the pandemic. A short answer to our question in the title would therefore
be: no – digital teaching during ERT is not the new normal but rather an effort to keep up the nor-
mal, at least what is considered to be the ideal, normal, classroom-based teaching.
In line with Sahlberg (2020), we agree that the challenges and problems that become visible
during ERT are not new but represent the state of the current school system with its strengths and
weaknesses. The framing discourses that we have shown in our analysis – assessment, relational
and compensatory discourses – could all be understood as classical pedagogical challenges that
teachers also struggled with before the crisis. The teachers’ pedagogical considerations both reflect
and form what could be described as a professional discourse where many of the values associated
with the so-called Nordic model (Blossing et al., 2014; Klette, 2018; Telhaug et al., 2006) can be
recognised. Especially in their use of a relational and compensatory discourse, the teachers empha-
sise the need to interact with and understand the students in this situation, which seems to be very
demanding and time-consuming to do digitally compared to the face-to-face meetings in the physi-
cal classrooms. This resonates well with the idea of one-school-for-all where schools and class-
rooms are not only places for teaching, but also for meetings between students with diverse
backgrounds and needs.
Nilsberth et al. 459

As for the strong assessment discourse that we find, we believe that it partly reflects that the shift
online occurred at the end of the school year when teachers are normally very occupied with finish-
ing their courses and grades for the students. This assessment discourse can also be understood in
the light of the changes that the governance of the Swedish school has undergone in recent decades
– a shift from a competence-based curriculum to performance-based goals (Sivesind and Wahlström,
2016). Not only in Sweden, but in all of Europe and the western world, grades and assessment tend
to become increasingly important, and, at a policy level, large-scale standardised tests have become
important tools for creating accountability and comparison – nationally and internationally (Lingard
et al., 2013). Grades also function as a basis for selection in an increasingly marketised school
(Lundahl, 2016), and in the teacher interviews it is more from the perspective of the students’ need
to get passing grades that assessment and grading becomes a challenge. Grading has always been a
task for teachers, but what is obvious here is the strong emphasis in almost all interviews on getting
enough support for grading in relation to the curriculum and course requirements. Teachers cannot
simply use their knowledge about students from previous work, but need ‘proof’ in terms of test
results, oral examinations or other student performances to account for the grades they decide. The
ERT situation, when, for example, national tests were drawn back, challenges this discourse and
makes it necessary to find new ways of getting the support needed that also includes considerations
on how to avoid plagiarism and cheating. In their narratives the teachers make visible how they bal-
ance these demands of support for assessment with relational and compensatory concerns for differ-
ent students, and the complexity this balance means in an all-digital environment.
As this is written, in November 2020, the pandemic seems far from over and a transition to
distance education may again be called for. The crisis we have described is thus still a fact. Like
several of the reports and evaluations made of the Swedish ERT period in the spring of 2020
(Swedish National Agency for Education, 2020; Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2020), we can state
that the digitisation processes that have been initiated and implemented for a long time were put to
the test, and, from a technological point of view, seem to work relatively well. However, as
Williamson et al. (2020) argue, there is a need for critical reflections not only on the prospects for
digitalisation, but on the long-term consequences for education in general.
Our result is particularly important, we believe, in relation to the digitalisation efforts in the edu-
cational sector in Sweden as well as internationally, showing a strong belief in digitalisation as a
democratic project promoting equity. Listening to the teachers’ experiences, we find it important to
emphasise the need to pay more attention to the relational and interactional dimensions of the digitali-
sation of teaching. We also want to highlight how online teaching changes boundaries between public
and private, something we believe should be paid more attention to at a policy level. During the ERT
period, new conditions emerge as students participate in teaching from home, via webcams on their
personal computers that the school has provided. This shows how teachers are let into the students’
home environments through the same video chat system, which in a fundamental way shifts bounda-
ries between the students’ private domain and the school’s public sphere. We believe that this bound-
ary shift is an important dimension to consider in relation to digitalisation strategies.
A final comment, that we think noteworthy to bring to the table, concerns the very few accounts
of changes in relation to teaching content in general and specifically in relation to knowledge about
the ongoing pandemic from a subject-specific perspective. Our point here is not to question the
teachers’ content priorities. In light of the working situation under strong pressure in the initial
phase of ERT, it is understandable that they stuck to the plans they had already made and tasks
previously used. But we think that it calls for further reflection and exploration that so few expecta-
tions are brought up about the global pandemic situation as such as a matter to bring into teaching
in the educational debate at large. To what extent should education and teaching be able to be more
flexible and make adjustments in relation to contemporary developments in society? Are we stuck
460 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

in a system where course requirements, student performance and grading criteria frame teaching so
strongly that it becomes too difficult for education to address important and contemporary societal
challenges, based on academic knowledge? We have no ready answer to these complex questions,
but suggest that it is a topic that calls for more research, debate and discussions on many levels.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publica-
tion of this article.

Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: The project got support from the Swedish Research Council, grant nr 2019/03760.

ORCID iD
Marie Nilsberth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7691-2490

References
Allen J, Rowan L and Singh P (2020) Teaching and teacher education in the time of COVID-19. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education 48(3): 233–236.
Archibald M, Ambagtsheer R, Mavourneen G, et al. (2019) Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative
data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods 18: 1–8.
Bamberg M (1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History
7(1–4): 335-342.
Biesta G (2019) Teaching for the possibility of being taught: World-centred education in an age of learning.
E-journal of Philosophy of Education. International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society
Japan 4: 50–64. Available at: https://pesj.sakura.ne.jp/english/vol_04_1-88.pdf
Blossing U, Imsen G and Moss P (eds) (2014) The Nordic Education Model: ‘A School for All’ Encounters
Neo-Liberal Policy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology
3(2): 77–101
Chase S (2011) Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) The SAGE
Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 421–434.
De Fina A, Schiffrin D and Bamberg M (2006) (eds) Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Erstad O and Sefton-Green J (2013) Identity, Community and Learning Lives in the Digital Age. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, et al. (2020) The difference between emergency remote teaching and online
learning. Educause Review, 27 March.
Hollweck T and Doucet A (2020) Pracademics in the pandemic: Pedagogies and professionalism. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community 5(3/4): 295–305.
Holstein JA and Gubrium JF (2012) Introduction: Establishing a balance. In: Holstein JA and Gubrium JF
(eds) Varieties of Narrative Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp.1–10.
Klette K (2018) Individualism and collectivism in Nordic schools: A comparative approach. In: Witoszek N,
Wilson DS and Midttun A (eds) Renewing the Nordic Model. London: Routledge, pp 59–78.
Kumpulainen K and Rajala A (2017) Negotiating time-space contexts in students’ technology mediated inter-
action during a collaborative learning activity. International Journal of Educational Research 84: 90-99
Kvale S and Brinkman S (2014) Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun (The qualitative research interview).
3rd edn. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Nilsberth et al. 461

Lingard B, Martino W and Rezai-Rashti G (2013) Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy:
Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy 28(5): 539–556.
Lundahl L (2016) Equality, inclusion and marketization of Nordic education: Introductory notes. Research in
Comparative & International Education 11(1): 3–12.
Mishler E (1999) Storylines: Craft Artists’ Narratives of Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Morgan H (2020) Best practices for implementing remote learning during a pandemic. Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 93(3): 135–141.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016) Skills for a digital world: 2016 ministerial
meeting on the digital economy background report. Policy Brief on the Future of Work. OECD Digital
Economy Papers, no. 250. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020) Education at a glance 2020. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/ (accessed 17 February 2021).
Redecker C (2017) European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Punie Y
(ed.) EUR 28775 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://
ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu (accessed 7 March 2019).
Sahlberg P (2020) Will the pandemic change schools? Journal of Professional Capital and Community
5(3/4): 359–365.
Sahlström F, Tanner M and Olin-Scheller C (eds) (2019) Smartphones in Classrooms: Reading, Writing and Talking
in Rapidly Changing Educational Spaces. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 21: 1–5.
Schleicher A (2020) The impact of covid-19 on education. Insights from education at a glance 2020, OECD.
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-
at-a-glance-2020.pdf (accessed 17 February 2020).
Sivesind K and Wahlström N (2016) Curriculum on the European policy agenda: Global transitions and learn-
ing outcomes from transnational and national points of view. European Educational Research Journal
15(3): 271–278.
Stenliden L, Bylund AM, Landkvist L, et al. (2020) Lärares (digitala) kompetens före, under och efter covid-
19 (Teachers’ (digital) competence before, during and after covid-19). SocArXiv, 18 June.
Swedish Ministry of Education (2017) Nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet (National digitali-
sation strategy for education). Bilaga till regeringsbeslut I: 1 (Appendix to government decision), 19
October. (Dnr: U2017/04119/S). Available at: nationell-digitaliseringsstrategi-for-skolvasendet.pdf
(regeringen.se).
Swedish National Agency for Education (2020) Covid-19-pandemins påverkan på skolväsendet (The effects
of the Covid-19-pandemic on education). Delredovisning augusti 2020 (sub-report no. SI 2020:3264).
Dnr. 5.1.3-2020:1056. getFile - Skolverket.
Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2020) Gymnasieskolors distansundervisning under covid-19 pandemin:
Skolinspektionens centrala iakttagelser efter intervjuer med rektorer (Distance teaching in upper sec-
ondary schools during covid-19 pandemic: The Schools Inspectorate observations based on interviews
with school leaders). Report Dnr: SI 2020:3264. Available at: uppfoljning-av-gymnasieskolors-distan-
sundervisning—slutrapport.pdf (accessed 15 October 2020).
Telhaug A, Mediås O and Aasen P (2006) The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political
system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50(3): 245-283.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2021) What price will education pay for
COVID-19? IIEP-UNESCO. Available at: http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/what-price-will-education-
pay-covid-19-13366 (accessed 17 February 2021).
Williamson B, Eynon R and Potter J (2020) Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies
and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology 45(2): 107-114.
Zimmerman J (2020) Coronavirus and the great online-learning experiment. Chronicle of Higher Education,
10 March.
462 European Educational Research Journal 20(4)

Author biographies
Marie Nilsberth is Associate Professor in Educational Work at the Department of Educational Studies at
Karlstad University, Sweden. She is currently engaged in several research projects about digitalisation of
classrooms and teaching, in relation to teaching, learning and social interaction.
Yvonne Liljekvist is Assistant Professor in Mathematics Education at the Department of Mathematics, Karlstad
University, Sweden. She is currently engaged in several projects about teachers’ professional development,
digitalisation of education and subject specific education in mathematics.
Christina Olin-Scheller is Professor in Educational Work at the Department of Educational Studies, Karlstad
University, Sweden. Her current research interests are digitalisation of education, literacy studies and subject
specific education in literature and language.
Johan Samuelsson is Associate Professor in History, at the Department of Political, Historical, Religious and
Cultural Studies, Karlstad University, Sweden. His research interests concerns history of education, progres-
sivism and educational policy studies.
Claes Hallquist is Lecturer at the Department of Educational Studies, Karlstad University, Sweden. He has a
background as secondary school teacher and have extensive experience as leader of school development
projects.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343390827

COVID 19 response: An analysis of teachers’ perception on pedagogical

successes and challenges of digital teaching practice during new normal

Preprint · August 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33554.79046/2

CITATIONS READS

0 2,990

1 author:

Arnab Kundu

71 PUBLICATIONS   427 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of Teachers' Self-efficacy and Self-concept on their Perceived Ease of ICT Use View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arnab Kundu on 13 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Education and Information Technologies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10503-5

COVID 19 response: An analysis of teachers’

perception on pedagogical successes and challenges
of digital teaching practice during new normal

Arnab Kundu 1 & Tripti Bej 2

Received: 16 January 2021 / Accepted: 10 March 2021/

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The purpose of this exploratory study undertaken between June and August 2020 was
to capture teachers’ perspectives to explore (a) what kind of pedagogies they have
successfully implemented in the face of a pandemic; (b) what hurdles and successes did
they encounter while implementing virtual teaching-learning; and (c) how virtual
pedagogies can be improved. Data was collected using purposive sampling via 47
social media groups and pages, using internet survey as an instrument from 141
teachers, teaching kindergarten and elementary students, from different regions
(continents) of the world. Findings revealed, six success themes and eight major
challenges from the voice of teachers experiencing a rapid and unprepared shift to
virtual education. Suggestions for improving digital education revolve around four
areas which suggest that pupils from marginal socioeconomic households were signif-
icantly disadvantaged during the COVID-driven virtual education scheme. This re-
search is not preoccupied with identifying universal outcomes but, instead, is focused
on how the real virtual teaching experience can help in informing areas of focus for
reimagining the approach to education for an uncertain future.

Keywords Virtual education . Digital teaching practice . Preschool . Elementary school .

COVID-19 . Education challenges . Pedagogies

* Arnab Kundu
arnabkundu5@gmail.com

Tripti Bej
tapubej@gmail.com

1
Bankura University, Bankura, West Bengal, India
2
Srima Balika Vidyalaya, Paschim Midnapore, West Bengal, India
 Education and Information Technologies

1 Introduction

With COVID-19, the world has been facing a new existential enemy and the nations
contentiously must again summon its educational, moral and scientific might to fight it
back because it has brought a time of social distancing, not mental (Kundu & Bej,
2020a). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared to be a pandemic by
the World Health Organization (WHO) on 12th March 2020 (Viner et al., 2020). The
COVID-19 pandemic has affected education systems across the world, and the efforts
for its containment have led to the near-closure of education institutions. According to
Daniel (2020), coronavirus disease is the greatest challenge national education systems
have ever faced. By the middle of May 2020, approximately 190 countries closed their
schools, and this closure has affected 90% of the world’s student population i.e., 1.57
billion children and youth (Giannini et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2020a, b).
In a situation (of COVID-19 outbreak) where students were stopped from going to
school, as face-to-face learning ceased, many governments asked educational institu-
tions to move from traditional to virtual education and online teaching (Rogers &
Sabarwal, 2020). Kundu & Bej (2020a) further said it is a fact, harsh but true, that
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought online learning into the light of
immense popularity and the situation is unique in that students can make a direct
comparison of their courses before (face-to-face (F2F)) and after COVID-19
(online).Virtual education (Online learning and teaching) is a form of distance educa-
tion where one of its defining characteristics is the separation of the learner and the
teacher (Cavanaugh et al., 2004). Online learning primarily uses the internet to deliver
instruction and content of education (Watson et al., 2004), and virtual school is an
educational organization that uses web-based methods or the internet to offer K-12
courses (Clark, 2001). Kundu, Bej, & Dey (2020b) pointed out that access to the
internet now guarantees access to universal education at the lowest cost, if not for free
and is potent in bringing greater student engagement and achievement as well.
Studies in literature have supported distance and virtual learning - for example, Ash
& Davis (2009) proposed that during the swine flu crisis, distance learning can be
supported by technologies like phone, radio, internet, TV, email communication, or
phone messages. Muirhead (2000) and Kundu & Bej (2020b) also suggest that online
education is new in schools and can be considered to embellish traditional schools and
homeschooling. In another study (Anastasiades et al., 2010), Interactive Video Con-
ferencing (IVC) system design was implemented at elementary schools in Greece, and
it was determined that that IVC significantly supported collaborative synchronous
learning. A study, conducted by Thamarana (2016) on distance learning via E-
Learning and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), reported these methods to be
effective and innovative in achieving language learning goals. During the COVID-19
pandemic, a case study on a private school using the ‘Google-Meet’ platform to
implement online education shows that the quick transition to online education was
successful, and the experience gained through this transition can be utilized in the
future (Basilaia & Kvavadze, 2020). As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, around
96 countries worldwide have introduced different virtual solutions to continue the
education process e.g., TV broadcasts, resources, guidelines, online libraries, online
channels, video lectures (Basilaia & Kvavadze, 2020). But this practice is altogether
Education and Information Technologies

new and a honeymoon period for the many developing countries across the globe
(Kundu & Bej, 2021).
Although in-person schooling experience cannot be replaced fully, virtual learning
education systems can engage students in productive and meaningful ways to minimize
learning losses (Rogers & Sabarwal, 2020). There is a strong foundation of existing
research focused on teaching practice in face-to-face environments, but there is spo-
radic research available on best practices in virtual schooling (Ferdig et al., 2009; Davis
& Ferdig, 2018). Virtual education is wide growing in popularity in the context of K-12
education (Kundu & Bej, 2020a). However, while this area is attracting more re-
searchers, it is still developing as a field of research (Lowes, 2014). Several studies
(Boston, 2002; Hawkins et al., 2012; Kundu, 2018a; Lazarus, 2003; Murphy &
Manzanares, 2008; Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2009; Tallent-Runnels et al.,
2006) have reported that the teachers’ role, pedagogical techniques, and instructional
practices, used in face-to-face learning, have to be modified for virtual settings. The
selected evidence cautiously suggests that virtual education and online teaching prac-
tices can be successfully used to supplement learning if accompanied by appropriate
technical environments and support (Kundu, 2020a).
To support the achievement of learning outcomes during face-to-face learning, a
teacher implements instructional practices composed of activities, strategies, and tech-
niques (Gauthier et al., 2004). To facilitate student learning outcomes, teachers usually
combine their understanding of the content area (subject matter) with the knowledge of
pedagogy (how to teach) into their instructional practice. This consideration is essential
for virtual education as well, where it is important to carefully direct the integration of
technology based on the teacher’s knowledge of pedagogies and content (Ferdig,
2006). Therefore, online teaching requires some skills to support a teacher’s role as
an intersection point for technology, pedagogy, and content (Kundu, 2018a, b; Russell,
2004; Savery, 2005). To provide quality online learning opportunities to students, the
primary responsibility of the teacher is to select and coordinate the technology,
pedagogy, and content (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Kurtz et al., 2004; Olson &
Wisher, 2002; Kundu, Bej, & Dey, 2020b). Adopting new online teaching strategies
linked to technology, pedagogy, and instructional plan may require teachers to undergo
some key changes and move away from what they have experienced during offline
teaching (Lee & Hirumi, 2004; O’Neil, 2009).
With the COVID-19 outbreak, many educational institutions had little time to
prepare for the remote teaching scheme as the possible preparation could have included
the staff preparation and training arrangements (Daniel, 2020). According to Rogers &
Sabarwal (2020) said, the emergency shift to remote learning requires teachers to learn
digital skills to operate technologies and to adapt the teaching-learning materials into a
synchronous or asynchronous mode. The rapid shift to remote learning during the
coronavirus crisis was difficult for technology-aware teachers as well as young-adult
students (Kundu & Bej, 2020a, 2021). The challenge, therefore, would have multiplied
many-fold for younger children as well as technology-skill-deficient teachers. Lack of
concentration, focus, and attention span are anecdotally considered as the more signif-
icant risks in a virtual environment that are much exaggerated in younger
children(Kundu, 2020a, b). In order to make online learning effective for children,
structured efforts are required to use a range of engagement methods and collaboration
tools (Li & Lalani, 2020).
 Education and Information Technologies

2 Research purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic has allowed teachers to reinvigorate distance learning in new
ways, and this experience can be used in the post-pandemic period and similar special
cases. Conversely, the current study is an attempt to explore virtual teaching practices
of kindergarten and elementary school teachers (teaching age group 5–12 i.e. Kinder-
garten to Grade-6), during the COVID-19 pandemic, by investigating (a) which
pedagogies have teachers used while teaching virtually during the pandemic; (b) what
challenges and successes have teachers encountered while moving to virtual teaching
practice; and (c) what are teachers suggesting for improving the quality of virtual
teaching pedagogies.
This research is a pilot study, which is small-scale and can help in examining the
feasibility and practicality to direct a subsequent larger and comprehensive study
(Thabane et al., 2010). The purpose of the research is not to identify the universally
successful pedagogies for online teaching and universal challenges and successes for
implementing virtual learning but to capture practitioners’ voice to highlight (a) what
kind of pedagogies they have successfully implemented in the face of a pandemic; (b)
what hurdles and successes did they encounter while implementing virtual learning;
and (c) how virtual pedagogies can be improved. This kind of research is not preoc-
cupied with identifying universal outcomes (e.g., pedagogies that have worked univer-
sally for virtual learning) but more focused on how learning processes can inform
virtual learning and how they can be improved. This will be supportive to start a
discussion on reimagining the curriculum children need, not only during the pandemic
but also for the unimagined future shaped by the new norms of working, socializing,
and learning that we still have to improve.

3 Methodology

3.1 Sampling type

The purpose of the study directed the subjects of the study i.e., kindergarten and
elementary school teachers. A purposeful sampling technique was used to collect data
to achieve the research objectives. This kind of sampling is usually implemented to
collect qualitative data to identify and select information-rich cases related to the
phenomenon being investigated (Palinkas et al., 2015). In the current study, the
researchers have explored a virtual teaching phenomenon during the COVID-19
pandemic, and the study was conducted from June–August 2020. The study, therefore,
concentrates on what transpired, as a response, in the natural environment, without
establishing any experimental design.

3.2 Data collection

During the critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to school closures, it was
not possible to conduct face-to-face surveys in specific regions; conversely, the data
was collected online. Forty-seven groups and pages with teachers/educators were
identified on social media networks (Facebook, Slack, Emails, Watsapp, and Linkedin),
Education and Information Technologies

and the web-link for the internet survey (study instrument) was circulated amongst the
participants. The administrator/s of the groups and pages were requested to promote the
web-link for the internet survey. The survey was designed in a way that, after taking
consent, only teachers teaching kindergarten and elementary school using virtual
platforms during the pandemic were allowed to complete the survey. The methodology
for data collection was adapted from the methodology recommendations for the
recruitment of research participants on Facebook by Brickman Bhutta (2012).
Brickman Bhutta (2012) mentioned that the administrators of existing Facebook groups
were contacted for participant recruitment for the study stating: “all administrators
received a personal message that explained the purpose of the research and asked them
to send a message to the members of their groups with an invitation to join the research
group” (pp. 63). The current research aimed to explore the pedagogies and challenges
associated with implementing virtual education during the COVID-19 pandemic;
therefore, research participants’ access to technology was not a challenge as teachers
implementing virtual education already had access to technology.
Social media networks offer many research benefits like quickly identifying the
potential respondents, creating a comprehensive sampling frame, monitoring responses,
and using the referral chain to increase the individual motivation to respond to the
survey (Mirabeau et al., 2013). Mirabeau et al. (2013) also identified some threats
related to using social media networks for data collection: (a) self-selection bias - one
social media platform can be different from others. To overcome the self-selection bias,
four different social media networks were used to collect data; (b) the sampling frame
might not include all the population of interest. To overcome this challenge, data
collection was not restricted to any specific regions of the world; (c) seeding bias -
the sample might be biased towards individuals closely related to the researchers. To
deal with this bias, all researchers selected the clusters/groups of teachers instead of
selecting individuals, and the administrator/s of the groups were asked to encourage
group members within the sampling frame to be the seeds (distribution points). Despite
all these confines, social media is an effective way to get samples through chain
referrals, and, despite the limitations, there is no doubt that chain referrals have
significant value for exploratory studies targeting elusive populations (Faugier &
Sargeant, 1997; Penrod et al., 2003).
The criteria for the purposeful sampling of the 47 groups and pages of teachers are as
follows: (a) the social media group or page should include kindergarten and/or ele-
mentary school teachers; (b) the official language of the group or page should be
English, given that survey was designed in the English language; (c) the administrator
of the group or page should agree to promote the post and to encourage teachers to act
as the seed to distribute the internet survey to their network; (d) the groups/pages shall
be from different parts of the world.

3.3 Instrument for data collection

An internet survey using Google forms as a data collection instrument was designed
based on the framed research questions. The internet survey method of data collection
is becoming increasingly popular where the questions are administered, and responses
are automatically recorded (Cornwell & Hoagland, 2015). Most of the questions
included in the internet survey were qualitative (open-ended) in nature, but
 Education and Information Technologies

demographic and informative (closed-ended) questions were also included to gather

additional data about the participants. Table 1 outlines the key questions framed for
data collection.

3.4 Sample size

Our data collection method allowed us to collect qualitative responses from 141
teachers. Qualitative research samples are smaller in order to support the case-
oriented analysis, fundamental to its mode of inquiry (Sandelowski, 1996). The
research employed purposive sampling, as opposed to probability sampling (employed
in quantitative research), to select the information-rich cases (Patton, 1990) in the first
place.

4 Data Analysis & Results

The data collected from 141 participants was exported to Microsoft Excel sheets. Data
with closed-ended responses (mostly demographic data) was separated from data with
open-ended and detailed responses. Using the content analysis technique, the content of
the open-ended questions was analyzed. Content analysis is a qualitative data analysis
technique used to make valid and replicable inferences (Krippendorff, 1989). Codes
were developed based on content analysis, and data was segmented. Taimur &
Mursaleen (2020) also utilized content analysis method to analyze the qualitative data
collected via an internet survey. Each author went through the codes independently as
well, to ensure the appropriateness of the codes and their alignment to the data. The
data collected revealed that most of the elementary school teachers accessed the survey
through Facebook (n = 66) and Watsapp (n = 57), see Fig. 1. Only 2 teachers submitted
their responses accessed the data through LinkedIn.

4.1 Characteristics

Based on the location of the respondents, data was divided into six regions (Asia,
Middle East, America, Africa and Europe). Most of the data came from Asia (n = 91)
followed by America (n = 36) and a few responses came from the Middle-East (n = 6),

Table 1 Internet survey outlining the key questions

· Through which network/group/individual did you get access to the survey? (e.g., teach SDGs Facebook
group)
· Age, gender, and region
· Which grade/s do you teach?
· Did you teach online during the COVID-19 lockdown period?
· Which pedagogies did you use while teaching virtually during the COVID-19 lockdown period?
· Explain your experiences while implementing digital education? (both challenges and successes)
· Specific to pedagogies, what do you think can be done to effectively deliver virtual education? Please
elaborate. OR In your opinion, what do you feel is needed for virtual learning to be successful?
Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 1 Number of survey responses collected via each social media platform

Europe (n = 5), and Africa (n = 3). Figure 2, highlighting in yellow, represents regions
from where responses to the survey were submitted.
The demographic characteristics of the participating elementary school teachers are
presented in Table 2. From the table, it is evident that: (a) of the 141 respondents, the
number of female teachers (129 i.e., 91.4%) far exceeds the male teachers (12 i.e.,
8.5%); (b) the minimum and maximum age of the responding teachers is 23 years and
64 years respectively.
In the collected dataset, 60% of the teachers reported teaching multiple grades
(between Kindergarten and Grade 6, which is consistent with practice of teachers
covering multiple grades at schools) and 14% of the teachers mentioned teaching
Kindergarten only (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 2 Map showing the regions (in yellow) from where the responses were received
 Education and Information Technologies

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of the kindergarten and elementary school teachers who responded to
the survey

Region No. of Participants Gender Age Range

(min – max) (Years)
M F

Asia 91 9 82 23–62
Middle East 6 0 6 39–61
America 36 0 36 26–64
Africa 3 2 1 31–55
Europe 5 1 4 33–49
Total 141 12 129 23–64

4.2 Pedagogies

141 elementary school teachers, from around the globe, mentioned 40 different
pedagogies that were successfully employed for virtual teaching during the pan-
demic. The pedagogies were divided into three sections based on the type of
learning which occurs while implementing particular pedagogies i.e., asynchronous
(implementation and learning doesn’t happen at the same time), synchronous
(implementation and learning happen at the same time), and mixed (mix of

Fig. 3 Percentage of teachers teaching single and multiple grades from kindergarten till grade-6
Education and Information Technologies

Table 3 Pedagogies employed successfully for virtual teaching during the pandemic – reported by teachers

Learning Pedagogy Frequency

Asynchronous Recorded Lectures 11

Worksheet 3
Synchronous Presentation 19
Lecture 19
Media Supported Learning 14
Simulation 10
Inquiry-Based Learning 8
Quiz 7
Discussions 7
One-on-one session 6
Games 6
Socratic Seminar 5
Modeling/Demonstration 4
Read Aloud 4
Movement & Activity Based Learning 3
Surveys 2
Peer Feedback 2
Flipped Classrooms 2
Small Group Instruction 2
Virtual Assessment for Learning 2
Flashcards 1
Virtual Field Trip 1
Contextualization 1
Dialectical method 1
Comprehension Reviews 1
Drama 1
Organic World Language 1
Real World connections 1
Debate 1
Improvisation 1
Constructed Response 1
Feedback 1
Jigsaw Reading 1
Virtual Manipulatives 1
Mixed (Asynchronous/Synchronous) Project-Based Learning 44
Interaction 14
Research 5
Creative Writing 3
Reflection 1
Thinking Routines 1
 Education and Information Technologies

synchronous and asynchronous) (see Table 3). Out of 40 pedagogies, 32 pedagogies

mentioned by the teachers fell into the synchronous section, 6 in the mixed section,
and 2 in the asynchronous section.
Based on the frequency of repetition of pedagogies in the data (see Fig. 4), it is
evident that out of 141, 44 teachers (31%) used project-based learning. Presentations
and lectures were repeated 19 times (each) in the data. Similarly, media-supported
learning and interaction were repeated 14 times (each) in the data.
The word cloud (see Fig. 5) prepared after categorizing the data on pedagogies
project-based learning as the most frequently appearing pedagogy in the data. Presen-
tations, lectures, media-supported learning, interactions, recorded lectures, simulation,
inquiry-based learning, quizzes, discussions, one-on-one sessions, and games frequent-
ly appeared (i.e., >5 times) in response data.

4.3 Successes of virtual teaching

Six success themes emerged from the voice of teachers experiencing a shift to virtual
education without much preparation and are: (a) interesting experience; (b) virtual
platform demonstration; (c) learning by experience; (d) adaptation; (e) connection; (f)
multiple platforms. These themes are explained below:

4.3.1 Interesting experience

Teachers found virtual teaching interesting, enjoyable, and successful in gaining new
knowledge in using different technologies in lessons and adapting them to teaching
pedagogies. As a teacher stated: “it was interesting to bring classroom rules and norms
into the video ‘classroom’ such as raising hands, being polite, asking to go to the
bathroom etc.”

Fig. 4 Frequency of repetition of each pedagogy in the data

Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 5 Word cloud formulated based on the frequency of repetition of each pedagogy in the data – using
wordart.com

(a) Virtual Platform Demonstration

Teachers viewed planning ahead and familiarizing students with the use of virtual
platforms to be particularly helpful when applied. One of the teachers highlighted that
they “spent first few days just explaining how to navigate through the platform, which
was worth it. I would recommend everyone to do that as it worked out quite well.”

(b) Learning by Experience

For many teachers, the shift to virtual teaching was a phenomenal ‘learning-by-doing’
experience, not just around technology platforms but also for polishing their teaching
techniques like adding snap quizzes and using multiple tools for explaining a concept.
As a teacher explained: “this, for the first time without prior experience, was a
challenging task but with time, when we got familiar, these resources proved to be
very helpful in achieving the learning objectives.”

(iii) Adaptation

A clear win, for many teachers, was the adaptation to digital education by both students
and teachers. When the adjustment happened - for the trio of teachers, students and
parents - the learning process was smoother. A teacher wrote, “using digital platforms
was a success in a way that students were getting more comfortable with using
technology for their learning purposes and were able to experience learning at a
broader level.” For another teacher, “seeing all the kids work in one place made
marking of work easier”.
 Education and Information Technologies

(iv) Connection

Teachers found ‘being able to establish connection’ as a positive windfall of the virtual
education process. Virtual education has allowed students to connect at a very critical
time when, perhaps, they were feeling a lack of connection with their school friends,
teachers, and peers. As a teacher noted: “students were so excited to video chat at a
lesson and often didn’t want to sign off… it showed they missed and still valued the
connection between peers and teachers. Families said students were thrilled to have
even a phone call and hear my voice”.

(e) Multiple Platforms

Multiple platforms were invoked by teachers, depending on the pedagogies im-

plemented and the learning needs of students. According to teachers, ‘Tencent’
had the tools to engage; ‘Zoom’ facilitated crafts and interactive projects;
‘Kahoot’ was great for motivation and engagement; ‘YouTube’ videos helped
maximize comprehensible input at learners’ own pace; while ‘Google classroom’
was good for organization and setting clear expectations. It indicates that not a
singular platform, but a combination was necessary to replicate face-to-face
teaching in an online learning environment.

4.4 Challenges of virtual teaching

Insights into the challenges encountered by teachers while moving to virtual teaching
practice reflect a broad range of challenges around the following eight themes: (a)
student engagement; (b) training need; (c) parents’ engagement; (d) access to digital
equipment; (e) monitoring learning; (f) teaching difficulties; (g) systematic challenges;
(h) hectic and frustrating. The description of each theme is detailed below:

(a) Student Engagement

Five aspects (see Table 4) associated with the lack of students’ engagement are:

& Interaction – teachers found it difficult to interact with students, as is possible in a

classroom setting. It was particularly challenging to deliver concepts and engage
young students.
& Attendance – attendance and focus, particularly after a prolonged period of virtual
learning, became an issue.
& Distractions – home environment, noise, and availability of toys were sources of
distraction emanated as sources of distraction exogenous to teaching pedagogies. In
addition, distractions also arose from a lack of ability to manage discipline in the
online classroom, when students were not following directions and purposefully
causing disruptions.
& Self-directed Learning – teacher responses imply difficulty for elementary school
students to engage in self-directed learning, posing a significant challenge for
implementing asynchronous learning.
& Motivation and Boredom – some students “entirely disappeared from learning”
owing to lack of motivation and engagement while many students were “lonely and
Education and Information Technologies

depressed”. Repetition of tools, routine, and lack of diversity in approach also

resulted in boredom.

(b) Training Need

Teachers were extremely cognizant of being ‘ill-equipped’ to handle virtual
education, both on the side of technology as well as pedagogy adaptation to digital
platforms. ‘Learning by doing’ is not an efficient and optimal way of getting
trained in a live education environment, where many other factors, detrimental to
student-learning outcomes, are simultaneously in play. Some teachers used virtual
teaching practice for the first time in their whole teaching career as one of the
teachers highlighted: “I have not used any of these in 36 years of teaching”.
(c) Parents’ Engagement
A vast majority of teachers found parents to be lacking in basic knowledge and
skill for adjustment to the whole virtual education scheme, resulting in them being
noncooperative and frustrated. Some parents managed great strategies to keep
their kids engaged in virtual learning but were only able to support teachers during
the online class; they could not independently use those strategies at home. The
level of engagement of parents was a key determinant of the benefit derived by
their children through virtual learning. However, a key influencer in the ‘inequal-
ity in learning’ was the families’ comfort level with technology varied which led
to inequality. As a teacher stated: “it really becomes a privilege issue; students
who have support in their houses were much more engaged”.
(d) Access to Digital Equipment
The digital divide inequalities posed a monumental challenge owing to com-
plete lack of or frequent disruptions in the internet connection, both for teachers
and students, even for well-resourced schools and homes. In addition, access to
appropriate and adequate digital devices was a major problem in relatively
disadvantaged households.
(e) Monitoring Learning
The digital learning environment made monitoring a humongous task for
teachers and affected the feedback loop owing to delayed or missing assignments.
Particularly, below-average learners suffered. Teachers were also concerned about
the integrity in examinations and assignments, thereby nullifying an objective
measurement of progress in pupil learning outcomes.
(f) Teaching Difficulties
Lack of physical connection and the inability to use body language and gestures
to teach emerged as an impediment in effective teaching. Altering the tone of voice
was creatively used as an alternate but had limited scope for effectiveness. The
difficulty in reading through “photos of students’ work” meant that “feedback on
work was not always appropriate”. In addition, the limitation of the range of
online teaching tools meant teaching effectiveness remained significantly
hampered.
(g) Systematic Challenges
Teachers wanting to deploy a range of activities, tools, or platforms for
effective learning encountered systemic constraints (either school or by local
government body). These controls put an additional limitation on the creativity
and effectiveness of the virtual teaching practice.
 Education and Information Technologies

(h) Hectic and Frustrating

Epitomizing the challenge is a quote from a teacher, who acknowledged that “I
found that my joy in teaching disappeared as it became a stressful slog every day
that never seemed to have an end time”. An overwhelming majority of teachers
found virtual teaching to be a hectic task getting in the way of work-life balance
on the one hand, while requiring a number of non-educational administrative
aspects on the other. As one teacher sighed: “too many passwords and websites to
keep up with. I already have several windows open; can’t present and keep an eye
on managerial stuff too”. Teachers found that “technology can’t handle what we
are asking it to do; it is tiring, frustrating and demotivating”.

4.5 Suggestions for improvement

The themes that emerged from the data as to what suggestions teachers have for
improving digital education are: (a) planning; (b) access to digital equipment; (c)
school’s policy; (d) collaboration.

(a) Planning

The data clearly indicated that various aspects need planning to ensure improvements in
digital teaching (See Table 5 for the supporting quotes). Those aspects are as follows:

Table 4 Supporting quotes from teachers regarding challenges linked to students’ engagement

Aspects of student Supporting quote/s

engagement

Interaction · “.. the loss of ability to interact with students in the classroom setting.”
· “.. it was difficult to engage with students during online sessions.”
· “.. to deliver concepts and engage each and every student was a big challenge, as
many students were of small age.”
Attendance · “students’ attendance and their focus was a challenge.”
· “students were not attending.”
Distractions · “.. the availability of toys nearby that would distract them, noise from the house as
well.”
· “.. struggle was classroom management … I could not disable text-based chat for
some students that were not following directions and purposefully causing
disruptions.”
Self-directed Learning · “students couldn’t engage in asynchronous learning by themselves. As a result I
did about 4 h of live zoom sessions with them each day with breaks in between.”
Motivation and · “lack of motivation from some students, some of whom disappeared entirely from
Boredom learning….. many students were lonely and depressed
· “.. we have to come up with something new almost every day to motivate kids.”
· “.. it was very hard to keep them motivated especially by the end of the term.”
· “.. students get bored after a while using the same tools.”
Education and Information Technologies

& Synchronous teaching - teachers found synchronous teaching more effective for
digital learning as compared to asynchronous teaching.
& Video Lessons - producing video lessons can be time-consuming, and therefore
pre-existing videos on platforms like YouTube can be used. A teacher also men-
tioned starting a YouTube channel for her students.
& Activities and Tools - there is a need to focus specifically on modifying teaching
activities and using the right tools to make teaching more engaging and ensure that
the experience is not monotonous for students.
& Class size - small class size is preferred for effective teaching in an online setting.
& Attendance - incentivizing students is needed to ensure presence in the virtual
classroom.
& Social interactions, discourse, and relationships - social interactions, discourse, and
relationship building is needed while teaching online, as digital learning creates a
physical divide.
& Independent time - while teaching online, giving independent time to each student
can make teaching more effective.
& Syllabus - syllabus is reduced while adapting it to a digital setting.
& Training - teachers and students must be trained before implementing digital
education.
& Teaching material - appropriate teaching materials i.e. digital platforms and teach-
ing resources are required to be made available to the teachers.
& Parental involvement - raising parental awareness to ensure parental involvement in
digital education is necessary.
& Monitoring and Feedback Mechanism - monitoring and feedback mechanism needs
to be well-thought through, while ongoing assessments are mandatory to ensure
monitoring.

(b) Access to Digital Equipment

Data suggests that it is crucial to ensure that every child has access to digital
equipment. Teachers mentioned the importance of access to the internet and
digital gadgets to ensure digital learning does not create a learning divide, as
one teacher wrote: “providing strong internet facilities and ensuring the avail-
ability of gadgets with every student is crucial”.
(c) School’s Policy
According to teachers, the design of digital teaching and learning depends on
the school’s policies. Practitioners suggested giving more freedom to teachers for
designing their lessons in the digital settings to ensure effective learning:
“Teachers should have complete independence for conducting their lessons”.
(d) Collaboration
While implementing digital education, teachers expressed connecting and
collaborating with other teachers to exchange best practices. Sharing teaching
resources will also give teachers space and time to give more attention to their
students and learn from each other, as a teacher noted: “promoting connection
and collaboration vs. competition will be essential for everyone involved.
Allowing different members of the team to do different video lessons that we
can all use would maybe free us up to spend more time connecting with students
and learn from each other as colleagues.”

Table 5 Supporting quotes from teachers regarding planning to ensure improvements in digital teaching
Aspects of planning theme
Synchronous teaching
Video lessons
Activities and tools
Class size
Attendance
Social interactions, discourse,
and relationships
Independent time/learning
Syllabus
Training
Teaching Materials
Parental Involvement
Education and Information Technologies
Supporting Quote/s
· “My school only allowed to teach asynchronously in spring…. that didn’t
work, I disliked it and began synchronous lessons in late May. I will
prefer to begin synchronously with my students in September.”
· “I will use more synchronous lessons in small groups.”
· “Making and producing videos for each lesson is very demanding and
time consuming, I would rather use YouTube, worksheets, and
PowerPoint.”
· “I am preparing video lectures to upload them on my YouTube channel…
from YouTube channel my students can listen my lecture anytime and
they can clear their own concepts.”
· “I would prefer to engage students in more hands-on experiences… it was
lacking in online classes.”
· “.. modification in teaching techniques to avoid monotony and make
virtual learning a refreshing experience.”
· “.. making it more creative, lively, engaging, easy to access for every
student… using more enhanced strategies and resources to make it more
interactive and interesting for students.”
· “In order for virtual learning to be successful we need smaller class sizes
.. that way teachers can make multiple groups per day and truly talk to
the students and maneuver through the curriculum .. students could also
talk to each other and collaborate (so important), which they can’t
across the huge zoom class.”
· “An incentive to make students’ attendance a surety”.
· “Relationship building becomes even more important across a digital divide,
so finding ways to interact with individual students needs to be a focus.”
· “With our school’s questionnaires to students and parents it became
evident that more peer connected work and more depth of lesson
material was desired.”
· “Individual facility by uploading lectures on Whatsapp so that they can
access easily.”
· “It is important to allocate independent time for students, especially in
this uncertain time.”
· “It is important that syllabus should be cut down for making digital
education effective.”
· “For virtual education, both teachers and students as well must learn
different tools and how to use them.”
· “.. we need to learn different software that work in this regard. To make it
more easy for the learners to understand and even for the parents too.”
· “Schools need to provide teachers with the appropriate resources they
need including the apps that help enhance virtual education.”
· “.. more digitally interact able software to make things easy.”
· “I prepared flash cards .. more apparatus should be used for young
children.”
· “Schools can support teachers by providing appropriate resources for all
subjects.”
· “Parental awareness is required about their responsibilities while their
kids are attending classes. Parental support is highly required for
successful virtual education.”
Education and Information Technologies

Table 5 (continued)

Aspects of planning theme Supporting Quote/s

· “I would like to educate parents through virtual workshops .. to ensure

best learning of their kids.”
Monitoring and Feedback · “.. figure out new ways to provide feedback and how to do that without
Mechanism taking more hours than I was actually teaching.”
· “.. make ongoing assessment as its integral part. Depending only on
summative assessment makes learning uncertain.”

5 Discussion

The purpose of the current exploratory research is to explore which pedagogies teachers
have successfully used while teaching virtually during the pandemic; to identify the
challenges and successes of virtual teaching practice; and to understand teachers’
suggestions for improving the quality of virtual teaching pedagogies.
According to the results, teachers highlighted 40 different pedagogies which they
successfully implemented in the virtual settings. Among these 40 pedagogies, project-
based learning appeared most frequently in the data. According to Krajcik & Blumenfeld
(2006), project-based learning allows students to learn by doing and applying ideas, and it is
based on the constructivist approach where students construct their understanding by
working with or using different ideas. In project-based learning, students usually investigate
questions, propose hypotheses, construct ideas, challenge each other’s ideas, and try new
ideas. In a virtual setting, the main alternative to improve students’ capabilities is online
project-based learning (Edy et al., 2020). In the article titled, “project-based learning gets its
moment during the coronavirus”, Mathewson (2020) highlighted that implementing project-
based learning has led to increased student engagement, nurtures critical thinking and
collaboration, and offers opportunities for interdisciplinary learning. According to
Mathewson (2020), project-based learning was employed in Shelby County’s public schools
during the coronavirus lockdown: it resulted in enhanced engagement of students, and
teachers found the method to be academically rigorous and helpful in promoting deep
understanding of the class topic. Blog posts by Beach (2020) and PBL works (2020) also
indicated the efficacy of project-based learning in an online setting.
After project-based learning, lectures and presentations frequently appeared in the
data (19 times), which indicates that the digital transformation of education, in some
cases, has made education transmissive. Bligh (2000) suggested that during the lecture,
a speaker wants an audience to learn something through a series of expositions. Given
that the lecture is an effective method to transmit information, most lectures are
ineffective to: (a) promote thought; (b) change attitudes or values; (c) teach behavioral
skills. According to Bates (2015), in digital education, lectures are still going to
dominate for the next ten years as the content can be easily digitized while using
lectures and be made available at low cost.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, most teachers were not prepared on the one
hand, and on the other, the schools and governments were not ready to allocate
resources for digital education at kindergarten or elementary school levels. The
problem found more hardened in the developing nations as found in several past
 Education and Information Technologies

studies in Asian context like Kundu & Bej (2020a) and Kundu & Bej (2021). As
synchronous and asynchronous lectures and presentations are cost-effective and
easy ways to digitize content while making sure that learning losses are reduced
(as content knowledge is being transmitted), many teachers used lectures and
presentations for virtual teaching during the COVID-19 instigated school closures.
Carrying out a task professionally means doing it thoroughly, competently, and in
a morally correct manner. Professionalism is an aspirational ‘ideal’ to provide a
high-quality service (Hoyle, 1995). People have inherent strength and capacity
that needs to be harnessed through a targeted effort toward their development
(Ebersöhn & Eloff, 2006). Methodical preparation for undertaking ‘virtual educa-
tion’, as opposed to inadvertent experience, is better poised to prepare effective
teachers (Davis & Ferdig, 2018).
From the results of the successes of virtual teaching experience, it can be deduced
that teachers found the experience interesting and used multiple virtual platforms to
maximize the learning experience for their students. Teachers also recognized the “need
for connection” for their students during the pandemic and tried their best to utilize the
virtual teaching opportunity to maintain the connection between students and with
students. UNICEF (2020) asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic, and ensuing protec-
tive measures against the risk of infection, can have significant impact on people’s
emotional wellbeing - for example, school closures and distance from peers can lead to
increasing anger, sadness, fear and anxiety.
The results depict that teachers made a significant effort to adapt face-to-face
teaching to an online setting and were generally successful in making the transition.
As an outcome of this adaptation, teachers were able to learn through their own
experience of converting face-to-face teaching practice into virtual teaching practice.
According to Roberts et al. (2005), teachers can be contextually extraordinary by
deliberately achieving a fundamental state of leadership through putting themselves
out of the comfort zone; determining what needs to be created; and identifying what
will it take (in virtues; commitment span; and willingness to learn afresh) to get it done.
Willingness to learn, and virtuously getting it done by delivering positive human
influence, hold purchase, as a necessary ingredient, for a ‘virtual education scheme’
to be successful.
While teachers highlighted successes associated with digital teaching practice, these
successes did not come without challenges like lack of student engagement; the need
for training; lack of parents’ engagement; lack of access to digital equipment; undefined
monitoring mechanism, and other systematic challenges. Using Blundell et al.’s (2015)
framework of intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) influences on digital technol-
ogies in teaching practice, we deem all these highlighted challenges to be extrinsic in
nature. Intrinsic challenges are associated with teachers’ own attitudes and beliefs;
innovation routine; knowledge and skills; vision and design thinking (Blundell et al.,
2015), which was not a fundamental issue in digital teaching practice during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
A study conducted by Ertmer et al. (2001) concluded that the disparity between the
practices and constructivist beliefs of the teachers, while implementing digital
education, is due to those external barriers. Ravitz et al. (2000) also identified that, in
a virtual learning environment, the limitations on the implementation of teachers’
constructivist beliefs are linked to balancing multiple objectives, meeting the needs
Education and Information Technologies

of individual students in a big classroom (student engagement) and dealing with

external forces and expectations. According to Ertmer et al. (2012) the key external
barriers to digital teaching practice include: hardware and internet access, access to
software and tools, training, support (administrative, technological, professional and
peer) and similar challenges are highlighted by the results of the current study.
Pupils from marginal socioeconomic households are ‘disadvantaged universally’
(Reay, 2017), and this reality came to the forefront on account of the challenges posed
by the COVID-driven virtual education scheme. Data analysis clearly highlighted
challenges teachers faced during virtual teaching practice due to inequality in access
to digital equipment and parental support. Recognizing the need for ‘social justice’ i.e.,
all children deserve equal chances to participate; and that ‘parents’ are not homoge-
neous and face widely differing factors influencing their capacity for support (Maringe
et al., 2015) is critical in a situational response. Education leaders being ignorant of
these realities, while dispensing education to a vastly diverse cohort of pupils, is an
abdication of responsibility (Lumby, 2010).
The overarching responsibility of educational leaders is to provide ‘student-
centered leadership (SCL)’. Quality enactment of student-centered leadership
(SCL)‘s five dimensions (to follow Robinson, 2019) requires: clear goal-setting;
strategically resourcing; quality of teaching using planning and monitoring tools;
teacher learning and development; and ensuring an orderly and safe environment.
Excellence is measured, not just by the learning outcomes but also by the virtues
employed in achieving them (Robinson, 2019). Bridging the gap between achiev-
ing learning outcomes and doing so while invoking ‘virtues’ and ‘SCL’ will
require a lot of training and practice before becoming applicable in a ‘virtual
education’ environment. Teachers and education leaders’ motivation of ‘in it for
the children’, while essential, is inadequate to meet present and future challenges
facing the next generation. Effective school leaders’ foremost priorities, while
invoking a ‘virtual education scheme’, must be to embed a culture of teaching and
learning (Mestry & Grobler, 2004) through: education standards; effective parent
engagement; conflict management; and accountability.
Given that challenges faced by the teachers were external in nature while implementing
digital education, most of the suggestions associated with improving digital teaching
practice, in the context of pedagogy, were linked to dealing with external barriers to digital
teaching practice e.g., proper planning, access to digital equipment, flexible school policies
and collaboration. Leading education against odds, emanating from socio-economic dispar-
ity, can be overwhelming and emotionally exhausting to a point of being ‘wicked’ (Grint,
2010). ‘Wicked’ problems may not have a solving point i.e., stopping may be untenable
where the missing pieces are vital information; nature of causality; and a clear path to
gaining full understanding. COVID-19 response, needed by teachers around the world, is
considered a ‘wicked’ situation.
To ensure the effectiveness of digital learning in the future, UNESCO (2020a, b)
proposed preparedness in the context of technological readiness (capacities and equip-
ment), content readiness (teaching and learning materials), pedagogical and home-
based learning readiness (teachers’ and family readiness) and monitoring and
evaluation readiness. While highlighting the preparedness of teachers for pedagogical
shifts UNESCO (2020a) quoted:
 Education and Information Technologies

“Key to successfully shifting to distance learning is not only to train and support
teachers, but also to promote collaboration among teachers. Engaging teachers
in the design of massive distance learning programmes, especially TV or radio
programmes, can lead to best possible integration of technology and pedagogical
methodologies. Teachers should be supported on how to find solutions to com-
mon challenges such as supporting learners overcome distance and disengage-
ment, adjusting instructional design to motivate students and maintain engage-
ment, and developing and sharing teaching and learning resources and best
teaching practices.” (UNESCO 2020a, pp. 3).

6 Conclusion

Digital adaptation associated with pedagogies in teaching practice during the

unprecedented crisis posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, captured from teachers’
perspectives, have highlighted that the respective education systems were not
prepared for this transformation. Conducted with an aim to explore what happened
with kindergarten and elementary school education during the Corona virus-
instigated school closures, our study reveals that there was a successful effort by
teachers to partly implement multiple pedagogies. While implementing these
pedagogies in a virtual setting, teachers faced multiple challenges and most of
these challenges were extrinsic in nature. The current study also sheds light on the
insightful suggestions for improvement, from teachers’ perspectives, that can be
used to inform virtual learning and bring about an improvement in the digital
teaching practice. Bridging the gap between achieving learning outcomes, while
invoking virtues, will require a lot of training and practice before virtual education
pedagogy can be deemed universally effective for young children across all
segments of society.

6.1 Limitation

The current study was pilot research, undertaken during the peak COVID-19 pandemic
period when schools were closed. Conversely, it has three key limitations, which are as
follows:

1. Although we took specific measures to remove the seeding bias while collecting
the data via social media, it is uncertain that it has been completely eliminated;
2. The purpose of the current study is to explore what happened on the ground, during
the COVID-19 induced school closures, in the context of virtual teaching practice.
Consequently, purposeful sampling has been used, which made the sample size
small and limited;
3. The sample was collected via social media. It has neither been uniformly collected
nor fully represents all the regions providing data input. Therefore, while the results
cannot be generalized, insights from the study can be contextualized and used to
inform virtual teaching practice.
Education and Information Technologies

Declarations

Conflict of interest The authors hereby declare that there have no conflicts of interest.

References

Anastasiades, P. S., Filippousis, G., Karvunis, L., Siakas, S., Tomazinakis, A., Giza, P., & Mastoraki, H.
(2010). Interactive videoconferencing for collaborative learning at a distance in the school of 21st century:
A case study in elementary schools in Greece. Computers & Education, 54(2), 321–339. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.016.
Ash, K., & Davis, M. R. (2009). E-Learning's potential scrutinized in flu crisis. Education Week, 28(31), 1-12.
Available online: https://www.edweek.org/issue/2009/05/13
Basilaia, G., & Kvavadze, D. (2020). Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.
29333/pr/7937
Bates, A. T. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. BCcampus.
Available online: https://openlibrary-repo.ecampusontario.ca/jspui/handle/123456789/276
Beach, A. (2020, June 18). Project Based Learning’ in the Midst of COVID. Pagosa Daily Post. https://
pagosadailypost.com/2020/06/18/project-based-learning-in-the-midst-of-covid/
Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? Jossey-Bass.
Blundell, C., Lee, K. T., & Nykvist, S. (2015). Conceptualising the challenge of integrating digital technol-
ogies in pedagogy. Educators on the edge: Big ideas for change and innovation, 44-51. Available online:
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90567/
Boston, B. (2002). Mission impossible? Defining roles, developing courses and overcoming myths in distance
education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp.
130-131). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 22,
2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/6698/ .
Brickman Bhutta, C. (2012). Not by the book: Facebook as a sampling frame. Sociological Methods &
Research, 41(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124112440795.
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education
on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Available online: Learning Point Associates/North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED489533.
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues - a study of virtual schools in the United States. Western
Regional Educational Laboratories. Available online https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED462923.pdf.
Cornwell, B., & Hoagland, E. (2015). Survey methods for social network research. Health Survey Methods,
275–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118594629.
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11125-020-09464-3.
Davis N. E., & Ferdig R. E. (2018). Virtual schools: a global perspective. In: Voogt J., Knezek G., Christensen
R., Lai KW. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education.
Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
71054-9_46.
Ebersöhn, L., & Eloff, I. (2006). Identifying asset-based trends in sustainable programmes which support
vulnerable children. South African journal of education, 26(3), 457–472. Available online: https://www.
ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/25082
Edy, Widiyanti, & Basuki. (2020). Revisiting the impact of project-based learning on online learning in
vocational education: Analysis of learning in pandemic covid-19, 2020 4th International Conference on
Vocational Education and Training (ICOVET). Malang, Indonesia, 2020, 378–381. https://doi.org/10.
1109/ICOVET50258.2020.9230137.
Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001). Technology-using teachers. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 33(5).
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(4),
790–797. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.00371.x.
 Education and Information Technologies

Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the importance of
technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 749–
760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00559.x.
Ferdig, R. E., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E. W., & Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual Schooling Standards
and Best Practices for Teacher Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 479–
503. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved April
12, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/30481/.
Gauthier, C., Dembélé, M., Bossonnette, S., & Richard, M. (2004). Quality of teaching and quality of
education: A review of research findings. UNESCO. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.498.6274&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Giannini, S., Jenkins, R., & Saavedra, J. (2020). Reopening schools: When, where and how? In UNESCO
Blogs Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://en.unesco.org/news/reopening-schools-when-where-and-
how.
Grint, K. (2010). Leadership: A very short introduction (Vol. 237). Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Everybody is their own island: Teacher disconnection
in a virtual school. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 123-144.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.967.
Hoyle, E. (1995). Changing conceptions of a profession. Managing Teachers and Professionals in Schools.
London: Kogan Page.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge. Available online https://free.openeclass.
org/modules/document/file.php/ENG155/Projects%20online/CHAPTER%2019%20PBL%20Kraichik.
docx.
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 403–407). Oxford University Press.
Available online http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226.
Kundu, A. (2018a). A study on Indian teachers’ roles and willingness to accept education technology.
International Journal of Innovative Studies in Sociology and Humanities. Available at: http://ijissh.org/
articles/2018-2/volume-3-issue-9/
Kundu, A., (2018b). Blended learning in Indian elementary education: Problems and prospects. Journal of
Online Learning Research, 4(2), 199–227. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/180971/
Kundu, A. (2020a). Toward a framework for strengthening participants' self-efficacy in online education.
Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15, 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-06-2020-
0039.
Kundu, A. (2020b). A sound framework for ICT Integration in Indian Teacher Education. International
Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development (IJTEPD), 4(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/
10.4018/IJTEPD
Kundu, A., & Bej, T. (2020a). COVID-19 response: Students’ readiness for shifting classes online. Corporate
Governance: the International Journal of Business in Society. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2020-0377
Kundu, A. & Bej, T. (2020b). Ingestion and integration of ICTs for pedagogy in Indian private high schools.
E-Learning and Digital Media. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020957493
Kundu, A., & Bej, T. (2021). Experiencing e-assessment during COVID-19: An analysis of Indian students’
perception. Higher Education Evaluation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-03-2021-
0032
Kundu, A., Bej, T., & Dey, K. N. (2020a). Time to achieve: Implementing blended learning routines in an
Indian elementary classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Systems., 49, 405–431. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0047239520984406.
Kundu, A., Bej, T., & Dey, K. N. (2020b). An empirical study on the correlation between teacher efficacy and
ICT infrastructure. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology., 37, 213–238. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2020-0050.
Kundu, A., Bej, T. & Rice, M. (2020c). Time to Engage: Implementing Math and Literacy Blended Learning
Routines in an Indian Elementary Classroom. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10639-020-10306-0
Kurtz, G., Beaudoin, M., & Sagee, R. (2004). From campus to web: The changing roles of faculty from
classroom to online teaching. The Journal of Educators Online, 1(1), 1-28. Available online: http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.412.1238&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Education and Information Technologies

Lazarus, B. D. (2003). Teaching courses online: How much time does it take. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(3), 47-54. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ea36/
1a2a745b068373c4ff2014dcc9480c490a44.pdf
Lee, J. L., & Hirumi, A. (2004). Analysis of essential skills and knowledge for teaching online. Association for
Educational Communications and Technology.
Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020, April 29). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how .
Retrieved May 23, 2020, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-
covid19-online-digital-learning/
Lowes, S. (2014). A brief look at the methodologies used in researching online teaching and learning. In R. E.
Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K–12 online and blended learning (pp. 83–104).
ETC Press. Available online https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/2811036.2811041.
Lumby, J. (2010). Leadership for diversity and inclusion. In L. Bell & D. Middlewood (Eds.), The Principles
of Educational Leadership & Management. 2nd edn. T. Bush (pp. 145–157). Sage.
Maringe, F., Masinire, A., & Nkambule, T. (2015). Distinctive features of schools in multiple deprived
communities in South Africa: Implications for policy and leadership. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43(3), 363–385.
Mathewson, T. G. (2020, July). 1. The Hechinger Report: Project-based learning gets its moment during the
coronavirus https://hechingerreport.org/project-based-learning-gets-its-moment-during-the-coronavirus/.
Mestry, R., & Grobler, B. R. (2004). The training and development of principals to manage schools effectively
using the competence approach. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(3).
Mirabeau, L., Mignerat, M., & Grangé, C. (2013). The utility of using social media networks for data
collection in survey research.
Muirhead, W. D. (2000). Online education in schools. International Journal of Educational Management.,
14(7), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540010378969.
Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. A. R. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and physical high school
classroom: A third-generation activity theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(6), 1061–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00776.x.
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2009). Sage without a stage: Expanding the object of teaching
in a web-based, high-school classroom. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.579.
O’Neil, T. (2009). How distance education has changed teaching and the role of the instructor. Information
Systems Education Journal, 7(48) http://isedj.org/7/48/.
Olson, T., & Wisher, R. A. (2002). The effectiveness of web-based instruction: An initial inquiry. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/
irrodl.v3i2.103.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful
sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc..
PBL Works. (2020). During these unprecedented times and school closures. PBL for remote learning. https://
www.pblworks.org/pbl-remote-learning
Penrod, J., Preston, D. B., Cain, R. E., & Starks, M. T. (2003). A discussion of chain referral as a method of
sampling hard-to-reach populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14(2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1043659602250614.
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among US
teachers. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National Survey Report# 4.
Reay, D. (2017). Miseducation: Education, inequality and the working classes. Policy Press.
Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. (2005). How to play to your
strengths. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 74-80. Available online: http://my2.ewb.ca/site_media/static/
library/files/446/playing-to-your-strengths.pdf
Robinson, V. (2019). Excellence in educational leadership: Practices, capabilities and virtues that foster
improved student outcomes. In The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management. 2nd edn.
T. Bush., L. Bell, and D. Middlewood (eds). London: Sage. pp. 73–92.
Rogers, F. H., & Sabarwal, S. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic: Shocks to Education and Policy Responses
(No. 148198, pp. 1-56). The World Bank. Available online: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/
365801588601466966/pdf/The-COVID-19-Pandemic-Shocks-to-Education-and-Policy-Responses.pdf
Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. In Development and management of virtual schools:
Issues and trends (pp. 1-25). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-154-4.ch001.
 Education and Information Technologies

Sandelowski, M. (1996). One is the liveliest number: The case orientation of qualitative research. Research in
Nursing & Health, 19(6), 525–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199612)19:6<525::AID-
NUR8>3.0.CO;2-Q.
Savery, J. R. (2005). BE VOCAL: Characteristics of successful online instructors. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 4(2), 141–152.
Taimur, S., & Mursaleen, H. (2020). Youth volunteerism, as non-formal education, for professional and social
integration of young labor force in Pakistan. Asian Social Science, 16(8), 117. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.
v16n8p117.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006).
Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093.
Thabane, L., Ma, J., Chu, R., Cheng, J., Ismaila, A., Rios, L. P., Robson, R., Thabane, M., Giangregorio, L., &
Goldsmith, C. H. (2010). A tutorial on pilot studies: The what, why and how. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-1.
Thamarana, S. (2016) Role of E-learning and Virtual Learning Environment in English language learning.
Teaching English Language and Literature: Innovative Methods and Practices, ELTAI Tirupati, 61–62.
UNESCO. (2020a, April). Distance learning strategies in response to COVID-19 school closures (Programme
and meeting document ED/2020/IN2.1/REV). Retrieved from the United Nations educational, scientific,
and cultural organization website: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373305/PDF/373305eng.
pdf.multi
UNESCO. (2020b). Education from disruption to recovery. UNESCO blogs. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
UNICEF. (2020). Emotional wellbeing in the time of COVID-19. UNICEF Blog. https://www.unicef.org/
northmacedonia/emotional-wellbeing-time-covid-19
Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., Mytton, O., Bonell, C., & Booy, R.
(2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A
rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health., 4, 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2352-4642(20)30095-X.
Watson, J. F., Winograd, K., & Kalmon, S. (2004). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A snapshot of
state-level policy and practice. Available online: Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory (NCREL) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518634.pdf.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

View publication stats

Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3

The changes we need: Education post COVID‑19

Yong Zhao1,2 · Jim Watterston1

Accepted: 28 January 2021 / Published online: 18 February 2021

© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused both unprecendented disruptions and mas-
sive changes to education. However, as schools return, these changes may disappear.
Moreover, not all of the changes are necessarily the changes we want in education.
In this paper, we argue that the pandemic has created a unique opportunity for edu-
cational changes that have been proposed before COVID-19 but were never fully
realized. We identify three big changes that education should make post COVID:
curriculum that is developmental, personalized, and evolving; pedagogy that is stu-
dent-centered, inquiry-based, authentic, and purposeful; and delivery of instruction
that capitalizes on the strengths of both synchronous and asynchronous learning.

Introduction

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education is both unprecedented

and widespread in education history, impacting nearly every student in the world
(UNICEF 2020; United Nations 2020). The unexpected arrival of the pandemic and
subsequent school closures saw massive effort to adapt and innovate by educators
and education systems around the world. These changes were made very quickly as
the prevailing circumstances demanded. Almost overnight, many schools and educa-
tion systems began to offer education remotely (Kamanetz 2020; Sun et al. 2020).
Through television and radio, the Internet, or traditional postal offices, schools
shifted to teach students in very different ways. Regardless of the outcomes, remote
learning became the de facto method of education provision for varying periods.
Educators proactively responded and showed great support for the shifts in lesson
delivery. Thus, it is clear and generally accepted that “this crisis has stimulated inno-
vation within the education sector” (United Nations 2020, p. 2).

* Yong Zhao
yongzhao@ku.edu
Jim Watterston
jim.watterston@unimelb.edu.au
1
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
2
School of Education, University of Kansas, 419 JRP, Lawrence, KS 66049, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 4 Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12

However, the changes or innovations that occurred in the immediate days and
weeks when COVID-19 struck are not necessarily the changes education needs to
make in the face of massive societal changes in a post-COVID-19 world. By and
large, the changes were more about addressing the immediate and urgent need of
continuing schooling, teaching online, and finding creative ways to reach students at
home rather than using this opportunity to rethink education. While understandable
in the short term, these changes will very likely be considered insubstantial for the
long term.
The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to be a once in a generation opportu-
nity for real change a number of reasons. First, the pandemic was global and affected
virtually all schools. As such, it provides the opportunity for educators and children
to come together to rethink the education we actually need as opposed to the inflex-
ible and outdated model that we are likely to feverishly cling to. Second, educators
across the world demonstrated that they could collectively change en masse. The
pandemic forced closure of schools, leaving teachers, children and adults to carry
out education in entirely different situations. Governments, education systems, and
schools offered remote learning and teaching without much preparation, planning,
and in some cases, digital experience (Kamanetz 2020; Sun et  al. 2020). Third,
when schools were closed, most of the traditional regulations and exams that gov-
ern schools were also lifted or minimally implemented. Traditional accountability
examinations and many other high stakes tests were cancelled. Education was given
the room to rapidly adapt to the prevailing circumstances.
It is our hope that as we transition out of the COVID-19 pandemic and into an
uncertain future that we can truly reimagine education. In light of this rare oppor-
tunity, we wish to urge scholars, policy makers, and educators to have the courage
to make bold changes beyond simply changing instructional delivery. The changes
that we advocate in this paper are not new but they never managed to gain traction in
the pre-COVID-19 educational landscape. Our most recent experience, however, has
exacerbated the need for us to rethink what is necessary, desirable, and even possible
for future generations.

Changes we need

It is incumbant upon all educators to use this crisis-driven opportunity to push for
significant shifts in almost every aspect of education: what, how, where, who, and
when. In other words, education, from curriculum to pedagogy, from teacher to
learner, from learning to assessment, and from location to time, can and should radi-
cally transform. We draw on our own research and that of our colleagues to suggest
what this transformation could look like.

13
Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12 5

Curriculum: What to teach

It has been widely acknowledged that to thrive in a future globalized world, tradi-
tionally valued skills and knowledge will become less important and a new set of
capabilities will become more dominant and essential (Barber et  al. 2012; Florida
2012; Pink 2006; Wagner 2008; Wagner and Dintersmith 2016). While the specif-
ics vary, the general agreement is that repetition, pattern-prediction and recognition,
memorization, or any skills connected to collecting, storing, and retrieving informa-
tion are in decline because of AI and related technologies (Muro et  al. 2019). On
the rise is a set of contemporary skills which includes creativity, curiosity, critical
thinking, entrepreneurship, collaboration, communication, growth mindset, global
competence, and a host of skills with different names (Duckworth and Yeager, 2015;
Zhao et al. 2019).
For humans to thrive in the age of smart machines, it is essential that they do
not compete with machines. Instead, they need to be more human. Being unique
and equipped with social-emotional intelligence are distinct human qualities (Zhao
2018b, 2018c) that machines do not have (yet). In an AI world individual creativity,
artistry and humanity will be important commodities that distinguish us from each
other.
Moreover, given the rapidity of changes we are already experiencing, it is clear
that lifelong careers and traditional employment pathways will not exist in the way
that they have for past generations. Jobs and the way we do business will change
and the change will be fast. Thus there are almost no knowledge or skills that can be
guaranteed to meet the needs of the unknown, uncertain, and constantly changing
future. For this reason, schools can no longer preimpose all that is needed for the
future before students graduate and enter the world.
While helping students develop basic practical skills is still needed, education
should also be about development of humanity in citizens of local, national, and
global societies. Education must be seen as a pathway to attaining lifelong learn-
ing, satisfaction, happiness, wellbeing, opportunity and contribution to human-
ity. Schools therefore need to provide comprehensive access and deep exposure to
all learning areas across all years in order to enable all students to make informed
choices and develop their passions and unique talents.
A new curriculum that responds to these needs must do a number of things. First,
it needs to help students develop the new competencies for the new age (Barber et al.
2012; Wagner 2008, 2012; Wagner and Dintersmith 2016). To help students thrive
in the age of smart machines and a globalized world, education must teach students
to be creative, entrepreneurial, and globally competent (Zhao 2012a, 2012b). The
curriculum needs to focus more on developing students’ capabilities instead of
focusing only on ‘template’ content and knowledge. It needs to be concerned with
students’ social and emotional wellbeing as well. Moreover, it needs to make sure
that students have an education experience that is globally connected and environ-
mentally connected. As important is the gradual disappearance of school subjects
such as history and physics for all students. The content is still important, but it
should be incorporated into competency-based curriculum.

13
 6 Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12

Second, the new curriculum should allow personalization by students (Basham

et al. 2016; Zhao 2012b, 2018c; Zhao and Tavangar 2016). Although personalized
learning has been used quite elusively in the literature, the predominant model of
personalized learning has been computer-based programs that aim to adapt to stu-
dents’ needs (Pane et  al. 2015). This model has shown promising results but true
personalization comes from students’ ability to develop their unique learning path-
ways (Zhao 2018c; Zhao and Tavangar 2016). That is, students can follow their pas-
sions and strengths. This not only requires the curriculum to be flexible so that stu-
dents can choose what they wish to learn, but also requires students to come up with
their own learning pathway without being overly constrained by the pre-determined
curriculum. Thus national curriculum or curriculum for all students should be a
minimal suite of essential knowledge and skills, sufficient for all students to develop
the most basic competences and learn the most common norms, expectations, and
the societal organizations of a jurisdiction.
Enabling students to co-develop part of the curriculum is not only necessary for
them to become unique but also gives them the opportunity to exercise their right to
self-determination, which is inalienable to all humans (Wehmeyer and Zhao 2020).
It provides the opportunities for students to make choices, propose new learning
content, and learn about consequences of their actions. Furthermore, it helps stu-
dents to become owners of their learning and also develop life-long learning habits
and skills. It is to help them go meta about their learning—above what they learn
and understand why they learn.
Third, it is important to consider the curriculum as evolving. Although system-
level curriculum frameworks have to be developed, they must accommodate changes
with time and contexts. Any system-level curriculum should enable the capacity for
schools to contextualize and make changes to it as deemed necessary. Such changes
must be justifiable of course but a system-level curriculum framework should not
use national or state level accountability assessments to constrain the changes.

Pedagogy: How to teach

There is increasing call for learners to be more actively engaged in their own learn-
ing. The reasons for students to take a more significant role in their own learning are
multiple. First, students are diverse and have different levels of abilities and inter-
ests that may not align well with the content they are collectively supposed to learn
in the classroom. Teachers have been encouraged to pursue classroom differentia-
tion (Tomlinson 2014) and students have been encouraged to play a more active role
in defining their learning and learning environments in collaboration with teachers
(Zhao 2018c). Second, the recent movement toward personalized learning (Kallick
and Zmuda 2017; Kallio and Halverson 2020) needs students to become more active
in understanding and charting their learning pathways.
To promote student self-determination as both a self-evident, naturally born
right and an effective strategy for enhanced learning (Wehmeyer and Zhao 2020),
we need to consider enabling students to make informed decisions regarding their
own learning pathway. This generation of learners are much more active and

13
Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12 7

tech-savvy. They access information instantly and have been doing so throughout
their daily life. They have different strengths and weaknesses. They also have dif-
ferent passions. Thus, schools should use discretion to start relaxing the intense
requirements of curriculum. Schools could start by allowing students to negotiate
part of their curriculum instead of requiring all students learn the same content,
as discussed earlier. Students should be enabled to have certain levels of auton-
omy over what they want to learn, how they learn, where they learn and how they
want to be assessed (Zhao 2018c). When students have such autonomy, they are
more likely to be less constrained by the local contexts they are born into. The
impact of their home background and local schools may be less powerful.
Students should exercise self-determination as members of the school commu-
nity (Zhao 2018c). The entire school is composed of adults and students, but stu-
dents are the reason of existence for schools. Thus, schools and everything in the
school environment should incorporate and serve the students, yet most schools
do not have policies and processes that enable students to participate in making
decisions about the school—the environment, the rules and regulations, the cur-
riculum, the assessment, and the adults in the school. Schools need to create these
conditions through empowering students to have a genuine voice in part of how
they operate, if not in its entirety. Students’ right to self-determination implies
that they have the right to determine under what conditions they wish to learn.
Thus, it is not unreasonable for schools to treat students as partners of learning
and of change (Zhao 2011, 2018c).
It should not be unique to see school practices co-developed with students
(Zhao 2018c). Students not only will be co-owners (with parents and teachers)
of their own learning enterprise, but also co-owners of the school community.
It is likely to see students having their own personal learning programs and also
acting as fully functioning members of the entire school community, contributing
to fundamental decisions regarding the curriculum for all, the staff, the students,
and the entire environment.
Moreover, with ubiquitous access to online resources and experts, students do
not necessarily need teachers to continually and directly teach them. When stu-
dents are enabled to own their learning and have access to resources and experts,
the role of the teacher changes (Zhao 2018a). Teachers no longer need to serve as
the instructor, the sole commander of information to teach the students content
and skills. Instead, the teacher serves other more important roles such as organ-
izer of learning, curator of learning resources, counselor to students, community
organizer, motivator and project managers of students’ learning. The teacher’s
primary responsibility is no longer simply just instruction, which requires teacher
education to change as well. Teacher education needs to focus more on preparing
teachers to be human educators who care more about the individual students and
serve as consultants and resource curators instead of teaching machines (Zhao
2018a).
Pedagogy should change as well. Direct instruction should be cast away for its
“unproductive successes” or short-term successes but long term damages (Bona-
witza et al. 2011; Buchsbauma et al. 2011; Kapur 2014, 2016; Zhao 2018d). In its
place should be new models of teaching and learning. The new models can have

13
 8 Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12

different formats and names but they should be student-centered, inquiry-based,

authentic, and purposeful. New forms of pedagogy should focus on student-initi-
ated explorations of solutions to authentic and significant problems. They should
help students develop abilities to handle the unknown and uncertain instead of
requiring memorization of known solutions to known problems.

Organization: Where and when to teach

Technology has made it possible for schools to offer online education for quite
some time and the number of students taking online courses has been on the rise,
but not until the arrival of COVID-19 has the majority of education been offered
through this mode. While there are many good reasons for schools to return to
what was refrred to as “normal,” the normalcy may not be easily achieved because
of the uncertainty of the virus, and as discussed above, may not even be desirable.
Moving teaching online is significant. It ultimately changed one of the most
important unwritten school rules: all students must be in one location for edu-
cation to take place. The typical place of learning has been the classroom in a
school and the learning time has been typically confined to classes. This massive
online movement changed the typical. It has forced teachers to experience remote
teaching without proximity to the students. It has also given many teachers the
opportunity to rethink the purpose of teaching and connecting with students.
When students are not learning in classes inside a school, they are distributed
in the community. They can interact with others through technologies. This can
have significant impact on learning activities. If allowed or enabled by a teacher,
students could be learning from online resources and experts anywhere in the
world. Thus, the where of learning changes from the classroom to the world.
Furthermore, the time of learning also changes. When learning goes online and
students are not or do not need to be in schools, their learning time vastly expands
beyond the traditional school time. They can learn asynchronously at anytime.
Equally important is that their learning time does not need to be synchronous
with each other or with that of the teacher.
There are many possible ways for schools to deliver remote learning (Zhao
2020). The simplest is to simulate that schools are open with traditional time-
tables with the default model being that all students attend lessons on screen at
the same time as they do in schools. In this case, nothing changes except for the
fact that students are not in the same location as their classmates and the teacher.
While it has been perhaps the most common approach that has been taken by
many schools, this approach has not been very effective and successful, resulting
in distress, disengagement, and much less personal interaction and learning than
traditional face-to-face situations (Darby 2020; Dorn et al. 2020).
As schools continue to explore online learning, new and more effective mod-
els are being explored, innovatively developed, and practiced. The more effective
models of online learning have a well-balanced combination of both synchronous
and asynchronous sessions that enable more desirable ways of learning. Instead of
teaching online all the time, it is possible, for example, to conduct inquiry-based

13
Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12 9

learning. Students receive instructions from online resources or synchronous

meetings, conduct inquiry, create products individually or within small groups,
and make presentations in large class synchronous meetings. Instead of lectur-
ing to all students, teachers could create videos of lectures or find videos made
by others and share them with students. They would also be meeting with small
groups of individuals for specific advice and support. The fundamental pursuit
is that there is minimal benefit or student engagement for teachers to lecture
all the time when more interesting and challenging instructional models can be
developed.
Today, being disconnected physically can result in being more broadly connected
virtually. Students have been traditionally associated with their schools and schools
have typically served local communities. Thus, students typically are connected and
socialize with their peers from restricted catchment areas. Despite the possibility
to connect globally with people from other lands, most schools’ activities are local.
Today, when local connections become less reliable and students are encouraged to
have social distancing, it is possible to encourage more global connections virtually.
Students could join different learning communities that involve members from dif-
ferent locations, not necessarily from their own schools. Students could also partici-
pate in learning opportunities provided by other providers in remote locations. Fur-
thermore, students could create their own learning opportunities by inviting peers
and teachers from other locations.
The ideal model of organizing students, based on the COVID-19 experiences, is
perhaps a combination of both online and face-to-face learning opportunities. Many
schools have already reopened, but when schools reopen it is unnecessary to undo
the online aspect of learning developed during COVID-19. Online learning can be
effective (Means et  al. 2013; Rudestam and Schoenholtz-Read 2010; Zhao et  al.
2005), but a well-designed mixed mode delivery of online and face-to-face educa-
tion should be more effective for learning in general but especially so should there
be future instances of virtual learning (Tucker 2020). The idea of blended learning
or flipped classrooms (Bishop and Verleger 2013) has been promoted and researched
in recent years as very effective models of teaching. COVID-19 should have made
the convincing much easier since many teachers have been forced to move online.
When learning is both online and face-to-face, students are liberated from having
to attend classes at specific times. They are also no longer required to be in the same
place to receive instruction from teachers. They could work on their own projects
and reach out to their teachers or peers when necessary. When students are no longer
required to attend class at the same time in the same place, they can have much more
autonomy over their own learning. Their learning time expands beyond school time
and their learning places can be global.

Summary

Education will undoubtedly go through major changes in the next decade as the
combined result of multiple major forces. These changes include curricular changes
that determine what is to be learned by learners. It is likely that more students will

13
 10 Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12

be moving toward competency-based learning that has an emphasis on develop-

ing unique skills and abilities. Learning has to become more based on strengths
and passions and become personalized. In response, education providers will need
to make student autonomy and student agency key to transforming pedagogy and
school organizations. Students will prosper by having more say in their own learn-
ing and their learning communities. Moreover, schools will have a unique opportu-
nity to positively and proactively change as a result of COVID-19 and the need for
global connections. It is possible to see schools rearrange their schedules and places
of teaching so that students can at the same time take part in different and more chal-
lenging learning opportunities regardless of their physical locations. Relevant online
learning will be on the rise and perhaps becomes a regular part of the daily routine
for many students.
Of course, we cannot forget that not all students have equal access to technol-
ogy, both in terms of hardware and digital competency. The issue of digital divide
remains a significant issue around the globe. It is important for us to reimagine a
better education with technology and find creative ways to make education more
equitable, including wiping out the digital divide.

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​
ses/by/4.0/.

References
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2012). Oceans of Innovation: The Atlantic, The Pacific, Global Lead-
ership and the Future of Education. Retrieved from London: https​://www.ippr.org/publi​catio​ns/ocean​
s-of-innov​ation​-the-atlan​tic-the-pacif​i c-globa​l-leade​rship​-and-the-futur​e-of-educa​tion
Basham, J. D., Hall, T. E., Carter, R. A., Jr., & Stahl, W. M. (2016). An operationalized understanding of
personalized learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 126–136.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Atlanta, GA: Paper
presented at the ASEE national conference proceedings.
Bonawitza, E., Shaftob, P., Gweonc, H., Goodmand, N. D., Spelkee, E., & Schulzc, L. (2011). The double-
edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120(3),
322–330.
Buchsbauma, D., Gopnika, A., Griffithsa, T. L., & Shaftob, P. (2011). Children’s imitation of causal action
sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence. Cognition, 120(3), 331–340.
Darby, F. (2020, April 14). 5 Low-Tech, Time-Saving Ways to Teach Online During Covid-19. Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved from https​://www.chron​icle.com/artic​le/5-Low-Tech-Time-Savin​
g-Ways/24851​9
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2020, June 1, 2020). COVID-19 and student learning
in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey. Retrieved from https​://www.mckin​sey.
com/indus​tries​/publi​c-and-socia​l-secto​r/our-insig​hts/covid​-19-and-stude​nt-learn​ing-in-the-unite​d-state​
s-the-hurt-could​-last-a-lifet​ime
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement Matters: Assessing personal qualities other than
cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251.

13
Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12 11

Florida, R. (2012). The Rise of the Creative Class: Revisited (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind. Alexan-
dria, VA: ASCD.
Kallio, J. M., & Halverson, R. (2020). Distributed leadership for personalized learning. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 52(3), 371–390.
Kamanetz, A. (2020, March 19). ’Panic-gogy’: Teaching Online Classes During The Coronavirus Pandemic.
NPR. Retrieved from https​://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/81788​5991/panic​-gogy-teach​ing-onlin​e-class​es-
durin​g-the-coron​aviru​s-pande​mic
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022.
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive
success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A
meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Muro, M., Whiton, J., & Maxim, R. (2019). What jobs are affected by AI? Better-paid, better-educated work-
ers face the most exposure. Retrieved from Washington DC: https​://www.brook​ings.edu/resea​rch/what-
jobs-are-affec​ted-by-ai-bette​r-paid-bette​r-educa​ted-worke​rs-face-the-most-expos​ure/
Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2015). Continued Progress: Promising Evidence
on Personalized Learning. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead.
Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2010). Handbook of online learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Calif: SAGE Publications.
Sun, L., Tang, Y., & Zuo, W. (2020). Coronavirus pushes education online. Nature Materials, 19(6), 687–
687. https​://doi.org/10.1038/s4156​3-020-0678-8.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Tucker, C. R. (2020). Balance With Blended Learning: Partner With Your Students to Reimagine Learning
and Reclaim Your Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
UNICEF. (2020, August 24). ‘What will a return to school during the COVID-19 pandemic look like?’.
UNICEF. Retrieved from https​://www.unice​f.org/coron​aviru​s/what-will-retur​n-schoo​l-durin​g-covid​-19-
pande​mic-look
United Nations. (2020, August). Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. United Nations.
Retrieved from https​://www.un.org/devel​opmen​t/desa/dspd/wp-conte​nt/uploa​ds/sites​/22/2020/08/sg_
polic​y_brief​_covid​-19_and_educa​tion_augus​t_2020.pdf
Wagner, T. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival
Skills Our Children Need-And What We Can Do About It. New York: Basic Books.
Wagner, T. (2012). Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World. New
York: Scribner.
Wagner, T., & Dintersmith, T. (2016). Most Likely to Succeed: Preparing Our Kids for the Innovation Era.
New York: Scribner.
Wehmeyer, M., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Teaching Students to Become Self-Determined Learners. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Zhao, Y. (2011). Students as change partners: A proposal for educational change in the age of globalization.
Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 267–279. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1083​3-011-9159-9.
Zhao, Y. (2012a). 2012 Flunking innovation and creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(1), 56–61.
Zhao, Y. (2012b). World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Zhao, Y. (2018a). The Changing Context of Teaching and Implications for Teacher Education. Peabody
Journal of Education, 93, 295–308.
Zhao, Y. (2018b). Personalizable Education for Greatness. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(3), 109–115.
Zhao, Y. (2018c). Reach for Greatness: Personalizable Education for All Children. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Zhao, Y. (2018d). What Works May Hurt: Side Effects in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Zhao, Y. (2020). Tofu Is Not Cheese: Rethinking Education Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. ECNU Review
of Education, 3(2), 189–203. https​://doi.org/10.1177/20965​31120​92808​2.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What Makes the Difference: A practical analysis of
research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.
Zhao, Y., & Tavangar, H. S. (2016). World class learners : personalized education for autonomous learning
and student-driven curriculum. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.

13
 12 Journal of Educational Change (2021) 22:3–12

Zhao, Y., Wehmeyer, M., Basham, J., & Hansen, D. (2019). Tackling the wicked problem of measuring what
matters: framing the questions. ECNU Review Education, 2(3), 262–278.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
(2018) 15:3
DOI 10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Blended learning: the new normal and

emerging technologies
Charles Dziuban1, Charles R. Graham2, Patsy D. Moskal1* , Anders Norberg3 and Nicole Sicilia1

* Correspondence:
Patsy.Moskal@ucf.edu
1
University of Central Florida,
Orlando, Florida, USA
Full list of author information is
available at the end of the article
Abstract
This study addressed several outcomes, implications, and possible future directions
for blended learning (BL) in higher education in a world where information
communication technologies (ICTs) increasingly communicate with each other. In
considering effectiveness, the authors contend that BL coalesces around access,
success, and students’ perception of their learning environments. Success and
withdrawal rates for face-to-face and online courses are compared to those for BL as
they interact with minority status. Investigation of student perception about course
excellence revealed the existence of robust if-then decision rules for determining
how students evaluate their educational experiences. Those rules were independent
of course modality, perceived content relevance, and expected grade. The authors
conclude that although blended learning preceded modern instructional
technologies, its evolution will be inextricably bound to contemporary information
communication technologies that are approximating some aspects of human
thought processes.
Keywords: Blended learning, Higher education, Student success, Student perception
of instruction, New normal

Introduction
Blended learning and research issues
Blended learning (BL), or the integration of face-to-face and online instruction (Gra-
ham 2013), is widely adopted across higher education with some scholars referring to
it as the “new traditional model” (Ross and Gage 2006, p. 167) or the “new normal” in
course delivery (Norberg et al. 2011, p. 207). However, tracking the accurate extent of
its growth has been challenging because of definitional ambiguity (Oliver and Trigwell
2005), combined with institutions’ inability to track an innovative practice, that in
many instances has emerged organically. One early nationwide study sponsored by the
Sloan Consortium (now the Online Learning Consortium) found that 65.2% of partici-
pating institutions of higher education (IHEs) offered blended (also termed hybrid)
courses (Allen and Seaman 2003). A 2008 study, commissioned by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education to explore distance education in the U.S., defined BL as “a combin-
ation of online and in-class instruction with reduced in-class seat time for students”
(Lewis and Parsad 2008, p. 1, emphasis added). Using this definition, the study found
that 35% of higher education institutions offered blended courses, and that 12% of the
12.2 million documented distance education enrollments were in blended courses.
© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 2 of 16

The 2017 New Media Consortium Horizon Report found that blended learning designs
were one of the short term forces driving technology adoption in higher education in the
next 1–2 years (Adams Becker et al. 2017). Also, blended learning is one of the key issues in
teaching and learning in the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative’s 2017 annual survey of higher
education (EDUCAUSE 2017). As institutions begin to examine BL instruction, there is a
growing research interest in exploring the implications for both faculty and students. This
modality is creating a community of practice built on a singular and pervasive research ques-
tion, “How is blended learning impacting the teaching and learning environment?” That
question continues to gain traction as investigators study the complexities of how BL inter-
acts with cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of student behavior, and examine
its transformation potential for the academy. Those issues are so compelling that several vol-
umes have been dedicated to assembling the research on how blended learning can be better
understood (Dziuban et al. 2016; Picciano et al. 2014; Picciano and Dziuban 2007; Bonk and
Graham 2007; Kitchenham 2011; Jean-François 2013; Garrison and Vaughan 2013) and at
least one organization, the Online Learning Consortium, sponsored an annual conference
solely dedicated to blended learning at all levels of education and training (2004–2015).
These initiatives address blended learning in a wide variety of situations. For instance, the
contexts range over K-12 education, industrial and military training, conceptual frameworks,
transformational potential, authentic assessment, and new research models. Further, many of
these resources address students’ access, success, withdrawal, and perception of the degree
to which blended learning provides an effective learning environment.
Currently the United States faces a widening educational gap between our under-
served student population and those communities with greater financial and techno-
logical resources (Williams 2016). Equal access to education is a critical need, one that
is particularly important for those in our underserved communities. Can blended learn-
ing help increase access thereby alleviating some of the issues faced by our lower in-
come students while resulting in improved educational equality? Although most
indicators suggest “yes” (Dziuban et al. 2004), it seems that, at the moment, the answer
is still “to be determined.” Quality education presents a challenge, evidenced by many
definitions of what constitutes its fundamental components (Pirsig 1974; Arum et al.
2016). Although progress has been made by initiatives, such as, Quality Matters (2016),
the OLC OSCQR Course Design Review Scorecard developed by Open SUNY (Open
SUNY n.d.), the Quality Scorecard for Blended Learning Programs (Online Learning
Consortium n.d.), and SERVQUAL (Alhabeeb 2015), the issue is by no means resolved.
Generally, we still make quality education a perceptual phenomenon where we ascribe
that attribute to a course, educational program, or idea, but struggle with precisely why
we reached that decision. Searle (2015), summarizes the problem concisely arguing that
quality does not exist independently, but is entirely observer dependent. Pirsig (1974)
in his iconic volume on the nature of quality frames the context this way,

“There is such thing as Quality, but that as soon as you try to define it, something
goes haywire. You can’t do it” (p. 91).

Therefore, attempting to formulate a semantic definition of quality education

with syntax-based metrics results in what O’Neil (O'Neil 2017) terms surrogate
models that are rough approximations and oversimplified. Further, the derived
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 3 of 16

metrics tend to morph into goals or benchmarks, losing their original measure-
ment properties (Goodhart 1975).

Information communication technologies in society and education

Blended learning forces us to consider the characteristics of digital technology, in gen-
eral, and information communication technologies (ICTs), more specifically. Floridi
(2014) suggests an answer proffered by Alan Turing: that digital ICTs can process in-
formation on their own, in some sense just as humans and other biological life. ICTs
can also communicate information to each other, without human intervention, but as
linked processes designed by humans. We have evolved to the point where humans are
not always “in the loop” of technology, but should be “on the loop” (Floridi 2014, p.
30), designing and adapting the process. We perceive our world more and more in in-
formational terms, and not primarily as physical entities (Floridi 2008). Increasingly,
the educational world is dominated by information and our economies rest primarily
on that asset. So our world is also blended, and it is blended so much that we hardly
see the individual components of the blend any longer. Floridi (2014) argues that the
world has become an “infosphere” (like biosphere) where we live as “inforgs.” What is
real for us is shifting from the physical and unchangeable to those things with which
we can interact.
Floridi also helps us to identify the next blend in education, involving ICTs, or spe-
cialized artificial intelligence (Floridi 2014, 25; Norberg 2017, 65). Learning analytics,
adaptive learning, calibrated peer review, and automated essay scoring (Balfour 2013)
are advanced processes that, provided they are good interfaces, can work well with the
teacher— allowing him or her to concentrate on human attributes such as being caring,
creative, and engaging in problem-solving. This can, of course, as with all technical ad-
vancements, be used to save resources and augment the role of the teacher. For in-
stance, if artificial intelligence can be used to work along with teachers, allowing them
more time for personal feedback and mentoring with students, then, we will have made
a transformational breakthrough. The Edinburg University manifesto for teaching on-
line says bravely, “Automation need not impoverish education – we welcome our robot
colleagues” (Bayne et al. 2016). If used wisely, they will teach us more about ourselves,
and about what is truly human in education. This emerging blend will also affect cur-
ricular and policy questions, such as the what? and what for? The new normal for edu-
cation will be in perpetual flux. Floridi’s (2014) philosophy offers us tools to understand
and be in control and not just sit by and watch what happens. In many respects, he has
addressed the new normal for blended learning.

Literature of blended learning

A number of investigators have assembled a comprehensive agenda of transformative and
innovative research issues for blended learning that have the potential to enhance effect-
iveness (Garrison and Kanuka 2004; Picciano 2009). Generally, research has found that
BL results in improvement in student success and satisfaction, (Dziuban and Moskal
2011; Dziuban et al. 2011; Means et al. 2013) as well as an improvement in students’ sense
of community (Rovai and Jordan 2004) when compared with face-to-face courses. Those
who have been most successful at blended learning initiatives stress the importance of
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 4 of 16

institutional support for course redesign and planning (Moskal et al. 2013; Dringus and
Seagull 2015; Picciano 2009; Tynan et al. 2015). The evolving research questions found in
the literature are long and demanding, with varied definitions of what constitutes
“blended learning,” facilitating the need for continued and in-depth research on instruc-
tional models and support needed to maximize achievement and success (Dringus and
Seagull 2015; Bloemer and Swan 2015).

Educational access
The lack of access to educational technologies and innovations (sometimes termed the
digital divide) continues to be a challenge with novel educational technologies (Fairlie
2004; Jones et al. 2009). One of the promises of online technologies is that they can in-
crease access to nontraditional and underserved students by bringing a host of educa-
tional resources and experiences to those who may have limited access to on-campus-
only higher education. A 2010 U.S. report shows that students with low socioeconomic
status are less likely to obtain higher levels of postsecondary education (Aud et al.
2010). However, the increasing availability of distance education has provided educa-
tional opportunities to millions (Lewis and Parsad 2008; Allen et al. 2016). Additionally,
an emphasis on open educational resources (OER) in recent years has resulted in sig-
nificant cost reductions without diminishing student performance outcomes (Robinson
et al. 2014; Fischer et al. 2015; Hilton et al. 2016).
Unfortunately, the benefits of access may not be experienced evenly across demo-
graphic groups. A 2015 study found that Hispanic and Black STEM majors were signifi-
cantly less likely to take online courses even when controlling for academic
preparation, socioeconomic status (SES), citizenship, and English as a second language
(ESL) status (Wladis et al. 2015). Also, questions have been raised about whether the
additional access afforded by online technologies has actually resulted in improved out-
comes for underserved populations. A distance education report in California found
that all ethnic minorities (except Asian/Pacific Islanders) completed distance education
courses at a lower rate than the ethnic majority (California Community Colleges Chan-
cellor’s Office 2013). Shea and Bidjerano (2014, 2016) found that African American
community college students who took distance education courses completed
degrees at significantly lower rates than those who did not take distance education
courses. On the other hand, a study of success factors in K-12 online learning found
that for ethnic minorities, only 1 out of 15 courses had significant gaps in student test
scores (Liu and Cavanaugh 2011). More research needs to be conducted, examining ac-
cess and success rates for different populations, when it comes to learning in different
modalities, including fully online and blended learning environments.

Framing a treatment effect

Over the last decade, there have been at least five meta-analyses that have ad-
dressed the impact of blended learning environments and its relationship to learn-
ing effectiveness (Zhao et al. 2005; Sitzmann et al. 2006; Bernard et al. 2009;
Means et al. 2010, 2013; Bernard et al. 2014). Each of these studies has found
small to moderate positive effect sizes in favor of blended learning when compared
to fully online or traditional face-to-face environments. However, there are several
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 5 of 16

considerations inherent in these studies that impact our understanding the

generalizability of outcomes.
Dziuban and colleagues (Dziuban et al. 2015) analyzed the meta-analyses conducted
by Means and her colleagues (Means et al. 2013; Means et al. 2010), concluding that
their methods were impressive as evidenced by exhaustive study inclusion criteria and
the use of scale-free effect size indices. The conclusion, in both papers, was that there
was a modest difference in multiple outcome measures for courses featuring online
modalities—in particular, blended courses. However, with blended learning especially,
there are some concerns with these kinds of studies. First, the effect sizes are based on
the linear hypothesis testing model with the underlying assumption that the treatment
and the error terms are uncorrelated, indicating that there is nothing else going on in
the blending that might confound the results. Although the blended learning articles
(Means et al. 2010) were carefully vetted, the assumption of independence is tenuous at
best so that these meta-analysis studies must be interpreted with extreme caution.
There is an additional concern with blended learning as well. Blends are not equiva-
lent because of the manner on which they are configured. For instance, a careful read-
ing of the sources used in the Means, et al. papers will identify, at minimum, the
following blending techniques: laboratory assessments, online instruction, e-mail, class
web sites, computer laboratories, mapping and scaffolding tools, computer clusters,
interactive presentations and e-mail, handwriting capture, evidence-based practice,
electronic portfolios, learning management systems, and virtual apparatuses. These are
not equivalent ways in which to configure courses, and such nonequivalence consti-
tutes the confounding we describe. We argue here that, in actuality, blended learning is
a general construct in the form of a boundary object (Star and Griesemer 1989) rather
than a treatment effect in the statistical sense. That is, an idea or concept that can sup-
port a community of practice, but is weakly defined fostering disagreement in the gen-
eral group. Conversely, it is stronger in individual constituencies. For instance, content
disciplines (i.e. education, rhetoric, optics, mathematics, and philosophy) formulate a
more precise definition because of commonly embraced teaching and learning princi-
ples. Quite simply, the situation is more complicated than that, as Leonard Smith
(2007) says after Tolstoy,

“All linear models resemble each other, each non nonlinear system is unique in its
own way” (p. 33).

This by no means invalidates these studies, but effect size associated with blended
learning should be interpreted with caution where the impact is evaluated within a par-
ticular learning context.

Study objectives
This study addressed student access by examining success and withdrawal rates in
the blended learning courses by comparing them to face-to-face and online modal-
ities over an extended time period at the University of Central Florida. Further, the
investigators sought to assess the differences in those success and withdrawal rates
with the minority status of students. Secondly, the investigators examined the stu-
dent end-of-course ratings of blended learning and other modalities by attempting
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 6 of 16

to develop robust if-then decision rules about what characteristics of classes and
instructors lead students to assign an “excellent” value to their educational experi-
ence. Because of the high stakes nature of these student ratings toward faculty pro-
motion, awards, and tenure, they act as a surrogate measure for instructional
quality. Next, the investigators determined the conditional probabilities for students
conforming to the identified rule cross-referenced by expected grade, the degree to
which they desired to take the course, and course modality.

Methods
Student grades by course modality were recoded into a binary variable with C or
higher assigned a value of 1, and remaining values a 0. This was a declassification
process that sacrificed some specificity but compensated for confirmation bias as-
sociated with disparate departmental policies regarding grade assignment. At the
measurement level this was an “on track to graduation index” for students. With-
drawal was similarly coded by the presence or absence of its occurrence. In each
case, the percentage of students succeeding or withdrawing from blended, online
or face-to-face courses was calculated by minority and non-minority status for the
fall 2014 through fall 2015 semesters.
Next, a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis (Brieman et al. 1984) was
performed on the student end-of-course evaluation protocol (Appendix 1). The
dependent measure was a binary variable indicating whether or not a student assigned
an overall rating of excellent to his or her course experience. The independent mea-
sures in the study were: the remaining eight rating items on the protocol, college
membership, and course level (lower undergraduate, upper undergraduate, and gradu-
ate). Decision trees are efficient procedures for achieving effective solutions in studies
such as this because with missing values imputation may be avoided with procedures
such as floating methods and the surrogate formation (Brieman et al. 1984, Olshen
et al. 1995). For example, a logistic regression method cannot efficiently handle all
variables under consideration. There are 10 independent variables involved here; one
variable has three levels, another has nine, and eight have five levels each. This means
the logistic regression model must incorporate more than 50 dummy variables and an
excessively large number of two-way interactions. However, the decision-tree method
can perform this analysis very efficiently, permitting the investigator to consider
higher order interactions. Even more importantly, decision trees represent appropriate
methods in this situation because many of the variables are ordinally scaled. Although
numerical values can be assigned to each category, those values are not unique.
However, decision trees incorporate the ordinal component of the variables to obtain
a solution. The rules derived from decision trees have an if-then structure that is
readily understandable. The accuracy of these rules can be assessed with percentages
of correct classification or odds-ratios that are easily understood. The procedure pro-
duces tree-like rule structures that predict outcomes.

The model-building procedure for predicting overall instructor rating

For this study, the investigators used the CART method (Brieman et al. 1984) executed
with SPSS 23 (IBM Corp 2015). Because of its strong variance-sharing tendencies with
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 7 of 16

the other variables, the dependent measure for the analysis was the rating on the item
Overall Rating of the Instructor, with the previously mentioned indicator variables
(college, course level, and the remaining 8 questions) on the instrument. Tree methods
are recursive, and bisect data into subgroups called nodes or leaves. CART analysis
bases itself on: data splitting, pruning, and homogeneous assessment.
Splitting the data into two (binary) subsets comprises the first stage of the process.
CART continues to split the data until the frequencies in each subset are either very
small or all observations in a subset belong to one category (e.g., all observations in a
subset have the same rating). Usually the growing stage results in too many terminate
nodes for the model to be useful. CART solves this problem using pruning methods
that reduce the dimensionality of the system.
The final stage of the analysis involves assessing homogeneousness in growing and
pruning the tree. One way to accomplish this is to compute the misclassification rates.
For example, a rule that produces a .95 probability that an instructor will receive an
excellent rating has an associated error of 5.0%.

Implications for using decision trees

Although decision-tree techniques are effective for analyzing datasets such as this, the
reader should be aware of certain limitations. For example, since trees use ranks to
analyze both ordinal and interval variables, information can be lost. However, the most
serious weakness of decision tree analysis is that the results can be unstable because
small initial variations can lead to substantially different solutions.
For this study model, these problems were addressed with the k-fold cross-validation
process. Initially the dataset was partitioned randomly into 10 subsets with an approxi-
mately equal number of records in each subset. Each cohort is used as a test partition,
and the remaining subsets are combined to complete the function. This produces 10
models that are all trained on different subsets of the original dataset and where each
has been used as the test partition one time only.
Although computationally dense, CART was selected as the analysis model for a number
of reasons— primarily because it provides easily interpretable rules that readers will be able
evaluate in their particular contexts. Unlike many other multivariate procedures that are
even more sensitive to initial estimates and require a good deal of statistical sophistication
for interpretation, CART has an intuitive resonance with researcher consumers. The over-
riding objective of our choice of analysis methods was to facilitate readers’ concentration on
our outcomes rather than having to rely on our interpretation of the results.

Results
Institution-level evaluation: Success and withdrawal
The University of Central Florida (UCF) began a longitudinal impact study of their on-
line and blended courses at the start of the distributed learning initiative in 1996. The
collection of similar data across multiple semesters and academic years has allowed
UCF to monitor trends, assess any issues that may arise, and provide continual support
for both faculty and students across varying demographics. Table 1 illustrates the over-
all success rates in blended, online and face-to-face courses, while also reporting their
variability across minority and non-minority demographics.
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 8 of 16

Table 1 Success rates by minority/non-minority and course modality: fall 2014 – fall 2015
Blended Online Face to Face
Term % N % N % N
Fall 2014 91% 17,954 89% 37,446 87% 143,250
Non-Minority 92% 10,593 90% 21,653 89% 83,599
Minority 90% 7,361 88% 15,793 85% 59,651
Spring 2015 91% 16,705 90% 40,690 88% 133,644
Non-Minority 92% 9,736 90% 53,287 89% 77,181
Minority 90% 6,969 89% 17,403 86% 56,463
Summer 2015 95% 6,492 92% 28,940 91% 37,992
Non-Minority 96% 3,851 93% 16,258 93% 21,195
Minority 94% 2,641 90% 12,682 89% 16,797
Fall 2015 91% 19,368 90% 40,421 87% 144,429
Non-Minority 92% 11,219 91% 22,400 88% 82,202
Minority 90% 7,363 89% 16,097 85% 53,010
Success = A (−), B (+/−), C (+), S grades
Undergraduate and graduate combined courses
Minority = American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic, Latino, Multi-racial, Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacific Islander

While success (A, B, or C grade) is not a direct reflection of learning outcomes, this
overview does provide an institutional level indication of progress and possible issues of
concern. BL has a slight advantage when looking at overall success and withdrawal rates.
This varies by discipline and course, but generally UCF’s blended modality has evolved to
be the best of both worlds, providing an opportunity for optimizing face-to-face instruc-
tion through the effective use of online components. These gains hold true across minor-
ity status. Reducing on-ground time also addresses issues that impact both students and
faculty such as parking and time to reach class. In addition, UCF requires faculty to go
through faculty development tailored to teaching in either blended or online modalities.
This 8-week faculty development course is designed to model blended learning, encour-
aging faculty to redesign their course and not merely consider blended learning as a
means to move face-to-face instructional modules online (Cobb et al. 2012; Lowe 2013).
Withdrawal (Table 2) from classes impedes students’ success and retention and can
result in delayed time to degree, incurred excess credit hour fees, or lost scholarships
and financial aid. Although grades are only a surrogate measure for learning, they are a
strong predictor of college completion. Therefore, the impact of any new innovation on
students’ grades should be a component of any evaluation. Once again, the blended
modality is competitive and in some cases results in lower overall withdrawal rates than
either fully online or face-to-face courses.

The students’ perceptions of their learning environments

Other potentially high-stakes indicators can be measured to determine the impact
of an innovation such as blended learning on the academy. For instance, student
satisfaction and attitudes can be measured through data collection protocols, in-
cluding common student ratings, or student perception of instruction instruments.
Given that those ratings often impact faculty evaluation, any negative reflection
can derail the successful implementation and scaling of an innovation by
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 9 of 16

Table 2 Withdrawal rates by minority/non-minority and course modality: fall 2014 – fall 2015
Blended Online Face to Face
Term % N % N % N
Fall 2014 3% 19,831 4% 37,449 4% 161,285
Non-Minority 3% 11,545 5% 21,655 4% 93,768
Minority 3% 8,286 5% 15,794 5% 67,517
Spring 2015 3% 18,311 4% 40,803 4% 151,041
Non-Minority 2% 10,501 4% 23,363 4% 86,668
Minority 3% 7,810 4% 17,440 4% 64,373
Summer 2015 2% 6,710 3% 28,940 3% 42,661
Non-Minority 1% 3,942 3% 16,258 2% 23,626
Minority 2% 2,768 3% 12,682 3% 19,035
Fall 2015 3% 21,482 4% 40,558 4% 163,571
Non-Minority 3% 12,278 4% 22,461 4% 92,532
Minority 3% 9,204 4% 18,097 5% 71,039
Withdrawal = W, WF, WP grades; X, WM, I excluded
Minority = American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic, Latino, Multi-racial, Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacific Islander

disenfranchised instructors. In fact, early online and blended courses created a re-
quest by the UCF faculty senate to investigate their impact on faculty ratings as
compared to face-to-face sections. The UCF Student Perception of Instruction form
is released automatically online through the campus web portal near the end of
each semester. Students receive a splash page with a link to each course’s form.
Faculty receive a scripted email that they can send to students indicating the time
period that the ratings form will be available. The forms close at the beginning of
finals week. Faculty receive a summary of their results following the semester end.
The instrument used for this study was developed over a ten year period by the faculty
senate of the University of Central Florida, recognizing the evolution of multiple course
modalities including blended learning. The process involved input from several constitu-
encies on campus (students, faculty, administrators, instructional designers, and others),
in attempt to provide useful formative and summative instructional information to the
university community. The final instrument was approved by resolution of the senate and,
currently, is used across the university. Students’ rating of their classes and instructors
comes with considerable controversy and disagreement with researchers aligning them-
selves on both sides of the issue. Recently, there have been a number of studies criticizing
the process (Uttl et al. 2016; Boring et al. 2016; & Stark and Freishtat 2014). In spite of
this discussion, a viable alternative has yet to emerge in higher education. So in the fore-
seeable future, the process is likely to continue. Therefore, with an implied faculty senate
mandate this study was initiated by this team of researchers.
Prior to any analysis of the item responses collected in this campus-wide student
sample, the psychometric quality (domain sampling) of the information yielded by the
instrument was assessed. Initially, the reliability (internal consistency) was derived using
coefficient alpha (Cronbach 1951). In addition, Guttman (1953) developed a theorem
about item properties that leads to evidence about the quality of one’s data, demon-
strating that as the domain sampling properties of items improve, the inverse of the
correlation matrix among items will approach a diagonal. Subsequently, Kaiser and Rice
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 10 of 16

(1974) developed the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) that is a function of the
Guttman Theorem. The index has an upper bound of one with Kaiser offering some
decision rules for interpreting the value of MSA. If the value of the index is in the .80
to .99 range, the investigator has evidence of an excellent domain sample. Values in the
.70s signal an acceptable result, and those in the .60s indicate data that are unaccept-
able. Customarily, the MSA has been used for data assessment prior to the application
of any dimensionality assessments. Computation of the MSA value gave the investiga-
tors a benchmark for the construct validity of the items in this study. This procedure
has been recommended by Dziuban and Shirkey (1974) prior to any latent dimension
analysis and was used with the data obtained for this study. The MSA for the current
instrument was .98 suggesting excellent domain sampling properties with an associated
alpha reliability coefficient of .97 suggesting superior internal consistency. The psycho-
metric properties of the instrument were excellent with both measures.
The online student ratings form presents an electronic data set each semester. These
can be merged across time to create a larger data set of completed ratings for every
course across each semester. In addition, captured data includes course identification
variables including prefix, number, section and semester, department, college, faculty,
and class size. The overall rating of effectiveness is used most heavily by departments
and faculty in comparing across courses and modalities (Table 3).
The finally derived tree (decision rules) included only three variables—survey items
that asked students to rate the instructor’s effectiveness at:

1. Helping students achieve course objectives,

2. Creating an environment that helps students learn, and
3. Communicating ideas and information.

None of the demographic variables associated with the courses contributed to the
final model. The final rule specifies that if a student assigns an excellent rating to those
three items, irrespective of their status on any other condition, the probability is .99
that an instructor will receive an overall rating of excellent. The converse is true as
well. A poor rating on all three of those items will lead to a 99% chance of an instructor
receiving an overall rating of poor.
Tables 4, 5 and 6 present a demonstration of the robustness of the CART rule for
variables on which it was not developed: expected course grade, desire to take the
course and modality.

Table 3 A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of
excellent (N = 58,156)
If a student responds…
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Achieve course objectives ✔
Create learning environment ✔
Communicate ideas ✔
Then…
The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .99
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 11 of 16

Table 4 Percentage excellent rating: overall and when conditional rule satisfied for expected grade
Grade Overall Rule Satisfied
F 27 97
D−/D/D+ 24 93
C-/C/C+ 33 93
B-/B/B+ 47 95
A−/A 66 97

In each case, irrespective of the marginal probabilities, those students conforming to

the rule have a virtually 100% chance of seeing the course as excellent. For instance,
27% of all students expecting to fail assigned an excellent rating to their courses, but
when they conformed to the rule the percentage rose to 97%. The same finding is true
when students were asked about their desire to take the course with those who strongly
disagreed assigning excellent ratings to their courses 26% of the time. However, for
those conforming to the rule, that category rose to 92%. When course modality is con-
sidered in the marginal sense, blended learning is rated as the preferred choice. How-
ever, from Table 6 we can observe that the rule equates student assessment of their
learning experiences. If they conform to the rule, they will see excellence.

Conclusion
This study addressed increasingly important issues of student success, withdrawal and
perception of the learning environment across multiple course modalities. Arguably these
components form the crux of how we will make more effective decisions about how
blended learning configures itself in the new normal. The results reported here indicate
that blending maintains or increases access for most student cohorts and produces im-
proved success rates for minority and non-minority students alike. In addition, when stu-
dents express their beliefs about the effectiveness of their learning environments, blended
learning enjoys the number one rank. However, upon more thorough analysis of key ele-
ments students view as important in their learning, external and demographic variables
have minimal impact on those decisions. For example college (i.e. discipline) membership,
course level or modality, expected grade or desire to take a particular course have little to
do with their course ratings. The characteristics they view as important relate to clear es-
tablishment and progress toward course objectives, creating an effective learning environ-
ment and the instructors’ effective communication. If in their view those three elements
of a course are satisfied they are virtually guaranteed to evaluate their educational experi-
ence as excellent irrespective of most other considerations. While end of course rating
protocols are summative the three components have clear formative characteristics in that

Table 5 Percentage excellent rating: overall and when conditional rule satisfied for response to
“desire to take this course”
Overall % Excellent Rule Satisfied
No opinion 38 95
Strongly disagree 26 92
Disagree 34 95
Agree 48 96
Strongly agree 78 98
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 12 of 16

Table 6 Percentage excellent rating: overall and when conditional rule satisfied for course
modality
Course Modality Overall % Excellent Rule Satisfied
Blended 59 98
Online 56 99
Face-to-face 55 98
Blended Lecture Capture 46 98
Lecture Capture 52 96

each one is directly related to effective pedagogy and is responsive to faculty development
through units such as the faculty center for teaching and learning. We view these results
as encouraging because they offer potential for improving the teaching and learning
process in an educational environment that increases the pressure to become more re-
sponsive to contemporary student lifestyles.

Discussion
Clearly, in this study we are dealing with complex adaptive systems that feature the
emergent property. That is, their primary agents and their interactions comprise an en-
vironment that is more than the linear combination of their individual elements. Blend-
ing learning, by interacting with almost every aspect of higher education, provides
opportunities and challenges that we are not able to fully anticipate.
This pedagogy alters many assumptions about the most effective way to support the
educational environment. For instance, blending, like its counterpart active learning, is
a personal and individual phenomenon experienced by students. Therefore, it should
not be surprising that much of what we have called blended learning is, in reality,
blended teaching that reflects pedagogical arrangements. Actually, the best we can do
for assessing impact is to use surrogate measures such as success, grades, results of as-
sessment protocols, and student testimony about their learning experiences. Whether
or not such devices are valid indicators remains to be determined. We may be well
served, however, by changing our mode of inquiry to blended teaching.
Additionally, as Norberg (2017) points out, blended learning is not new. The modal-
ity dates back, at least, to the medieval period when the technology of textbooks was
introduced into the classroom where, traditionally, the professor read to the students
from the only existing manuscript. Certainly, like modern technologies, books were dis-
ruptive because they altered the teaching and learning paradigm. Blended learning
might be considered what Johnson describes as a slow hunch (2010). That is, an idea
that evolved over a long period of time, achieving what Kaufmann (2000) describes as
the adjacent possible – a realistic next step occurring in many iterations.
The search for a definition for blended learning has been productive, challenging,
and, at times, daunting. The definitional continuum is constrained by Oliver and Trig-
well (2005) castigation of the concept for its imprecise vagueness to Sharpe et al.’s
(2006) notion that its definitional latitude enhances contextual relevance. Both ex-
tremes alter boundaries such as time, place, presence, learning hierarchies, and space.
The disagreement leads us to conclude that Lakoff’s (2012) idealized cognitive models
i.e. arbitrarily derived concepts (of which blended learning might be one) are necessary
if we are to function effectively. However, the strong possibility exists that blended
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 13 of 16

learning, like quality, is observer dependent and may not exist outside of our percep-
tions of the concept. This, of course, circles back to the problem of assuming that
blending is a treatment effect for point hypothesis testing and meta-analysis.
Ultimately, in this article, we have tried to consider theoretical concepts and empir-
ical findings about blended learning and their relationship to the new normal as it
evolves. Unfortunately, like unresolved chaotic solutions, we cannot be sure that there
is an attractor or that it will be the new normal. That being said, it seems clear that
blended learning is the harbinger of substantial change in higher education and will be-
come equally impactful in K-12 schooling and industrial training. Blended learning, be-
cause of its flexibility, allows us to maximize many positive education functions. If
Floridi (2014) is correct and we are about to live in an environment where we are on
the communication loop rather than in it, our educational future is about to change.
However, if our results are correct and not over fit to the University of Central Florida
and our theoretical speculations have some validity, the future of blended learning
should encourage us about the coming changes.

Appendix 1
Student Perception of Instruction
Instructions: Please answer each question based on your current class experience. You
can provide additional information where indicated.
All responses are anonymous. Responses to these questions are important to help im-
prove the course and how it is taught. Results may be used in personnel decisions. The
results will be shared with the instructor after the semester is over.
Please rate the instructor’s effectiveness in the following areas:

1. Organizing the course:

a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
2. Explaining course requirements, grading criteria, and expectations:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
3. Communicating ideas and/or information:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
4. Showing respect and concern for students:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
5. Stimulating interest in the course:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
6. Creating an environment that helps students learn:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
7. Giving useful feedback on course performance:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
8. Helping students achieve course objectives:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
9. Overall, the effectiveness of the instructor in this course was:
a) Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor
10.What did you like best about the course and/or how the instructor taught it?
11.What suggestions do you have for improving the course and/or how the instructor
taught it?
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 14 of 16

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contributions of several investigators and course developers from the Center for
Distributed Learning at the University of Central Florida, the McKay School of Education at Brigham Young University,
and Scholars at Umea University, Sweden. These professionals contributed theoretical and practical ideas to this
research project and carefully reviewed earlier versions of this manuscript. The Authors gratefully acknowledge their
support and assistance.

Authors’ contributions
The Authors of this article are listed in alphabetical order indicating equal contribution to this article. All authors read
and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author details
1
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA. 2Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA. 3Campus Skellefteå,
Skellefteå, Sweden.

Received: 9 October 2017 Accepted: 20 December 2017

References
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon
report: 2017 higher Education Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.
Alhabeeb, A. M. (2015). The quality assessment of the services offered to the students of the College of Education at
King Saud University using (SERVQUAL) method. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(30), 82–93.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States,
2002 and 2003. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530060.pdf
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States,
1–4. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
Arum, R., Roksa, J., & Cook, A. (2016). Improving quality in American higher education: Learning outcomes and assessments
for the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M. A., & Drake, L. (2010). The condition of education - 2010.
Education, 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/e492172006-019
Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review. Research and
Practice in Assessment, 2013(8), 40–48.
Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R.,Knox, J., Lamb, J., McLeod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C, (2016) Manifesto for
teaching online. Digital Education at Edinburg University. Retrieved from https://onlineteachingmanifesto.
wordpress.com/the-text/
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-
analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–
1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning
and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 26(1), 87–122.
Bloemer, W., & Swan, K. (2015). Investigating informal blending at the University of Illinois Springfield. In A. G. Picciano, C. D.
Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, (vol. 2, pp. 52–69). New York: Routledge.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2007). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P.B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching
effectiveness. EGERA.
Brieman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. New York: Chapman & Hall.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013). Distance education report.
Cobb, C., deNoyelles, A., & Lowe, D. (2012). Influence of reduced seat time on satisfaction and perception of course
development goals: A case study in faculty development. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 16(2), 85–98.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334 Retrieved from
http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/courses/psyc5112/readings/alpha_cronbach.pdf.
Dringus, L. P., and A. B. Seagull. 2015. A five-year study of sustaining blended learning initiatives to enhance academic
engagement in computer and information sciences campus courses. In Blended learning: Research perspectives.
Vol. 2. Edited by A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, and C. R. Graham, 122-140. New York: Routledge.
Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules.
Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316.
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Cavanagh, T., & Moskal, P. (2011). Blended courses as drivers of institutional transformation. In
A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation, (pp. 17–37). Hershey: IGI Global.
Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online,
blended and face-to-face learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 236–241.
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Hermsdorfer, A., DeCantis, G., Norberg, A., & Bradford, G., (2015) A deconstruction of blended
learning. Presented at the 11th annual Sloan-C blended learning conference and workshop
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 15 of 16

Dziuban, C., Picciano, A. G., Graham, C. R., & Moskal, P. D. (2016). Conducting research in online and blended learning
environments: New pedagogical frontiers. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 7, 1–12.
EDUCAUSE. (2017) 2017 key issues in teaching & learning. Retrieved from https://www.EDUCAUSE.edu/eli/initiatives/
key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning
Fairlie, R. (2004). Race and the digital divide. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/
1538-0645.1263.
Fischer, L., Hilton, J., Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. (2015). A Multi-institutional Study of the Impact of Open Textbook
Adoption on the Learning Outcomes of Post-secondary Students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x.
Floridi, L. (2008). A defence of informational structural realism. Synthese, 161(2), 219–253.
Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Blended learning in higher education, (1st ed., ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Print.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.
Goodhart, C.A.E. (1975). “Problems of monetary management: The U.K. experience.” Papers in Monetary Economics.
Reserve Bank of Australia. I.
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance
education, (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York: Routledge.
Guttman, L. (1953). Image theory for the structure of quantitative variates. Psychometrika, 18, 277–296.
Hilton, J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Williams, L. (2016). Maintaining momentum toward graduation: OER and the course
throughput rate. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(6) https://doi.org/10.19173/
irrodl.v17i6.2686.
IBM Corp. Released (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.
Jean-François, E. (2013). Transcultural blended learning and teaching in postsecondary education. Hershey: Information
Science Reference.
Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Pérez, F. S. (2009). U.S. college students’ internet use: Race, gender and digital
divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 244–264 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01439.x.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117.
Kaufmann, S. (2000). Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitchenham, A. (2011). Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Lakoff, G. (2012). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Lewis, L., & Parsad, B. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions : 2006–07 (NCES 2009–044).
Washington: Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf.
Liu, F., & Cavanaugh, C. (2011). High enrollment course success factors in virtual school: Factors influencing student
academic achievement. International Journal on E-Learning, 10(4), 393–418.
Lowe, D. (2013). Roadmap of a blended learning model for online faculty development. Invited feature article in
Distance Education Report, 17(6), 1–7.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis
of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Kaia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning.
Washington: US Department of Education.
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.
Norberg, A. (2017). From blended learning to learning onlife: ICTs, time and access in higher education (Doctoral
dissertation, Umeå University).
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207–
216. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? e-Learning, 2(1), 17–25.
Olshen, Stone , Steinberg , and Colla (1995). CART classification and regression trees. Tree-structured nonparametric
data analysis. Statistical algorithms. Salford systems interface and documentation. Salford Systems.
O'Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books.
Online Learning Consortium. The OLC quality scorecard for blended learning programs. Retrieved from https://
onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-blended-learning-programs/
Open SUNY. The OSCQR course design review scorecard. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/
oscqr-course-design-review/
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7–18.
Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Blended learning: Research perspectives, (vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Picciano, A. G., & Dziuban, C. D. (2007). Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham: The Sloan Consortium.
Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: An inquiry into values. New York: Morrow.
Quality Matters. (2016). About Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/research
Robinson, T. J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D. A., & Hilton, J. (2014). The Impact of Open Textbooks on Secondary Science
Learning Outcomes. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14550275.
Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and our customers in higher
education. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, (pp.
155–168). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional
and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1–13.
Searle, J. R. (2015). Seeing things as they are: A theory of perception. Chicago: Oxford University Press.
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended learning: A review of
UK literature and research. The Higher Education Academy, (October 2006).
Dziuban et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2018) 15:3 Page 16 of 16

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community
college students. Computers and Education, 75, 103–111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2016). A National Study of differences between distance and non-distance community college
students in time to first associate degree attainment, transfer, and dropout. Online Learning, 20(3), 14–15.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom
instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664.
Smith, L. A. (2007). Chaos: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amatuers and professionals
in Berkely’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Stark, P. & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen. Retrieved from https://www.stat.
berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/evaluations14.pdf.
Tynan, B., Ryan, Y., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2015). Examining workload models in online and blended teaching. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 5–15.
Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2016). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of
teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42.
Williams, J. (2016). College and the new class divide. Inside Higher Ed July 11, 2016.
Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., & Conway, K. (2015). Which STEM majors enroll in online courses, and why should we care?
The impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics. Computers and Education, 87, 285–308
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.010.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the
effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.
2005.00544.x.
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning

in unpredictable times: pedagogical practices
and learning performance in fully online flipped
classrooms
Khe Foon Hew*  , Chengyuan Jia, Donn Emmanuel Gonda and Shurui Bai

*Correspondence:
kfhew@hku.hk
Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong, Pok
Fu Lam, Hong Kong SAR
Abstract 
The COVID-19 outbreak has compelled many universities to immediately switch to
the online delivery of lessons. Many instructors, however, have found developing
effective online lessons in a very short period of time very stressful and difficult.
This study describes how we successfully addressed this crisis by transforming two
conventional flipped classes into fully online flipped classes with the help of a cloud-
based video conferencing app. As in a conventional flipped course, in a fully online
flipped course students are encouraged to complete online pre-class work. But unlike
in the conventional flipped approach, students do not subsequently meet face-to-face
in physical classrooms, but rather online. This study examines the effect of fully online
flipped classrooms on student learning performance in two stages. In Stage One, we
explain how we drew on the 5E framework to design two conventional flipped classes.
The 5E framework consists of five phases—Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and
Evaluate. In Stage Two, we describe how we transformed the two conventional flipped
classes into fully online flipped classes. Quantitative analyses of students’ final course
marks reveal that the participants in the fully online flipped classes performed as
effectively as participants in the conventional flipped learning classes. Our qualitative
analyses of student and staff reflection data identify seven good practices for
videoconferencing-assisted online flipped classrooms.
Keywords:  Pedagogy, Online flipped classroom, Flipped learning, Good practices

Introduction
“It’s now painfully clear that schools ought to have had more robust disaster-
preparedness plans in place in the event of interruptions in their campus operations.
But because many schools did not have such plans in place…online learning is
about to get a bad reputation at many campuses, I suspect.” Michael Horn, cited in
Lederman (2020), ‘Inside Higher Ed’.

In early January 2020, scientists identified a new infectious disease caused by a novel
coronavirus. Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread disruptions

© The Author(s) 2020. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.
If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 2 of 22

to schools and universities. According to UNESCO, as of April 10, 2020, more than 188
countries had implemented nationwide school and university closures, impacting over
91% of the world’s student population (UNESCO n.d.).
During these school closures, all face-to-face lessons were cancelled, compelling
many institutions, including our own university, to immediately transition from face-
to-face in-person learning to completely online lessons. The abrupt switch to fully
online learning has been particularly stressful for many instructors and students who
prefer in-person instruction. Online learning is often stigmatized as a weaker option
that provides a lower quality education than in-person face-to-face learning (Hodges
et al. 2020). Indeed, such negative attitudes to fully online learning were revealed by a
large EDUCAUSE survey (Pomerantz and Brooks 2017). The survey of 11,141 faculty
members from 131 U.S. institutions found that only 9% of faculty prefer to teach a fully
online course. In other words, a whopping 91% of faculty do not wish to teach in a
completely online environment. Students’ opinions of fully online courses are not much
better; a recent student survey by EDUCAUSE of more than 40,000 students across
118 American universities revealed that as many as 70% of the respondents mostly or
completely prefer face-to-face learning environments (Gierdowski 2019).
Clearly, many faculty members and students do not see the value of fully online
learning, despite the fact that online learning has been around for many decades. During
the current health crisis, many instructors have had to improvise quick online learning
solutions (Hodges et al. 2020). For example, in our own university, there are anecdotal
reports of a myriad of emergency online methods. Some instructors, for example,
merely uploaded their PowerPoint slides or papers onto a learning management system
such as Moodle and asked students to read them on their own. Any questions were
asked asynchronously on the Moodle forum. Other instructors recorded their own
lectures (usually at least one hour long) and asked students to asynchronously watch the
video lectures and then ask individual questions later. Still others talked for more than
two hours via synchronous video platforms watched by students in their own homes.
Although these online methods may be an efficient method of delivering content,
they are not particularly effective in promoting active learning and interest (Bates and
Galloway 2012). As one student remarked, “Sitting in front of my computer to watch
a 2-h live lecture without any active learning activities such as group work is pretty
boring!” Indeed, without any active learning activities such as peer interaction, a fully
online course will feel more like an interactive book than a classroom (Sutterlin 2018).
Well-planned active online learning lessons are markedly different from the emergency
online teaching offered in response to a crisis (Hodges et  al. 2020). One promising
strategy for promoting online active learning is the fully online flipped classroom
pedagogical approach, hereafter referred to as the online flipped classroom approach. An
online flipped classroom is a variant of the conventional flipped model. A conventional
flipped classroom model consists of online learning of basic concepts before class,
followed by face-to-face learning activities (Bishop and Verleger 2013). The conventional
flipped model has become very popular in recent years due to its association with
active learning, which emphasizes students’ active learning (Xiu and Thompson 2020).
Active learning activities such as peer discussions can help students construct better
understandings of the subject material (Deslauriers et  al. 2019). Recent meta-analyses
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 3 of 22

have provided consistent overall support for the superiority of the conventional flipped
classroom approach over traditional learning for enhancing student learning (e.g., Låg
and Sæle 2019; Lo and Hew 2019; Shi et al. 2019; van Alten et al. 2019).
The online flipped classroom is similar to the conventional flipped classroom model in
that students are encouraged to prepare for class by completing some pre-class activities
(e.g., watching video lectures, completing quizzes). However, unlike the conventional
flipped classroom approach, students in online flipped classrooms do not meet face-
to-face, but online (Stohr et  al. 2020). Although the online flipped classroom appears
to be gathering momentum in higher education, very few studies have examined its
effectiveness (for an exception, see Stohr et al. 2020, who compared the online flipped
classroom format with a conventional non-flipped teaching format). So far, we are not
cognizant of any research that evaluated the efficacy of the fully online flipped classroom
relative to the conventional flipped classroom. Establishing the effectiveness of online
flipped classrooms is important, as practitioners need to know whether this active
learning approach can be used during prolonged school closures.
Against this backdrop, this study compares the effects of online flipped classrooms
versus conventional flipped classrooms on student learning outcomes. To this end, two
conventional flipped classes in the Faculty of Education are transformed into online
flipped classrooms. Students in both the online and flipped classes participated in the
online pre-class activity asynchronously using a learning management system. However,
students in the online flipped classes joined the online in-class learning synchronously
using a video conferencing app whereas their counterparts in the conventional flipped
classes attended face-to-face classes. The online flipped courses were designed using
the 5E conceptual framework and used a cloud-based video conferencing app. We used
the Zoom application after careful consideration of many different videoconferencing
platforms. Our reasons for doing so are given in the Section of “Stage Two: Transforming
conventional flipped classes into online flipped classes”.
The 5E framework consists of five phases—Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and
Evaluate (Bybee et al. 2006).

• Engage—The first phase aims to engage students in the learning process. Methods
to engage students usually include using a real-world scenario, or problem, asking
students questions that allow them to brainstorm or think critically, and helping
them to create connections to their past experiences.
• Explore—In the exploration phase, the teacher, who works as a facilitator or coach,
gives the students time and opportunity to explore the content and construct their
own understanding of the topic at hand.
• Explain—This phase starts with students attempting to explain specific aspects of the
engagement and exploration experiences. Based on these explanations, the teacher
introduces terminology in a direct and explicit manner to facilitate concept building.
• Elaborate—In this phase, the teacher provided more detailed information about the
subject content through the use of mini lectures and/or whole class discussions.
Students are also given the opportunity to apply what they have learned and receive
feedback from the teacher and their peers.
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 4 of 22

• Evaluate—Formative assessments (e.g., quizzes) can be used to evaluate students’

mastery of the subject material at the beginning and throughout the 5E phases, and
teachers can complete a summative assessment after the elaboration phase (e.g., final
exams).

We adopted the 5E framework for the following reasons. First, the 5E framework,
which is based on various educational theories and models (e.g., Herbart’s instructional
model, Dewey’s instructional model, Atkin-Karplus Learning Cycle) (Bybee et al. 2006),
provides a sound instructional sequence for designing a course and planning activities.
The 5E framework can help instructors organize and integrate both the in-class and out-
of-class learning activities (Lo 2017).
Second, previous research has shown the positive effect of the 5E framework on student
achievement. These positive effects were initially established in science education (e.g.,
Akar 2005; Boddy et al. 2003). Recently, the 5E model has yielded positive results when
applied to various subject areas and when used to design inquiry- and interaction-based
learning activities. Mullins (2017), for example, found that undergraduate students in a
5E-supported class outperformed their peers in a traditional lecture setting. Hew et al.
(2018) designed two postgraduate courses based on the 5E model in order to foster
students’ active learning. Ninety-two percent of the participants agreed that the 5E
supported courses were more engaging than traditional classroom instruction.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, we describe our study design and
methodology. This is followed by a description of our two stages of research. In Stage
One, we explain how we use the 5E framework to design our two conventional flipped
classes; In Stage Two, we describe how we transformed the two conventional flipped
classes into fully online flipped classes, using a cloud-based video conferencing app. We
describe the various pedagogical practices that Zoom videoconferencing can facilitate
before and during online flipped classes. In this paper, we use the term “pedagogical
practices” to refer to specific activities that are used to structure teaching and learning.
This study is guided by the following two questions.

Research question 1 
What effect does the change from a conventional flipped
classroom format to an online flipped format have on student
learning performance?
Research question 2 
What are the good practices for videoconferencing-assisted
online flipped classrooms, as perceived by students and/or
teaching staff?

Method
This study was conducted in a large public Asian university. Four classes were involved:
(a) conventional flipped Course 1, (b) conventional flipped Course 2, (c) online flipped
Course 1, and (d) online flipped Course 2. Conventional flipped Courses 1 and 2 were
the control group. Online flipped Courses 1 and 2 were the experimental group. To avoid
any potential instructor confounding bias, the same professor and teaching assistants
(TAs) taught the conventional and online flipped formats of each class. Ethical approval
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 5 of 22

Fig. 1  Timeline of data collection: 2019 Fall (before the pandemic), 2020 Spring (during the pandemic)

Table 1  Study samples

Format Course
Course 1: E-learning strategies Course 2: Engaging adult learners

Conventional flipped format N = 23 (Female students = 20) N = 25 (Female students = 20)

Online flipped format
Taught by Professor A and Teaching
Assistant B
N = 26 (Female students = 23)
Taught by Professor A and Teaching
Assistant B
Taught by Professor A and Teaching
Assistant C
N = 25 (Female students = 22)
Taught by Professor A and Teaching
Assistant C

to conduct the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the University
of Hong Kong and consent forms from all participants in the study were collected.

Data collection and analysis

To reiterate, this study had two purposes: (a) to determine the effect of an online flipped
classroom on student learning performance as determined by student final course
marks, and (b) to determine good practices for videoconferencing-assisted online
flipped classrooms, as perceived by the participants (students and teaching staff ). We
adopted a mixed methods involving quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a
deeper understanding of the research problem (Ivankova et al. 2006).
The data collection spanned across two semesters, which corresponded to the
aforementioned two stages of the research. The conventional flipped classes were
implemented in conventional flipped Courses 1 and 2 during the semester of 2019 Fall
before the pandemic (Stage One). Due to the outbreak of Covid-19, all courses were
required to be delivered online in our university in the 2020 Spring semester. Therefore,
the online flipped classes were conducted in online flipped Courses 1 and 2 during the
pandemic in 2020 Spring (Stage Two). Students’ knowledge and skills of the course
content were checked at the beginning of the each course. Students final course marks in
each course were collected and used as measure of the student learning outcomes at the
end of the semester (See Fig. 1 for the research timeline).
To address the first purpose, we compared the students’ final course marks in the
online flipped classrooms and conventional flipped classrooms. Quantitative data from
99 students were collected (see Table  1). We used the students’ final course marks to
measure performance.
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 6 of 22

Table 2  Summary of research questions, data collection, and analyses

Research question Data source Data analysis

RQ 1: What effect does the change from a Student final course marks Descriptive
conventional flipped classroom format to statistics,
an online flipped format have on student Inferential
learning performance? statistics
RQ 2: What are the good practices for Student self-reflection, Instructor’s and Content
videoconferencing-assisted online flipped teaching assistants’ self-reflection analysis using
classrooms, as perceived by students and the grounded
teaching staff? approach

Fig. 2  5E framework used to design the two conventional flipped classes

To identify the perceived good practices for videoconferencing-assisted online

flipped classrooms, we invited students and the teaching staff to complete a self-
reflection exercise based on the following question: “What do you perceive as
good practices in a videoconferencing-supported online flipped classroom?” The
qualitative data collected from students and instructors were analyzed as follows.
The first step was an initial reading of all of the response data to obtain an overall
impression. The first author then applied the grounded approach (Strauss and
Corbin 1990) to the qualitative data to generate relevant codes. Similar codes were
organized into themes. In order to increase the consistency of coding, several
exemplary quotes that clearly illustrated each constructed theme were identified. We
also allowed new themes (if any) to emerge inductively during the coding process.
The second author coded the data. There was perfect agreement with the coding.
Table  2 summarizes how the data for each research question were collected and
analyzed.

Stage one: designing conventional flipped classes using the 5E framework

In this section, we first describe how we use the 5E framework to design our two
conventional flipped classes (Course 1: E-Learning Strategies, and Course 2:
Engaging Adult Learners). In the next section, we describe how we transform these
two conventional flipped classes into fully online flipped classes. Figure 2 shows the
5E framework that guided our design of the conventional flipped classes. Table  3
shows some of the teaching and learning activities used in each of the 5E phases.
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 7 of 22

Table 3  Phases of the 5E framework and examples of activities in a conventional flipped

classroom
5E phase Component Teaching and learning activities (example) Mode

Engage Pre-class Depict real-life situations (videos, case-studies); trigger learner Online (asynchronous)
interest in the subject matter
Explore Pre-class Learner completes self-reflection (forum) Online (asynchronous)
Learner asks questions if necessary (WeChat)
Explain Pre-class Learner articulates own opinions (forum) Online (asynchronous)
Learner participates in focused peer discussion on specific
issues/topics (forum)
Learner asks questions if necessary (WeChat)
Elaborate In-class Teacher-led class discussion on issues to build understanding; Face-to-face
teacher demonstration of strategies (if necessary)
Evaluate In-class Student individual/group work and presentation, followed by Face-to-face
teacher and peer feedback

Conventional flipped course 1: E‑learning strategies

This course discussed the various e-learning strategies that can be employed to foster
six types of learning, including problem-solving, attitude learning, factual learning,
concept learning, procedural learning, and principle learning. There were eight
sessions in the course. The first seven sessions were flipped—each consisting of an
online pre-class learning component and a 3-h face-to-face in-class component. The
last session was devoted to students’ presentations. Figure 3 shows an example of how
the 5E framework was used in Course 1.
For instance, in the pre-class phase of Session 2: Instructional Design—Part 1, we
posted a video that posed the question “What do we mean by ‘understand’”. This video
engaged students’ curiosity about the importance of writing clear and measurable
learning objectives. The instructor in the video highlighted the pitfalls of using vague
words such as “know” and “understand” when writing learning objectives. Students
then explored and explained their own individual learning objectives using the
ABCD model (audience, behavior, condition, degree). Students were able to use a
mobile instant messaging (MIM) app such as WeChat to ask questions of their peers
or instructor. When a message arrived, a notification appeared on the receiver’s phone
screen, encouraging timely feedback and frequent interaction (Rosenfeld et al. 2018).
During the face-to-face in-class session, the instructor re-engaged students’
attention by discussing basic instructional design issues such as “How do we write
good lesson objectives?” The instructor conducted short debriefing sessions to
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of students’ pre-class work. The instructor also
facilitated class or small group discussions to build students’ understanding of how
to write measurable lesson objectives that help students to achieve specific learning
outcomes (e.g., factual learning). These discussions allowed students to elaborate
on good lesson objectives practices. To evaluate the students’ understanding, the
instructor asked them to work in groups of four on an instructional design scenario
(e.g., teaching participants how to deal with angry customers), and then write a
learning objective for the lesson in an online forum; their peers then commented on
the posted learning objectives (Fig. 4).
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 8 of 22

Engage

Explore
Explain

Fig. 3  Example of a pre-class activity in Course 1

Elaborate
Evaluate

Fig. 4  Example of an in-class activity in Course 1

Conventional flipped course 2: engaging adult learners

This course discussed the key principles of adult learning, as well as strategies used in
adult education (e.g., transformational learning theory). There were eight sessions in
the course, each session lasted three hours. An example of how the 5E instructional
model was used is shown in Fig. 5.
For example, in the pre-class session for Session 3: Motivation, we uploaded a four-
minute video that briefly described the concepts of reinforcement and punishment.
The aim of the video was to engage students’ attention on the focal topic. To help
students explore the topic in further, they were asked to respond to the following
question: “After watching the video, can you think of other positive reinforcers,
negative reinforcers, and punishment methods?” Students posted their opinions
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 9 of 22

Engage

Explore
Explain

Fig. 5  Example of a pre-class activity in Course 2

Elaborate
Evaluate

Fig. 6  Example of an in-class activity in Course 2

(explained) on a discussion forum. Students also used the WeChat app to ask
questions of their peers or instructor.
During the subsequent face-to-face lesson (Fig.  6), the instructor facilitated whole
class discussions using relevant questions to elaborate on the topics covered in the
pre-class video. An example of a question used was ‘When should we employ positive
reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or punishment?’ Based on the students’
responses, the instructor was able to provide more in-depth explanation of the subject
matter, or correct any student misunderstanding. This will help enhance students’
comprehension of the subject content. The instructor also discussed the notion of
intrinsic motivation (e.g., the self-determination theory). In addition to elaborating
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 10 of 22

on the content, the instructor also evaluated the students’ understanding by asking
students to complete small group discussion activities. An example of a small group
discussion activity was ‘Did you have any experience where you did not like learning a
subject or doing an activity? How would you motivate yourself in that situation? Please
try to use a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors.’ Upon completion of
the small group activity, students from each group presented their views to the whole
class. The instructor, as well as the rest of the classmates provided feedback.

Stage two: transforming conventional flipped classes into online flipped

classes
The outbreak of COVID-19 inspired us to transform the two conventional flipped classes
discussed above into fully online flipped classes. After careful consideration, the Zoom
videoconferencing app was used for the synchronized online meetings (see Table 4). The
whole transformation process took about one week with the bulk of the time was spent
on exploring and testing the features of Zoom.
Zoom is a Web videoconferencing service that allows users to communicate online
with individuals in real time via computer, tablet, or mobile device. We chose Zoom
because of its ease of use (Kim 2017; Sutterlin 2018), its lower bandwidth requirements
(Sutterlin 2018), and its ability to record and store sessions without recourse to third-
party software (Archibald et al. 2019). More importantly, Zoom was chosen because its
functions could easily support the implementation of our online flipped classroom. For
instance, it allows instructors to easily create breakout rooms for group discussions. It
also makes team-teaching possible by allowing more than one host and giving all of the
hosts administrative capabilities such as sharing screens and remote control over shared
screens (Johnston 2020).
To keep our online meetings secure, we activated the “only authenticated users can
join” option. Specifically, we only allowed participants using our own university’s email
domain to join the online meetings. In addition, we enabled the “waiting room” feature
so that we could screen all of participants in the “waiting room” and admit only students
officially enrolled in our classes into the online meeting. After all of the participants had

Table 4 Phases of  the  5E framework and  examples of  activities in  the  online flipped
classroom
5E phase Component Sample teaching and learning activities Mode

Engage Pre-class Depict real-life situations (videos, case-studies); trigger Online (asynchronous)
learners’ interest in the subject matter
Explore Pre-class Learner completes self-reflection (forum) Online (asynchronous)
Learner asks questions if necessary (WeChat)
Explain Pre-class Learner articulates own opinions (forum) Online (asynchronous)
Learner participates in focused peer discussion on specific
issues/topics (forum)
Learner asks questions if necessary (WeChat)
Elaborate In-class Teacher-led class discussion to build understanding; teacher Online (synchronous)
demonstration of strategies (if necessary) (Zoom)
Evaluate In-class Student individual/group work and presentation, followed Online (synchronous)
by teacher and peer feedback (Zoom)
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 11 of 22

entered, we then locked the meeting using the “Lock the meeting” feature. Once we had
locked a meeting, no new participants could join.
The same learning materials used in the conventional flipped classes were used in
the online flipped classes. Table  4 shows some of the teaching and learning activities.
Students in the online flipped classes completed pre-class activities that were similar to
those used in the conventional flipped classes, but these were not followed by face-to-
face meetings, but by online meetings conducted on the Zoom videoconferencing app.

Online flipped course 1: E‑learning strategies

Like the conventional flipped course, the online flipped Course 1 consisted of eight
sessions. The first seven sessions were flipped—students were encouraged to complete
a set of pre-class sessions asynchronously (similar to Fig.  3). Students also used the
WeChat MIM app to ask questions of their peers or instructors. However, unlike the
conventional flipped approach, the “in-class” session for the online flipped students was
conducted completely online through Zoom videoconferencing. In the final session
(Session 8), the online flipped students also presented their work on Zoom. Each online
“in-class” session lasted three hours—similar in duration to the in-class component of
the conventional flipped format.
In the online synchronous “in-class” sessions, the instructor started by reminding
students to switch on their webcams and to mute their microphones when not speaking.
Next, the instructor lead a short class debriefing session to elaborate on the materials
covered in the pre-class session. This was similar to the structure of the conventional
flipped class format. For example, the instructor might discuss the students’ completed
pre-class work and highlight the overall strengths and weaknesses. The main purpose of
these short debriefing sessions was to clarify students’ initial doubts or misconceptions.
Following the debriefing sessions, the instructor facilitated class discussions that delved
deeper into the subject content. To evaluate students’ understanding of the materials,
students were asked to work individually or participate in small group discussions on
specific questions similar to those used in the conventional flipped classes. Students
then presented their work online to the whole class, and received peer and instructor
feedback.
To engage the participants, the instructor used a number of features of the Zoom
videoconferencing system. For example, the instructor posed questions during the
whole class discussion and used the polling feature to rapidly collect and analyze
student responses. The polling feature provided a function similar to a clicker or student
response system. Based on the poll results, the instructor then addressed students’
misunderstandings. To enable small group discussions, the instructor used the breakout
rooms feature of Zoom. Each student was assigned to one of several groups. Each group
consisted of four to five students. Other students could not “drop” into other groups,
but the instructor could drop into any group and participate in the discussions. When it
was time for the small groups to return to the whole class, students would receive a time
indicator reminding them that they were rejoining the whole class. Table 5 shows how
the specific features of Zoom helped support the online “in-class” teaching and learning
activities. Figure 7 illustrates some of the Zoom features used in the course.
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 12 of 22

Table 5  Examples of Zoom features supporting the online flipped classroom

Teaching and learning activities (example) Zoom feature (purpose)

Teacher-led class discussion; teacher demonstration of strategies (if Virtual hand-raising (to allow
necessary) individual students to ask questions)
Polling/voting (to rapidly collect and
analyze student responses to the
questions)
Chat function (to allow participants
to ask questions or post comments)
iOS screen sharing from iPad (to
allow an instructor to write content
on an iPad and share it with the
participants)
Group work and presentation, followed by teacher and peer feedback Breakout rooms + broadcast
features (to assign participants
to small groups for virtual group
discussions + instructors used the
broadcast feature to send relevant
tips or suggestions to all of the small
groups)
Screen-sharing (to allow a
participant to share his/her screen
with other people)
Virtual hand-raising (to allow
individual students to ask questions)
Chat function (to allow participants
to ask questions or post comments)

Online flipped course 2: engaging adult learners

Similar to the conventional flipped course, the online flipped course had eight
sessions. The pre-class and in-class activities used in the conventional flipped course
were also used in the online flipped course (see Fig.  5 for an example of a pre-class
activity). Students also used the WeChat MIM app to ask questions of their peers or
instructors. The last three sessions were used for students’ online presentations via
videoconferencing. Each online “in-class” session lasted three hours—similar in duration
to the in-class component of the conventional flipped class. In the online synchronous
“in-class” sessions, the instructor reminded students to switch on their webcams and
to mute their microphones when not speaking. The instructor used the features of the
Zoom videoconferencing system shown in Table 5 and Fig. 7.

Results and discussion

Research question 1 
What effect does the change from a conventional flipped
classroom format to an online flipped format have on student
learning performance?

Conventional flipped versus online flipped course 1: E‑learning strategies

To address Research Question 1, the learning outcomes of students in the
conventional flipped Course 1 and the online flipped Course 1 were measured and
compared. The main purpose of both courses was to teach students the skills needed
to create an e-learning storyboard and to develop a fully online course based on the
5E framework on Moodle. At the beginning of both the conventional flipped and
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 13 of 22

Fig. 7  Examples of Zoom features used in Course 1

Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 14 of 22

online flipped classes, students were surveyed if they had any experience creating
storyboards or fully online courses. None of the students had any such prior
experience. Therefore, we assumed that both groups of students had similar levels of
prior knowledge/skill. Next, we used both groups of students’ final course marks as
a measure of the student learning outcomes. The maximum final marks in the final
assessment was 100.
We first checked the normality of the final course marks data. If there were a
significant deviation from normality, the Mann–Whitney U would be the most
appropriate test for comparing the groups; otherwise, an independent samples
t-test would be appropriate. The results showed that the course marks for both
the conventional flipped (W(23) = 0.920, p =  0.068) and online flipped classes
(W(26) = 0.964, p = 0.479) were normally distributed, as assessed by the Shapiro–
Wilk’s test. There was also homogeneity in the variances for the course marks, as
assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = 0.652). In addition, there were
no outliers in the data, as assessed by an inspection of the boxplots (Fig. 8).
An independent-samples t-test was therefore conducted to determine if there
were differences in the final marks of the conventional flipped and online flipped
classes. The results suggested that online flipped participants (M = 66.00, SD = 11.63)
performed as effectively as participants in the conventional flipped learning format
(M = 65.04, SD = 11.80), t(47) = 0.285, p = 0.777.

Conventional flipped versus online flipped course 2: engaging adult learners

The main purpose of both the conventional flipped and online flipped Engaging Adult
Learners courses was to introduce students to the key characteristics of adult learners,
the key principles of adult learning, and strategies for adult education. First, to test if
there were any initial differences in students’ prior knowledge of the course content,

Fig. 8  The boxplots of final marks in Course 1 for conventional flipped class and online flipped class
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 15 of 22

a short quiz was administered to both groups at the start of the semester. The Mann–
Whitney U test found no significant initial differences between the conventional
flipped group (Mdn = 0) and the online flipped group (Mdn = 0.5), U = 218.5, p = 0.06.
Next, we used the students’ final course marks as a measure of the student learning
outcomes. The final assessment included individual written reflections on course
topics and relevant articles, and a group demonstration of an adult-teaching strategy.
The maximum final marks for the final assessment was 100. As in the above analysis,
we first checked the normality of the final course mark data. The course marks for
both the conventional flipped and online flipped classes were normally distributed,
as assessed by Shapiro–Wilk’s test: W(25) = 0.963, p = 0.470 for the conventional
flipped course and W(24) = 0.930, p = 0.096 for the online flipped course. There
was also a homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of
variances (p = 0.304). In addition, there were no outliers in the data, as assessed by an
inspection of the boxplots (Fig. 9).
We subsequently carried out an independent-samples t-test to examine if there was
any significant difference in the final course marks of the conventional flipped and
online flipped classes. The results suggested that online flipped learning participants
(M = 83.25, SD = 4.56) performed as effectively as participants in the conventional
flipped learning classes (M = 83.40, SD = 5.51), t(47) = 0.104, p = 0.918.

Research question 2  What are the good practices for videoconferencing-assisted

online flipped classrooms, as perceived by students and/or
teaching staff?
The analyses of the participants’ comments identified the following seven good
practices for videoconferencing-assisted online flipped classrooms.

(1) Remind participants to mute their microphones when not speaking to

eliminate undesirable background noise. According to Gazzillo (2018), muting

Fig. 9  The boxplots of final marks in Course 2 for conventional flipped class and online flipped class
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 16 of 22

participants’ microphones allows the speaker to have center stage while eliminating
the distraction of audio feedback. As one teaching staff member said, .

It’s a good practice at the beginning to mute all of the participants

by selecting the “Mute All” button at the bottom of the participants panel. This will
eliminate all background noise (e.g., television sounds, audio feedback). I will then
ask the participants to turn their audio back on if they wish to talk

In terms of Zoom functionality, by pressing and holding the “space

bar” allows the participants to temporarily switch on their microphone. We also ask
the participants to install an AI-enabled application called “Krisp” to minimize the
background noise of the participants.
(2) Remind participants before the online “in-class” session begins to switch
on their webcams. Webcams show a person’s face to other people on the video
call, which can help to increase online social presence among classmates (Conrad
and Donaldson 2011). Online social presence is positively correlated with
student satisfaction and student perceived learning (Richardson et  al. 2017). The
participants also strongly prefer to see a face during instruction as it is perceived
as more educational (Kizilcec et  al. 2014). Students’ facial expressions are also a
valuable source of feedback for the instructor to know whether the students could
understand the subject matter (Sathik and Jonathan 2013). An instructor can use
students’ facial expressions to determine whether to speed up, or slow down,
or provide further elaborations. Feedback from the teaching staff included the
following comments.
It is important to ask students to turn on their cameras. Students
will be more focused and interactive and teaching will be better when teachers can
see students’ responses.
As an instructor, I do not feel as if I’m talking to a wall when I can
see some actual faces. Students also feel they are talking to someone rather than
to an empty black screen. But it’s important to inform the students in advance to
switch on their webcams so that they can do their hair properly or put on makeup
beforehand—this was what some students actually told me!
During teaching, seeing your students’ faces will give you another
form of feedback. For example, when they look confused or nod their heads, it allows
me to fine-tune the delivery of the content. These reactions give me visual feedback
on whether I need further explanations or examples to elaborate on the topic.
Feedback from the students included the following comments.
Showing our faces is really helpful as we can see our classmates’ faces
and remember them. Also, it makes the class more alive because we can see their
expressions. Showing our faces is very helpful! It can make me feel like I’m in a real
class! I enjoy the feeling of having a class with my classmates.
Turning on the camera helps us be more attentive in the online class.
To avoid showing any undesirable background objects (e.g., a messy
bedroom) during the video meeting, participants can choose to replace their actual
background with a virtual background. The participants can easily do this using the
Zoom virtual background feature.
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 17 of 22

(3) Manage the transition to the online flipped classroom approach for students.
Not every student will be familiar with the videoconferencing app or the flipped
classroom approach. Therefore, to promote student buy-in of this new pedagogical
approach, it is important for the staff to directly address two main issues: (a) the
structure and activities of the online flipped course, and (b) the functions of the
video conferencing app. Feedback from the students included the following
comments.
If teachers would like to use some functions in Zoom, they need to
first help students get familiar with it. A brief introduction to Zoom at the beginning
of the class is helpful.
First, I informed the students that these two courses would have
two components: a pre-class session and an online “in-class” session. This helped
students understand the flipped approach better. Next, my teaching assistant and
I conducted a short introduction to using Zoom online before the class began. This
helped students get familiar with the features we would be using in Zoom.
Constant fine-tuning is also a key element in managing the transition
to the online flipped classroom. Asking the students what works and what doesn’t
have become our practice every after the lesson. These comments allow us to rethink
and re-plan for the next online synchronous session.
Feedback from the teaching staff included the following comments.
Having a technical-related orientation session before the actual class
starts helps a lot for students who are not familiar with the videoconferencing tool.
(4) Instructors should use dual monitors to simulate, as close as possible, the look
and feel of a face-to-face class—one monitor to view all the participants in
“gallery view,” and the other to view the presentation material. It is very useful
for instructors and teaching assistants to use the dual-monitor display function,
which allows the video layout and screen share content to be presented on two
separate monitors. One monitor can be used to view the participants (up to 49)
in “gallery view,” and the other to display the presentation materials. In the “gallery
view,” the instructor can see thumbnail displays of all of the participants in a grid
pattern that expands and contracts automatically as participants join and leave the
meeting (Zoom Video Communications 2019). The use of a dual monitor feature
is also useful for PowerPoint presentations and hiding notes from the participants.
Feedback from the teaching staff included:
During the preparation for this course, we would like to simulate, as
close as possible, the look and feel of a face-to-face class. This thinking brought us to
the dual monitor layout for our Zoom sessions. The first monitor is for the teaching
assistant; in this case, it acts as a co-host for the Zoom session. The teaching
assistant extends the computer screen to a monitor to show the participants’ faces
or the “gallery view.” This monitor acts as a “classroom” in the traditional face-to-
face class. During the session, this first monitor also serves as a tool for classroom
management. This view is where the “chat” and “raise hand” functions can be seen.
The second monitor is where the instructor places the presentation materials. This
view acts as the projector in the traditional face-to-face class. Occasionally, we
added a third screen, which is an iPad to do real-time annotation. This iPad can is a
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 18 of 22

replacement of the conventional “whiteboard” in a face-to-face class.

(5) Activate and evaluate students’ pre-class learning with a short review. At the
beginning of the online “in-class” sessions, instructors should use short formative
assessment methods (e.g., a quiz) to activate and evaluate students’ understanding
of the pre-class activities. The activation of prior learning enhances student learning
because it is the foundation for the new material presented in the classroom
(Merrill 2002). Indeed, recent meta-analyses have suggested that flipped learning
is more effective when formative assessments (e.g., quizzes or reviews) are used
before and/or during class time (e.g., Hew and Lo 2018; Låg and Sæle 2019; Lo et al.
2017; van Alten et  al. 2019). Students in this study reported positive benefits of
using short formative assessments such as reviews or quizzes. Examples of student
feedback include the following comments.
I find the reviews at the beginning of the “in-class” sessions very
helpful! It’s good to start from something we are familiar with, and then go to the
new materials. The reviewing of pre-class work is great because we can know what
points we do not understand well and how we can improve.
The reviews helped me understand the issue more deeply. I could find
out what my misunderstandings of the content are.
I find the teachers’ explanation and review of the pre-class work
helpful.
(6) Use an MIM app on mobile phones to foster quicker online response times and
to communicate with students during their online breakout sessions. Although
students can ask questions via discussion forums or email, the asynchronicity of
these apps creates a time lag between postings and replies which can discourage
students from communicating with each other (Hew et al. 2018). In contrast, MIM
apps such as WhatsApp and WeChat allow users to engage in quasi synchronous
communications on their mobile phones. When communication needs are urgent,
many students may only have their phones available. As soon as an MIM message
is sent, a notification automatically shows up on the user’s phone screen, which
encourages timely response (Hew et  al. 2018; Rosenfeld et  al. 2018). In addition,
MIM is more popular than voice calls, emails, and even face-to-face communication
among young people (Lenhart et al. 2010). As of March 2019, more than 41 million
mobile instant messages are sent every minute (Clement 2019). Student feedback
on using MIM in classrooms included the following comments.
I like using MIM such as WeChat because it allows us to
communicate with other people immediately.
I enjoy using WeChat to ask questions and get immediate feedback
from my classmates and teaching staff.
(7) Use a variety of presentation media as well as a variety of activities to
sustain student interest. No matter how interested a learner is in the topic of a
presentation or discussion, that interest will wane in the face of monotony (Driscoll
2000). Therefore, it is recommended that instructors sustain student interest by
varying the use of presentation media. Instructors, for example, can alternate the
use of PowerPoint slides with digital handwriting on an iPad. The instructor in this
study made the following comments.
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 19 of 22

I find continual use of PowerPoint slides to be boring. It’s always the

same style: a bullet list of information with some animations or pictures. I find it
useful to sustain my students’ attention by writing on an iPad.

Comments from the students were also positive.

I find the instructor writing on an iPad helps to focus my attention

better than PowerPoint slides.

Writing on the iPad is like writing on a whiteboard in real face-to-

face classrooms. It helps me develop a better understanding of the topic.

Digital writing on an iPad can help learners see the progressive development
of the subject content (Hulls 2005), and follow the instructor’s cognitive process
better than pre-prepared PowerPoint presentations (Lee and Lim 2013). Writing on
an iPad can also enable an instructor to immediately adjust his or her instruction
in response to the students’ needs. Using digital writing can significantly improve
students’ understanding of conceptual knowledge when compared to PowerPoint-
based presentation lectures (Lee and Lim 2013).

In addition to varying the presentation media, an instructor should also

use different activities, including guest speakers, during the online class session.
Feedback from the students included the following comments.

The use of different functions in Zoom, such as breakout rooms

for group activities, voting, and raising hands, is useful because they help us to be
involved. It helps increase the learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction,
which may be lacking in a fully online class.

During the three-hour online class, we had not only the teacher’s
explanations, but also had a guest speaker and online group discussions via
breakout rooms, which made the class engaging.

In this study, the instructor invited a United Kingdom-based practicing

instructional designer as a guest speaker in the two online flipped courses to talk
about her experience in developing e-learning courses and engaging adult learners.
Guest speakers enhance students’ educational experience by giving them real-world
knowledge (Metrejean and Zarzeski 2001). Guest speakers can offer students a
different point of view, one that students may better understand. Guest speakers can
also alleviate the monotony of listening to a single instructor.

Conclusion
Amidst the burgeoning use of online learning during the unpredictable present, this
study evaluates the efficacy of a videoconferencing-supported fully online flipped
classroom. It compares student outcomes in four higher education classes: conventional
flipped Course 1 versus online flipped Course 1, and conventional flipped Course
2 versus online flipped Course 2. Overall, this study makes three contributions to the
literature on flipped classrooms. First, it provides a thick description of the development
of the conventional flipped classroom approach based on the 5E framework, and
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 20 of 22

the transformation of the conventional flipped classroom into a fully online flipped
classroom. A thick description of the development of the flipped classrooms is provided
to encourage replication by other researchers and practitioners. Second, our findings
reveal that the online flipped classroom approach can be as effective as the conventional
flipped classroom. Third, we identify seven good practices for using videoconferencing
to support online flipped classrooms. This set of good practices can provide useful
guidelines for other instructors who might be interested in implementing an online
flipped approach.
One potential limitation of our study is that it was relatively short in duration (8
weeks). However, according to Fraenkel et  al. (2014), some researchers do collect data
within a fairly short time. A short-term data collection period enables researchers to
collect and analyze data to see if an intervention is workable before committing to a
longer study (Creswell 2015). We therefore urge future researchers to examine the use
of videoconferencing-supported online flipped classrooms over a longer period of time,
such as one year or more, to verify the results of this study.
Another interesting area for future work will be examining how instructors can
support learners’ self-regulation during online flipped classroom (Cheng et al. 2019), as
well as what strategies can best motivate students to complete the pre-class work.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions
KFH conceptualized the study, analysed the data, and wrote the initial draft. CJ analysed the data, and revised the draft.
DEG provided critical feedback and edited the manuscript. SB provided Zoom support and critical feedback. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding
Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The anonymized datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on
reasonable request.

Received: 24 June 2020 Accepted: 28 September 2020

References
Akar, E. (2005). Effectiveness of 5e learning cycle model on students’ understanding of acid-base concepts. MS Thesis,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative
data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods, 18, 1–8. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/16094​06919​87459​6.
Bates S, Galloway R. The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: A case study. https​://
www.heaca​demy.ac.uk/asset​s/docum​ents/stem-confe​rence​/Physi​calSc​ience​s/Simon​_Bates​_Ross_Gallo​way.pdf
(2012)
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 120 Am Soc Eng Educ Annu Conf
Expo, 30, 1–18.
Boddy, N., Watson, K., & Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five e’s: a referent model for constructivist teaching and
learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 27–42. https​://doi.org/10.1023/A:10236​06425​452.
Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic
review. Computers & Education. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2020.10381​9
Bybee, R. W., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness. Off Sci Educ Natl Inst Health,
2006, 1–80.
Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’
learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Etr&D, 67(4), 793–824. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1142​3-018-9633-7
Clement J. Global number of mobile messaging users 2018–2022. Statista. https​://www.stati​sta.com/stati​stics​/48325​
5/numbe​r-of-mobil​e -messa​ging-users​world​wide/ (2019)
 Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 21 of 22

Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: activities and resources for creative instruction. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Deslauriers, L., et al. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively
engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https​://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.18219​36116​
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2014). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Gazzillo L. Tech tip: muting participants in Zoom. Yale Library IT News. https​://campu​spres​s.yale.edu/libra​r yitn​
ews/2018/01/23/tech-tip-mutin​g-parti​cipan​ts-in-zoom/ (2018)
Gierdowski DC. 2019 study of undergraduate students and information technology. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis
and Research. https​://libra​r y.educa​use.edu/resou​rces/2019/10/2019-study​- of-under​gradu​ate-stude​nts-and-
infor​matio​n-techn​ology​ (2019)
Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-
analysis. BMC Medical Education. https​://doi.org/10.1186/s1290​9-018-1144-z
Hew, K., et al. (2018). Examining a WeChat-supported 5E-flipped classroom pedagogical approach. Int J Serv Stand, 12,
224–242.
Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond, A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online
learning. Educause Review. https​://er.educa​use.edu/artic​les/2020/3/the-diffe​rence​-betwe​en-emerg​ency-remot​
e-teach​ing-and-onlin​e -learn​ing (2020)
Hulls CCW. Using a tablet PC for classroom instruction. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of Frontiers in
Education, Indianapolis, Indiana, 19–22 October
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory
to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
Johnston N. Google Hangouts Meet vs. Zoom: Which conferencing tool is better for you? https​://www.andro​idcen​
tral.com/googl​e -hango​uts-meet-vs-zoom (2020)
Kim J. Zoom is hot in higher ed. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https​://www.insid​ehigh​ered.com/blogs​/techn​ology​
-and-learn​ing/zoom-hot-highe​r-ed (2017)
Kizilcec RF, Papadopoulos K, Sritanyaratana L. Showing face in video instruction: Effects on information retention,
visual attention, and affect. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
2095–2102). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2014)
Låg, T., & Sæle, R. G. (2019). Does the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction? A systematic
review and meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–17.
Lederman D. Will shift to remote teaching be boon or bane for online learning? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https​
://www.insid​ehigh​ered.com/digit​al-learn​ing/artic​le/2020/03/18/most-teach​ing-going​-remot​e -will-help-or-
hurt-onlin​e -learn​ing (2014)
Lee, H. W., & Lim, K. Y. (2013). Does digital handwriting of instructors using the iPad enhance student learning? Asia-
Pacific Educ Res, 22(3), 241–245.
Lenhart A, et al. Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet and American Life
Project, 2010 (2010).
Lo, C. K. (2017). Toward a flipped classroom instructional model for history education: a call for research. Int J Cult Hist,
3(1), 36–43.
Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2019). The impact of flipped classrooms on student achievement in engineering education: a
meta-analysis of 10 years of research. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(4), 523–546.
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2017). Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: a
synthesis of research in mathematics education. Educ Res Rev, 22, 50–73. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.edure​
v.2017.08.002
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educ Technol Res Dev, 50(3), 43–59.
Metrejean, C., & Zarzeski, M. (2001). Bring the world to the classroom. J Account, 19(3), 73–76.
Mullins, M. H. (2017). Actively teaching research methods with a process oriented guided inquiry learning approach.
J Teach Soc Work, 37(4), 309–332.
Pomerantz J, Brooks DC. ECAR study of faculty and information technology. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. https​://
libra​r y.educa​use.edu/-/media​/files​/libra​r y/2017/10/facul​tyits​tudy2​017.pdf (2017)
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and
learning in the online environment: a meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Rosenfeld, A., Sina, S., Sarne, D., Avidov, O., & Kraus, S. (2018). WhatsApp usage patterns and prediction of
demographic characteristics without access to message content. Demographic Research, 39(22), 647–670. https​
://doi.org/10.4054/DemRe​s.2018.39.22.
Sathik, M., & Jonathan, S. G. (2013). Effect of facial expressions on student’s comprehension recognition in virtual
educational environments. SpringerPlus, 2, 455. https​://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-455
Shi, Y., Ma, Y., MacLeod, J., & Yang, H. H. (2019). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in flipped classroom
instruction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. J Comput Educ. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4069​2-019-00142​
-8
Stohr, C., Demaziere, C., & Adawi, T. (2020). The polarizing effect of the online flipped classroom. Computers &
Education. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2019.10378​9
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
Hew et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2020) 17:57 Page 22 of 22

Sutterlin J. Learning is social with Zoom videoconferencing in your classroom. eLearn magazine. https​://elear​nmag.
acm.org/featu​red.cfm?aid=32366​97 (2018)
UNESCO. (n.d.). COVID-19 educational disruption and response. https​://en.unesc​o.org/theme​s/educa​tion-emerg​
encie​s/coron​aviru​s-schoo​l-closu​res
van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes
and satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev, 28, 100281. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.edure​v.2019.05.003
Xiu, Y., & Thompson, P. (2020). Flipped university class: a study of motivation and learning. J Inform Technol Educ, 19, 41–63.
Zoom Video Communications Inc. Displaying participants in gallery view. https​://suppo​rt.zoom.us/hc/en-us/artic​
les/36000​00058​83-Displ​aying​-parti​cipan​ts-in-galle​r y-view (2019)

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal:

Post‑pandemic Challenges for Higher Education

Chrysi Rapanta1 · Luca Botturi2   · Peter Goodyear3 · Lourdes Guàrdia4 ·

Marguerite Koole5

Accepted: 17 July 2021 / Published online: 9 August 2021

© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
The Covid-19 pandemic has presented an opportunity for rethinking assumptions
about education in general and higher education in particular. In the light of the
general crisis the pandemic caused, especially when it comes to the so-called emer-
gency remote teaching (ERT), educators from all grades and contexts experienced
the necessity of rethinking their roles, the ways of supporting the students’ learn-
ing tasks and the image of students as self-organising learners, active citizens and
autonomous social agents. In our first Postdigital Science and Education paper, we
sought to distil and share some expert advice for campus-based university teachers
to adapt to online teaching and learning. In this sequel paper, we ask ourselves: Now
that campus-based university teachers have experienced the unplanned and forced
version of Online Learning and Teaching (OLT), how can this experience help
bridge the gap between online and in-person teaching in the following years? The
four experts, also co-authors of this paper, interviewed aligning towards an empha-
sis on pedagogisation rather than digitalisation of higher education, with strategic
decision-making being in the heart of post-pandemic practices. Our literature review
of papers published in the last year and analysis of the expert answers reveal that the
‘forced’ experience of teaching with digital technologies as part of ERT can gradu-
ally give place to a harmonious integration of physical and digital tools and methods
for the sake of more active, flexible and meaningful learning.

Keywords  Emergency remote teaching · Online learning and teaching · Higher

education · Post-Covid · Pedagogy · Digital technologies

* Luca Botturi
luca.botturi@supsi.ch
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
716 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal:

Post‑Pandemic Challenges for Higher Education

The Covid-19 pandemic has presented an opportunity for rethinking assumptions

about education in general and higher education (HE) in particular (Ashour et al.
2021; Jandrić et al. 2020; Peters et al. 2020). Although visions for the future of
HE vary and are contested, there is a growing consensus that ‘nothing could be
worse than a return to normality’ (Roy 2020). Notwithstanding the lack of prepa-
ration and difficulties faced by teachers, educational administrators and institu-
tions, the overall picture now reveals an openness towards innovation and new
learning opportunities that were not as evident before. In the light of the general
crisis the pandemic caused, especially when it comes to the so-called emergency
remote teaching (ERT) (Hodges et al. 2020; Xie and Rice 2021), educators from
all grades and contexts experienced the necessity of rethinking their roles, ways
of supporting students’ learning tasks (Rodríguez-Triana et  al. 2020; Nordmann
et al. 2020) and the image of students as self-organising learners, active citizens
and autonomous social agents (Council of Europe 2016, 2018). This shift requires
new learning, not only for students but in particular for teachers. As Hollander
(2021) intelligently remarks, ‘the pandemic is taking higher education back to
school’.
Although ERT has little in common with online learning and teaching (OLT)
and even less with Internet-based distance education, they share one common fea-
ture, which is teaching with digital technologies. As Xie and Rice (2021) nicely
summarise, ERT and OLT do not share the same definition, goal, design process,
instructional delivery mode or ways to integrate technology. On the one hand,
ERT refers to a temporary shift due to crisis circumstances (Hodges et al. 2020):
its goal is to provide ‘a reliable, temporary, fast, and durable access’ to instruc-
tion and its affordances (Mohmmed et al. 2020: 2); no time for the actual prepa-
ration of online activities and materials is foreseen, and this lack of support and
resources, including lack of time, resulted in mostly synchronous class meetings
(Manfuso 2020).
On the other hand, OLT is a subset of distance education using electronic media
that, if done well, takes place in dynamic and carefully designed learning environ-
ments (Keengwe and Kidd 2010: 533–534). It provides a well-considered learn-
ing ecosystem (Manfuso 2020), aimed at increased flexibility and better access to
learning opportunities, through the careful design of unique courses that appro-
priately combine synchronous, asynchronous and independent study activities
(Anderson 2008). In its turn, distance education, and in particular Internet-based
distance education, refers to ‘an institution-based, formal education where the
learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunications systems
are used to connect learners, resources and instructors’ (Schlosser and Simonson
2009: 1). According to Garrison (2009), both traditional (i.e. campus-based) and
distance HE have been assisted by OLT practices to innovate their instructional
paradigm and approach, given the focus of OLT on active, collaborative, social-
constructivist processes. This distinction between OLT and distance education

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 717

is useful in order to understand when ERT implementation is only based on the

in-person versus online teaching mode shift, or when instead it also embraces a
shift from expository to interactive teaching and learning (Moorhouse and Kohnke
2021).
Another consideration to take into account is that the emergency shift to online
teaching overemphasised its remote qualities, arising from the need to avoid in-person
interactions due to the pandemic restrictions. However, other aspects of technology-
based teaching, which to a higher or lower degree were also present in traditional
university practices, were underemphasised, probably because they were not as inte-
grated in existing campus-based teaching as they could, or should, have been. These
include aspects of blended learning (Garrison and Kanuka 2004) and flipped classroom
activities (O’Flaherty and Phillips 2015), in which the in-class time is combined with
productive learning outside the classroom. Such aspects could easily be incorporated
into exclusively online interactive instruction, replacing the ‘in-class’ time by dynamic
synchronous activities (including small-group discussions) and the ‘outside-class’ time
by group asynchronous activities and individual assignments. Nonetheless, the pre-
Covid-19 level of digitalisation of HE systems and underdevelopment of pedagogical
strategies did not allow for such a smooth shift to take place. Instead, the shift from
face-to-face to ERT was often perceived as disruptive (Iglesias-Pradas et  al. 2021;
Wyatt-Smith et  al. 2021), aggressive (Watermeyer et  al. 2021), disastrous (Dhawan
2020) and unwelcome (Watermeyer et al. 2021).
The diversity of reactions to the implementation of ERT was the inspiration for
our first Postdigital Science and Education paper (Rapanta et al. 2020), in which we
sought to distil and share some expert advice for campus-based university teachers
to adapt to online teaching and learning. Now, 1 year later, there is a second round
of mixed reactions, varying on a continuum between ‘Finally back to before, let’s
forget this nasty period’ and ‘Here are the lessons we learned’ and that could help
to enhance our educational offer in any version of the future. As Anderson (2021:
3) notes, the concept of ‘crisis’ can be used by those in power, and those seeking
to protect their vested interests, to force people to make choices between diametri-
cally opposed alternatives, such as ‘on-campus’ versus ‘online’. This obscures more
nuanced and integrative choices. The goal of this paper is to expand our collective
‘room for manoeuvre’ (Anderson 2021: 4) by providing a synthesis of well-informed
learning design suggestions and reflections for campus-based and digitally enhanced
university teaching in the post-Covid era.

Literature Review

The Covid-19 pandemic and its subsequent lockdown phases spurred the need for
focusing beyond routines and understanding teachers’ role(s) as active and creative
agents, negotiators and integrators of digital and pedagogical resources into mean-
ingful teaching–learning practices (Damşa et al. 2021). A large number of studies in
the last year have therefore looked at how teachers reacted to the urgent shift from

13
718 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

face-to-face to online teaching and whether this transition has brought about posi-
tive changes in their implicit and explicit pedagogical models and strategies (Jandrić
et al. 2020; Peters et al. 2020; Sangrà et al. 2020).
An interesting study was carried out in Norway, a country which occupies a lead-
ing position in terms of promoting educational digital infrastructures, but also faces
a low digital competence among its educators (Damşa et  al. 2021). The research-
ers administered an online survey to 171 university teachers, asking about their
experiences, challenges and perceived effects of the online transition on learners,
during the first month of teaching remotely due to the Covid-19 lockdown. Three
teacher profiles emerged from the quantitative analysis according to whether teach-
ers showed a low (Profile 1), medium (Profile 2) or high (Profile 3) use of new
online teaching methods, software and support from others they found useful. The
qualitative analysis matched Profile 1 teachers (36.7% of the participants) with a
tendency towards iterative, non-transformative agency where activity in emerging
contexts replicated existing practices. Profile 2 teachers (55.2% of the participants)
were more prompt to show a practical-evaluative type of agency in which teachers
acknowledge the use(fulness) of technologies as alternatives to their ordinary prac-
tice, but not their potential as triggers for new practices. Finally, Profile 3 teachers
(only 8% of the participants) showed evidence of future-projective, transformative
agency.
Scherer et  al. (2021) conducted a large-scale survey to which 1144 (afterwards
restricted to 740) educators from 64 countries replied, with a large majority (more
than 80%) being from European universities. The survey was an adaptation of the
validated T-PACK self-efficacy scale (Archambault and Crippen 2009) to the con-
text of online teaching and learning. In particular, it aimed at identifying the ped-
agogical and content-related aspects of university teachers’ online teaching readi-
ness, such as their confidence in technology-based content knowledge (TCK; e.g.
implementing curriculum in an online environment), technology-based pedagogi-
cal knowledge (TPK; e.g. implementing different methods of teaching online) and
technology-based pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK; e.g. using technology to
predict students’ skills or understanding of a particular topic).
They identified three profiles describing university teachers’ readiness for online
teaching, namely (a) a low readiness profile, with teachers rating low on both per-
sonal and contextual readiness indicators; (b) an inconsistent readiness profile, with
low ratings of TPCK self-efficacy and perceived online presence, but high ratings
on perceived institutional support; and (c) a high readiness profile with consistently
high ratings on all readiness indicators. Membership in one profile or another was
shown to be dependent on a variety of characteristics such as prior online teaching
experience, the number of days spent for preparation for the online teaching shift
and the number of days into online teaching after the shift. These characteristics
suggest that the more immersed teachers were in the online teaching and learning
experience, the readier they felt about making the shift.
Daumiller’s et  al. (2021) study in Germany also used online surveys but com-
bined teachers’ and students’ responses. In total, 80 academics replied to a survey
with the majority (more than 80%) having no or little previous experience with

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 719

online teaching. In addition, 703 students attending their courses also replied to
a survey. The teachers’ survey focused on their instructional achievement goals,
defined as: learning approach (e.g. ‘I want to constantly improve my competences’),
performance (appearance) approach (e.g. ‘I want to be perceived as competent’),
performance (appearance) avoidance (e.g. ‘I want to avoid being perceived as
incompetent’) and work avoidance goals (e.g. ‘I want to have as little to do as possi-
ble’). Faculty attitudes towards the sudden shift to online teaching were assessed as
being a perceived threat, a perceived positive challenge or a perceived opportunity
for competence development.
Overall, the analysis revealed higher means for perceived positive challenge and
perceived usefulness for competence development than for perceived threat, suggest-
ing that participating teachers’ attitudes towards the change were in general more
favourable than unfavourable. In addition, the teachers’ learning approach goals
were positively associated with perceiving the shift to online teaching as a positive
challenge and opportunity, whereas performance (appearance) avoidance and work
avoidance goals were associated with perceiving this change as threatening. This
latter attitude, perceived threat, was also related to higher burnout levels and to stu-
dents’ lower ratings of teaching quality.
The findings regarding university teachers’ preparedness and welcoming of
the shift to online teaching expand beyond Europe. Marek et al. (2021) conducted
a mixed-method survey study with 413 faculty participants, the majority (90.2%)
being from Asia. In contrast to the previous study by Daumiller et al. (2021) where
the large majority of participants did not have any previous experience with online
teaching, almost half of the participants (46.9%) in the Marek et  al. (2021) study
said that they had used online technologies (other than PowerPoint or discipline-
specific software) in their classes before the pandemic. What is more, this previous
experience, when present, predicted the ease and comfort with which the partici-
pants shifted to online teaching during the pandemic.
Another interesting finding was that less than half of the participants used a
university-provided learning management system, with the majority opting for a wide
range of other technologies available online. Finally, in their open-ended answers,
respondents emphasised the need for adaptability and good planning, revealing an
attitude of ‘doing what it takes’ to serve their students under the circumstances.
Adding to these findings, a study by Ashour et al. (2021: 12), using an online sur-
vey with almost a hundred HE experts (university managers and professors) in the
United Arab Emirates, revealed that almost all respondents were confident that
online learning was ‘here to stay and could make a much stronger contribution to
higher education in the years ahead’.
When it comes to students, results were mixed as well, with studies either point-
ing at the dark or the bright side of the universities’ shift to ERT. An example of
the ‘dark side’ is presented by Daniels et al. (2021), who report the results of a sur-
vey with 98 undergraduate students of different disciplines at Canadian universities.
The survey aimed at revealing (1) students’ achievement goals, defined as mastery
approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance
goals; (2) their behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement; and (3) their

13
720 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

perceptions of cheating and success (note: although for ‘1’ and ‘2’ two multiple-
item validated scales were used, ‘3’ was assessed through the use of just two Likert-
scale items added by the researchers). Students gave their self-reported answers to
the survey items with regards to two conditions: a past condition, referring to the
semester before ERT was implemented, and the present (at the time of the survey)
condition referring to the first semester ERT was implemented.
The analysis showed that students’ achievement goals, engagement and percep-
tions of success all significantly decreased during the ERT semester, while their per-
ceptions of cheating increased. Similar results are presented by Aguilera-Hermida
(2020) who conducted a mixed-method study with 270 students from North Ameri-
can universities, aiming at revealing their attitude, affect and motivation towards the
educational delivery method, their perceived behavioural control and their perceived
challenges and positive aspects during the Covid-19 period. Her results clearly
indicate that the transition to remote learning was an unpleasant experience for the
majority of the student respondents, who claimed that learning online was more
difficult and less motivating than face-to-face, mainly because of limited access to
resources to finish their assignments and lack of communication with their profes-
sors. The positive aspects reported were not related to the educational experience
but to the fact of spending more time at home and less time at school.
In contrast to the negative findings of Daniels et al. (2021) and Aguilera-Hermida
(2020), there is research confirming that the academic performance of students dur-
ing the Covid-19 confinement improved as compared to previous years. For instance,
Iglesias-Pradas et al. (2021) compared the academic results of Telecommunications
Engineering students in Spain during the Covid-19 pandemic with those of previous
years, using both quantitative (academic records across 43 undergraduate courses)
and qualitative (open-ended questions to course coordinators) data. They found a
significant increase in students’ performance during the first year of the pandemic
(2019–2020), as compared to the previous 2 years. They attribute this positive result
to organisational factors, such as the high level of preparedness of the educational
institution in terms of technical infrastructure, the existence of informal communica-
tion channels among faculty and administrators and the semi-decentralised structure
of the institution which allowed instructors to quickly make decisions on the tools,
design and strategies to use.
Adding to this, in a quantitative large-scale study in India with 544 student
respondents, Gopal et  al. (2021) showed a positive correlation between quality of
instructor, course design, prompt feedback and students’ expectation, on the one
hand, and students’ satisfaction and performance, on the other. Survey data in Aus-
tralia revealed mixed experiences. Students reported that they valued the increased
opportunities for managing their own time and the wider range of assessment meth-
ods made available to them. There was also evidence of improved academic results.
Students reported negatively when they had technology-related problems, where
access to teaching staff was restricted and where teachers showed that they had
insufficient expertise in using digital instruments (Martin 2020).
The ERT implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic also brought up some con-
tradictions which were not evident before: the social distancing between students

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 721

and teachers, among students, and also among teachers, was contrasted with the
increased accessibility facilitated by the virtual learning spaces (Lau 2021); the
burnout and distress of both teachers and students was accompanied by an increased
flexibility and positive dialogic relationships implemented by several educators as a
strategy to cope with and anticipate their students’ drop out (Thierauf 2021); and the
lack of resources and administrative support for faculty to (re)design their courses
was balanced with evidence of increased creativity and responsiveness by both
teachers and students alike (Chemi 2020; Cramman et al. 2021).
The most salient negative aspect directly related to the ERT was the way it
sharply revealed socioeconomic gaps, prejudicing all those students who lacked suf-
ficient bandwidth, whose families lacked enough devices for everyone to use, who
were unable to find appropriate study spaces at home or whose financial needs dur-
ing the pandemic forced them to increase time spent at work, at the expense of time
spent studying (Jandrić et al. 2020; Peters et al. 2020; Schatzki 2021). The extent of
these economic and digital inequalities (Murphy 2021) became much more obvi-
ous — as did the fact that so-called digital natives are not necessarily capable digital
learners (Iglesias-Pradas et al. 2021).

The Present Study

The difficulties experienced by teachers and learners, summarised above, led us in

2020 to investigate the different ways in which educators can support their students
in the transition to online learning, as well as the different learning design strategies
they can implement to be able to teach online (Rapanta et al. 2020). This need was
born due to an observed overemphasis on the digital aspects of OLT, as opposed to
the pedagogical knowledge accompanying digital competence (Kali et al. 2011). Our
2020 study shed light on what Garrison and Kanuka (2004) and Anderson (2008)
had claimed several years ago, namely that online and face-to-face teaching share the
same values and require the same quality of teacher presence and support when it
comes to monitoring learning processes. What is more, through our expert interview
analysis, we noted that learning design skills and activities, commonly reported as
part of the online teacher pedagogical knowledge toolkit, are relevant for any type of
university teaching, as they increase the opportunities for high-quality learning.
In the present study, we ask the following question: Now that campus-based uni-
versity teachers have experienced the unplanned and forced version of OLT, how can
this experience help bridge the gap between online and in-person teaching in the fol-
lowing years? This question is relevant for several reasons. First, as Iglesias-Pradas
et al. (2021) observe, the unplanned nature of ERT is dissimilar to other transitions
from face-to-face to blended, online or flipped teaching in the past, which may have
already been part of the strategic plan(s) for innovation of several campus-based HE
institutions. Therefore, it is possible that negative perceptions and fear regarding OLT
were formed on the part of both teachers and students due to their experiences of
ERT disguised as OLT. This negative experience can lead to an overstated neces-
sity of ‘going back to normal’ without asking whether the pre-Covid instructional

13
722 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

practices in many face-to-face lecture scenarios in HE, including expository, mono-

logical and passive chalk-and-talk, can be considered ‘normal’ or desirable at all.
Second, according to evidence reported in the pre-Covid era, the uptake of
online and blended learning by HE institutions has increased significantly in recent
years (Conrad and Openo 2018; Power 2020). If this is true, and we do not have a
reason to believe to the contrary, why did the pandemic catch so many off guard? A
possible explanation is that the ‘institution’ is probably not the right unit of analy-
sis. In many cases, distance or online education offers are limited to one program
or even one course. This implies that the infrastructure remains limited and that the
required design and delivery OLT competences rest only with a few teachers. This
resembles the ‘Lone Ranger’ approach depicted by Tony Bates (2000) as the most
common model of e-learning course development. Lone Rangers — i.e. innova-
tors, pioneers — are ‘essential for getting innovation started, for demonstrating the
potential of technology for teaching, and for ensuring e-learning is used when there
is no systematic support from the institution’ (Bates 2004: 285), but their efforts
are seldom enough to make a sustainable difference on a large scale.

Method and Findings

The goal of this paper is to offer reflections for more innovative teachers to emerge
in post-Covid campus-based institutions, and possibly make their efforts mainstream
within their organisation. The shift marked by the pandemic’s ERT can turn into an
opportunity—as long as OLT design principles and competences are applied. In the
2020 paper, we asked about the basic learning design pedagogical knowledge uni-
versity teachers must have to be able to teach in an online setting. Now, 1 year later,
we seek to consolidate that knowledge in a package of expert advice regarding pos-
sible future steps that may change the landscape of university teaching capitalising
on the ERT experience.
We decided to follow the same method and format as in our 2020 paper. In par-
ticular, the method used for this study was again expert interviews (Bogner et  al.
2009), which was considered appropriate for the emerging and urgent topic of (rein)
forced digitalisation of teaching and learning during and after the Covid-19 pandemic
(Jandrić 2020). The four participants were selected according to their proven exper-
tise and deep experience in the field of online teaching and learning (for details about
the criteria for their selection, see Rapanta et  al. 2020). These experts are also co-
authors of the paper, and their answers to the interview questions are co-presented as
if they formed part of the same discussion panel (see Asterhan et al. 2020, for a simi-
lar format). The interviews included five questions and were administered by e-mail,
after the goal of the research was explained to the participants. The four experts were
blind to the responses of each other, until a first complete draft of the paper was pre-
sented to them, to which they all contributed with comments and revisions.
The interview questions were the following:

1. What is the role that digital technologies and distance learning can play in campus-
based education after the Covid-19 experience?

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 723

2. How might university teachers think about themselves and their role now? How
do you think their identity has changed/must change?
3. How can learning assessment change in the post-Covid era?
4. What advice would you give to campus-based university teachers interested in
improving their students’ self-regulation skills? What types of activities can be
designed towards this direction?
5. Overall, what are some lessons that distance/online learning can teach to campus-
based university teachers?

Questions 1 and 2 are general questions informed by the current contradictory sit-
uation, in which universities around the world are urged to shift back to face-to-face
teaching, with some hybrid solutions applied, when necessary, while research evi-
dence inclines towards the effective blending and co-existence of online and face-to-
face teaching practices, mixed according to teachers’ and students’ needs. Questions
3 and 4 draw on the findings of Rapanta et al. (2020), where assessment methods
and students’ self-regulation skills emerged as central themes in the expert inter-
views. Finally, question 5 functions as a knowledge consolidation question, inverting
the scope of Rapanta et al. (2020): previously we asked how campus-based teach-
ers can transform themselves into online teachers amplifying their teaching pres-
ence; now we ask how online teaching can become a permanent learning resource
for campus-based HE practices in the post-Covid era.
To facilitate readers’ connection between the interview answers and their discus-
sion we marked the key idea(s) in each answer in italics.

Question 1: What is the Role that Digital Technologies and Distance

Learning can Play in Campus‑based Education after the Covid‑19
Experience?

Luca Botturi (E1)

The Covid-19 experience pushed the digitalization of teaching and learning in HE:
teachers discovered that they can teach online, managers invested in infrastructure
and support services, students adjusted their practices and expectations. Most teach-
ers and students adjusted to the new situation, but also understood that online dis-
tance learning, at least in the ERT experience they had, is not the best option and is
not equal to campus-based education. For example, informal and group interactions
are heavily reduced, and evaluation is less fair (and it’s easier to cheat). Nonetheless,
it has original affordances: flexibility in organization, less travelling, possibility to
view lectures more than once, etc.
I think the goal now is keeping what works and blending it seamlessly with campus-
based education. This does not depend on the tools (which are now in place)
and on individual skills, rather on academic strategy (what was pioneering or emer-
gency should become mainstream), proper curriculum and course design, including
key decisions about synchronous/asynchronous learning, evaluation practices, etc.

13
724 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

The key criteria for developing such a strategy comes from the answer to one
easy question: What is the real added value of meeting in person? Is it the campus
experience? Is it attending to classes where students are active? Is it the resources
I can access? Answers to these questions are different for different universities
and might be different for different student groups.

Peter Goodyear (E2)

I think we have to start by acknowledging that developments associated with ERT

have changed conceptions about how established working practices in teaching
can become unsettled. What once looked like the only or the most natural pat-
terns for teaching and learning suddenly come into question, and other patterns
emerge as possible and sometimes beneficial. In part, I think this change is to do
with the barely acknowledged reliance of educational practices on physical infra-
structure. Change the infrastructure, and many elements of existing practices that
seemed tightly bound together suddenly free up. Associated with this, we can also
see that university teachers and university leaders are struggling to find language
and concepts with which to discuss what should and should not be done, going
forward. So, for instance, what do ‘campus-based’, ‘online’ and ‘blended’ actu-
ally mean? What distance is being measured in ‘distance learning’? Some teach-
ers are saying how Zoom classes, for example, are much more ‘face-to-face’ than
is the case with on-campus lectures.
I think one of the changes that will have considerable effects is that students
now realise that it is not so difficult for universities to operate in a much more
flexible fashion, and that they are actually able to fit educational offerings around
students’ lives, rather than requiring students to fit their lives around study. Given
the very substantial numbers of university students who are more mature (not
‘straight from school’), who have family and job commitments, who need more
flexible patterns of study, I think we can see this as an important change. In short,
I think student demand for more flexible forms of educational provision will mean
a continuing, and expanding, role for digital technologies and the approaches pio-
neered in open, flexible and distance education.

Lourdes Guàrdia (E3)

There is no doubt that Covid-19 is accelerating digital transformation in the edu-

cation sector. Campus-based education is adopting new models of teaching and
learning, where the use of ICT is playing a central role. Teaching and learning
online or intensively supported by technologies will be combined with face-to-
face models, and probably the use of technology will be broadly considered in all
programs as a strategic and essential aspect, no longer being ‘just face-to-face’.
In this sense, the idea of a blended learning and flipped classroom approach

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 725

adoption that has been promoted and researched in recent years as highly effec-
tive will probably prevail over face-to-face models, where technology is not rel-
evant at all.

Marguerite Koole (E4)

It is still too soon to know the full efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines, so the next
few years will remain uncertain. Therefore, it is wise to remain amenable to digi-
tally mediated modalities. Blended strategies may facilitate flexibility when needed.
Alternative means of access to face-to-face classes are most likely to involve the
download of readings, exercises, and activities as well as a mixture of synchronous
or asynchronous means of attending lectures. The very meaning of the word ‘attend-
ance’ has already started shifting beyond the physical, reflecting instead, a variety
of ways of accessing and interacting with content, fellow students, and instructors.
‘Attendance’ is increasingly aligned with Garrison et al. (2001) concept of pres-
ence as per the community of inquiry (CoI) model. The Oxford English dictionary
provides several definitions of presence, most of which refer to the physical; how-
ever, there is also a sense that it applies to the non-physical: ‘A person or thing that
exists or is present in a place but is not seen.’ (OED 2021). This definition can be
usefully applied to the digital. As such instructors would benefit from expanding
their conceptions of class attendance to include a greater array of evidence for inter-
action and understanding. In this way, the implementation of digital technology may
become more effective as faculty members make a parallel shift in their philosophi-
cal understanding of what it means to be present—perhaps even moving towards a
posthumanist understanding.

Question 2: How might University Teachers Think about Themselves

and Their Role Now? How do You Think Their Identity has Changed/
Must Change?

Luca Botturi (E1)

I see three points of change:

1. Those teachers who engaged seriously and curiously with their educational mis-
sion during the pandemic have developed now a more balanced view of their
relationship with technologies. ‘Dystopian’ (so to say) teachers have discovered
that technologies do not spoil or hinder education; on the contrary, they allowed
teaching and learning to continue also at distance, they are allies. ‘Evangelist’
teachers have experienced that when you move to fully online many things are
missing, not only in socialization, but also in actual teaching (e.g., catching the
‘teachable moments’ or collecting evidence of learning). Teachers’ relationship
with digital technologies is now based less on ideas and ideologies and more on
experience – and this is always a good thing.

13
726 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

2. Teachers discovered that they are not just ‘knowledge dispensers’ for their stu-
dents: they are also organizers of events in which students meet with a purpose,
and they are adults or experts that students can meet and interact with also infor-
mally. Teachers are the co-creators of the academic learning space, a space that
at distance tended to dissolve. Their social role is ensuring that such places as
universities continue to properly exist beyond their certification (paper mill) func-
tion. I have also the feeling that many teachers (re-)discovered that students are
for them important social and intellectual stimuli.
3. Finally, I think teachers realized that disruptive change can and will happen. No
perfect routine is forever. This has become a possibly uncomfortable part of their
identity: being a teacher is not keeping up some specific instructional form but
adjusting to the ever-changing and diverse needs of the students.

Peter Goodyear (E2)

First, I think there’s a stronger sense that the university teacher’s role involves quite
a complicated form of caring – for students, but also for colleagues. I think many
teachers have exhibited aspects of this for a long time, but the disruptions around
Covid-19, the increased visibility of parts of students’ lives, and the breakdown of
some settled assumptions about the limits of care have all combined to make this
aspect of teachers’ work more salient, and more talked about. For example, in British
HE, one once heard teachers talk dismissively about ‘spoon-feeding’ students. This
term touched on a multitude of practices of care, leaving some teachers – perhaps
newer teachers – uncertain about the boundaries of their roles. I think teachers will
now feel both free and obliged to talk more carefully about students’ diverse needs
and situations.
Secondly, I think we can see that the discourse around university teaching is now
indicating greater seriousness about design for students’ learning, use of technolo-
gies, intended outcomes and valued practices. After the first emergency response,
there’s a greater awareness of how some extra upfront planning can save work and
reduce risks later on. Thirdly, but by no means finally, I think there’s a sharper
awareness of both the fragility and the strength of higher education. In Australia,
at least, there’s a much clearer sense of how dependent we were on revenues from
international students and on the teaching work done by people hired on casual con-
tracts. Doing something about the precarious working conditions of many teaching
colleagues is now firmly on the agenda.

Lourdes Guàrdia (E3)

When the educational model is mainly supported by technologies, this can affect
teachers’ identities and their approaches to teaching conceived as more student-
centered than teacher-dominated. For example, teachers will probably use a more
constructivist theory applying a variety of instructional methods in their efforts to
respond to different learning styles and ways of student engagement. In this sense,
technologies could support a wide range of learning activities and strategies. Then,

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 727

the teachers’ role would be to encourage and promote students’ autonomy guiding
and supporting their learning process.
In a technology-rich learning environment, the teacher acts as tutor, organizer of
the learning process, curator of the learning resources, motivator and project man-
ager of students’ learning. Furthermore, students do not necessarily need teachers
when they have a ubiquitous access to online resources. Finally, the shift in teachers’
role also implies a shift in students’ role, who gradually assume more responsibility
for their own learning.

Marguerite Koole (E4)

Many educators likely see themselves as tech-savvy, non-tech-savvy or somewhere

on the continuum. Instructors who lacked a sense of self-efficacy regarding technol-
ogy struggled greatly with the rapid shift online. Those already comfortable with
technology adapted well and, therefore, felt successful. Lack of adequate support
throughout the instructional period likely reinforced pre-existing levels of efficacy.
Informal conversations with fellow faculty members have revealed to me that
some instructors who initially lacked knowledge of online instruction experienced
tremendous success but had relied heavily upon institutionally based distance and
instructional design experts. Galyen et al. (2021: 310) suggest that in lieu of exten-
sive interaction with instructional design experts over several months, teachers may
benefit from cognitive apprenticeships in which they co-design and interact with
design experts, discuss design experiences with other instructors, develop an agile
mindset, and embrace ‘productive failure’. These strategies, in effect, could serve
to induct instructors into a community of practice—that of designers and online/
blended educators rather than less helpful identities or communities based on
tech-savviness.

Question 3: How can Learning Assessment Change in the Post‑Covid Era?

Luca Botturi (E1)

Assessment was the big unresolved issue of the emergency remote teaching period.
Once again, we had the proof that assessment is the key function in learning, the
lever to which everything else is connected.
We have experienced that the classic end-of-the-course test does not work at dis-
tance, despite all proctoring services, and we have been forced to look for alterna-
tives. By doing so, we realized that new modes of evaluation can change the focus
of evaluation itself, e.g., from factual knowledge to competences, or from a one-
time snapshot (the test) to the ongoing collection of evidence. Teachers and manag-
ers were confronted with the impossibility of preserving a form which was selected
because of its efficiency (you test many students at once), of its resistance to cheat-
ing (assessment is control) and of its supposed yet apparent equality.

13
728 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

I think that the need to rethink how we assess learning already brought positive
consequences. After such experience, I expect more teachers to look for a more
holistic approach to assessment, and to be able to actually design the assessment,
and not just the questions that will appear in a taken-for-granted end-of-the-course
test. Design means taking into account the actual target competences, the number
and profile of the students, and considering the whole course as a potential source of
evidence.

Peter Goodyear (E2)

There has been a great deal of talk – more heat than light sometimes – about aca-
demic integrity, cheating, proctoring and so on. In some ways I think making provi-
sion for assessment during the shift to ERT was at least as complicated as setting up
online classes, and was fraught with previously implicit assumptions about what it
is reasonable to ask students to do and about how students will behave. Some uni-
versities got this wrong, it seems. They prioritized defending against cheating over
the well-being of their students. Of course, in some cases this is very important to
get right – in areas involved with professional qualification, for example, or where
certifying students as safe to practice is involved. But in other cases, I think we saw
concerns about cheating being inflamed by companies selling proctoring solutions.
One strong line of argument that emerged during ERT was that universities
should be more relaxed about assessment, assess less, and be more realistic about
what capabilities can be assessed and how. I would like to think that the discus-
sions and controversies about assessment will enable some more serious and flexible
thinking about assessment practices generally. Coincidentally, there has been a lot
of good work coming out from some of the leading researchers and innovators in
assessment and feedback – on areas like feedback literacy, peer assessment, assess-
ment involving comparison with other students’ work, internal feedback, and so on.
I think we might find the post-Covid times will be more open to more intelligent and
diverse arrangements for both formative and summative assessment, and more open
to including students in the discussion.

Lourdes Guàrdia (E3)

For many teachers, virtual assessment in the Covid-19 pandemic context has been
a nightmare because it has been difficult for them to think of another way to assess
that is not based on face-to-face or traditional exams. On the other hand, the replace-
ment of face-to-face examinations by virtual assessments has raised issues regarding
students’ identity. The solution proposed by the majority of campus-based institu-
tions is the eProctoring technology, which allows the digitalisation of the assessment
using artificial intelligence and facial recognition to verify a student’s identity, but
also monitoring their activity during the online examination or assessment, main-
taining the same integrity and quality as when they do face-to-face exams. However,
it is not easy to implement such technology due to students’ data protection issues,
so the challenge is still open.

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 729

Probably there is still no consensus about how a potential assessment transforma-

tion in the post-Covid era should be: to see assessment as continuous and formative,
as a more evidence-based process, as an immersive experience for learners, allowing
follow-up of the students’ learning progress at any time, remotely and combining
synchronous and asynchronous modalities. Replacement of examinations with con-
tinuous assessment is certainly an option, because the emphasis is not only to focus
on what the student knows, but on what the student is able to do and on the value of
transferable and essential skills, which are in fact the skills and competencies that
any student should develop.

Marguerite Koole (E4)

In expanding conceptions of engagement and learning, a greater array of evidence for

students’ interaction and understanding is helpful. Academic integrity, particularly the
integrity of online examinations, became a major concern for post-secondary institu-
tions around the world. Online examination invigilation tools were implemented with
mixed results. Many institutions eventually began to discard these tools. So, what
happened? These tools use algorithms for the surveillance of students by recording
their activities such as the websites they visit, their body and facial movements, and
the computer tools they use (Swauger 2020). Not only is there a lack of evidence that
the tools effectively detect cheating (Swauger 2020), but students complained of pri-
vacy violations, delays in responses from proctors, technical and connectivity issues,
increased stress, interruptions from pets, roommates, family members when taking
exams remotely (Flaherty 2020), and even false positives (i.e., the system incorrectly
indicates a student was cheating).
A question that has emerged from the experiment with online examination proc-
toring tools is, why do universities continue to rely upon traditional examinations?
Schlesselman (2020) recommends increased flexibility in assessment as well as
additional formative assessment activities. While some programs must adhere to
professional standards in order to maintain certification and ensure graduates are
fully qualified for high-risk jobs, other programs would benefit from focusing more
on ascertaining the quality of the learning experience itself.

Question 4: What Advice would You Give to Campus‑based University

Teachers Interested in Improving Their Students’ Self‑regulation
Skills? What Types of Activities can be Designed Towards This
Direction?

Luca Botturi (E1)

During the pandemic teachers discovered that students can be (or become) more auton-
omous than they thought. They also experienced the importance of self-regulation and
self-motivation. I think four pieces of advice can be formulated:

13
730 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

1. Blend regulated activities with flexible ones, like online ones (but there is no need
to be at distance or online to propose flexible work!).
2. Foster peer-interactions and peer-support: activating personal networks is part
of being autonomous (that does not mean do everything by oneself).
3. Allow personalisation of curriculum, both within a course (e.g., select one topic
to study among three proposed) and within the programme (elective courses,
individual endeavours, etc.).
4. Provide scaffolding to foster autonomy, rather than control over student activity;
this includes offering tools for self-assessment, so that students learn to ask for
scaffolding when they need it.

Peter Goodyear (E2)

I’ve written quite a lot about the capabilities involved in becoming an autonomous
lifelong learner and the main point I would make here is that it is helpful to see the
scope of these capabilities as quite wide-ranging and to understand that the develop-
ment of these capabilities can be assisted through a judicious mixture of hands-on
experience and direct instruction. I’m not so interested in the line of psychological
research on self-regulation that casts it in narrow motivational terms – verging on
claims about personality traits. Rather, I prefer to start with an analysis of actions
and capabilities in (say) graduate workplaces and work backwards to the design of
tasks and learning situations that are likely to help students develop and reflect on
their capabilities.
For instance, successful engagement in complex knowledge work involves a capa-
bility to construct an appropriate epistemic environment: knowing how to assemble
the right tools and other resources, find knowledgeable people, organise a produc-
tive sequence of knowledge-building tasks, and so on (Markauskaite and Goodyear
2017). We can think of this in terms of ‘learning to play an epistemic game’. Like
learning to play tennis, it needs direct experience; it helps to play with/against peo-
ple who are already good at the game, and there is a role for direct instruction and
coaching.
So, as advice to other university teachers, I’d say: focus on the kinds of epistemic
games that are core to your discipline or profession and examine the capabilities
that are involved in ‘playing’ them successfully. What experiences would benefit
students who need to learn to play those games? What are the rules of the game, the
typical tools and instruments, the typical moves, and so on? What can you advise
your students to do in advance?

Lourdes Guàrdia (E3)

Motivation is a key element in the success of students, and teachers play a pivotal
role in this. To improve students’ motivation, teachers must know how to give stu-
dents responsibility, for example through allowing them to lead learning activities,
how to design work in groups facilitating social interaction that can get them excited

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 731

building something together, etc. Covid-19 has shown that good learning design and
guidance should help a lot to keep students on track, but also to allow them to choose
topics, activities, even some assignments, providing them with a certain control that
makes them more confident. The design of authentic activities implies knowledge
in the use of active learning methodologies such as: problem solving, game-based
learning, project-based and case-based learning, design thinking, inquiry-based
learning, among others. These and other ‘active’ methods place the students at the
centre of the learning process asking them to combine self-regulation, autonomy,
creativity, collaboration, communication and other generic skills, providing a sig-
nificant impact on their knowledge.
Formative assessment is another crucial aspect related to students’ motiva-
tion that should be included as a usual strategy, providing feedback continuously
through activities that allows instructors to follow up with the student learning
progress. As an example, ePortfolios are activities that allow alignment between
feedback, reflection, and improvement, as these are based on evidence-based learn-
ing, showcasing students’ progress throughout a course. Another important issue
is when students are working and interacting online: the use of learning analytics
(LA) can support teachers to predict learners’ performance and a more personalised
learning experience can be provided. LA also supports a better understanding of
the effectiveness of teaching practices and guides improvements for the next course
iteration.

Marguerite Koole (E4)

Metacognitive skills can be challenging to teach. Instead of focusing on how to

directly foster self-regulation, instructors might instead consider providing an envi-
ronment that provides the level of support learners need. According to transactional-
distance theory, transactional distance is the ‘psychological and communications
space’ between the teachers and the learners (Moore 1997: 22). Transactional dis-
tance occurs in all educational situations including face-to-face; nonetheless, there
are strategies to reduce it. Learning environments can be designed to balance struc-
ture, autonomy, and dialogue. ‘Structure expresses the rigidity or flexibility of the
programme’s educational objectives, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods.’
(Moore 1997: 24).
Dialogue refers to discussions, exchange of ideas, and instructions. Autonomy
refers to the extent to which the learner determines their goals, assessment strate-
gies, pace and topics. To explain in simple terms, learners who are more autono-
mous require less structure and dialogue; those who are less autonomous need more
structure and dialogue. To assist learners in improving their self-regulation skills,
instructors can progressively modify their pedagogical approach through the semes-
ter by providing more dialogue and structure at the beginning. As the semester
progresses, structure and dialogue can slowly taper off while the learners can have
opportunities to take increasing responsibility for their learning.

13
732 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

Question 5: Overall, What are Some Lessons that Distance/Online Learning can

Teach to Campus‑based University Teachers?

Luca Botturi (E1)

First, teaching and learning can continue even under radical changes of circum-
stances. A change is not only a threat, but also an opportunity for professional
development.
Second, digital technologies are not an enemy disrupting ‘humane’ education,
but a potential ally for a better education. They will be so powerful an ally that we
are ready to rethink our teaching and assessment from scratch, and not just fine-tune
it along the path of minimum resistance.

Peter Goodyear (E2)

I think the main lessons here are to do with methods, concepts and language. Many
university teachers learn to teach as part of their engagement in a set of ongoing
academic practices: a passing on of tradition. Unless something happens to change
what they do, they teach as they were taught. Covid-19 and ERT have disturbed that.
Academics are used to methodological and conceptual innovation in their research
practices – they are not incapable of change, whatever critics outside the univer-
sity may say. The disruptions associated with Covid-19 have shown that there are
other educational practices available: that teachers and students now have a range
of choices to make. And many teachers are realising that some of these choices are
complex enough that tackling them needs the kind of design and monitoring work
that they are used to doing when carrying out research.
Design for learning benefits from some simple methods and needs some language
with which to discuss and coordinate activity, across course teams, or disciplinary
groups, for example. So, I think we will see a flow of concepts and language from
distance/online practice into the mainstream. In this, I hope we will see a growing
realisation that putting students’ activities at the core of thinking about teaching is
very helpful: what students actually do is what really matters, in the end.

Lourdes Guàrdia (E3)

The potential of an online learning model is undeniable, but only if it is properly

implemented. The right approach is not to imitate what is done in a traditional
model and bring it to an online environment. If the context changes, and other sce-
narios and opportunities arise, the design must be consistently and accordingly
transformed.
There is much experience of quality online education that has been carried out
in the last 25 years. If we take the advantage of not starting from scratch, then we
should use this experience as an example: learning design is crucial for any edu-
cational purpose, but when this purpose is delivered online, design is essential. It

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 733

should include: active methodologies to engage students at any time, adequate learn-
ing resources that facilitate learning at a distance and online, formative assessment
that is required to provide continuous feedback to the students, guidance and support
by the teacher, guaranteed accessibility and the competences required to teach and
learn online.

Marguerite Koole (E4)

In the rush to shift to fully online teaching and learning, many instructors attempted
to replicate the face-to-face modality through video conferencing technologies or
lengthy pre-recorded lectures. Particularly in the case of synchronous technologies,
many experienced connectivity, accessibility, and time zone challenges. A fear for
distance educators is that the hastily implemented remote learning attempts were
met with limited success and thereby resulted in judgments that online and/or dis-
tance learning is inferior to the face-to-face classroom. Sadly, few post-secondary
instructors were familiar with the wealth of distance education literature.
Early into the pandemic, Hodges et  al. (2020) referred to traditional distance
education theories and practices, which certainly offers a starting point for instruc-
tors who wish to free themselves from the limitations and frustrations of replicating
face-to-face instruction. The most important advice that I would offer to instructors
is derived from equivalency theory: that face-to-face and online learning need not
be identical but equivalent in pedagogical value and learning outcomes (Simonson
et al. 2019).

Discussion

As Hodges et al. (2020), Nordmann et al. (2020) and Xie and Rice (2021) point out,
emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the Covid-19 pandemic has little in com-
mon with carefully planned and developed online education. Online teaching is not
ordinary teaching and even less ordinary teaching through a computer. It requires
careful design and consideration of various components, which need to be thought
about in advance given the necessity to anticipate learners’ needs and expectations
(Rapanta and Cantoni 2014). On top of that, emergency remote teachers had to face
unexpected human factors that are sometimes neglected in HE, such as challenges
related to learners’ motivation, socio-emotional distance, socio-economic gaps and
cultural isolation. And as Schatzki (2021) points out, teachers generally have under-
estimated the importance of space, and the other material (and digital) dimensions
of social life, in structuring educational practices. In the face of the unprepared-
ness of the educational world to respond to this crisis (UNESCO 2020), educators
from all grades and contexts were called to take the learning situation in their hands,
rethinking, reassessing and remodelling their pedagogical practices.
Even though ERT cannot be considered to share the same processes and proce-
dures as online education, also given the lack of administrative support and tech-
nological infrastructure, it opened the path to initial digital teaching experiences.

13
734 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

Given the rich array of possibilities within what can be broadly called ‘teaching
and learning with technologies’, these initial hints of digitalisation can easily give a
place to innovative and effective blended or ‘simply’ technology-enhanced forms of
teaching and learning. However, as our expert interviews showed, for this to be pos-
sible, several aspects shall be taken into consideration such as flexibility, empower-
ment, professionalisation and strategic decision making.

Flexibility

The design of the learning environments must be flexible, in the sense that it is con-
sistently transformed according to the contextual learning conditions, either being
conducted face-to-face or delivered remotely, or with regard to students’ needs and
expected learning outcomes. Flexibly designed learning environments allow space
for personalisation of the curriculum. This can be done through giving space to stu-
dents to have a say in their own learning process, for example with a greater variety
of courses, in different modalities and implementing different methods. At the same
time, an increased personalisation implies a greater flexibility, as the instructional
methods must be continually adjusted to learners’ level, interests and needs.

Empowerment

Granting students a voice and a place in their learning process leads to a greater
sense of responsibility, which in turn, if assumed by the students (and experience
tells it will), can lead to a greater motivation and self-regulation. For this to take
place, students’ potential must be explored not only on basis of what they want,
but also and mainly on the basis of what they need and do. For this, monitoring
students’ progress through continuous, evidence-based assessment methods is an
important asset, and it is a wiser investment than proctoring systems to make exams
‘safe’. Instead of controlling what students do, we must create the right conditions
and opportunities for them to do better.

Professionalisation

Professionalisation refers to teachers’ and students’ attitudes within learning situ-

ations, and also to the curriculum designs that help create those situations. For
teachers to behave like professionals, and therefore to be considered successful
teachers, their subject matter, didactic and pedagogical competence is not enough.
They must also have the critical-reflective attitude to know how and why they do
what they do, and the systemic competence to adapt to changing circumstances
(Zierer 2015). Adding OLT to this set of competences implies an even greater pre-
paredness on the part of teachers, to be able to ‘hear’ and ‘see’ how the learners
respond to the learning situation and whether their response is sufficient, or the
activity/design must be adapted. The same applies to assessment activities, which
also need to be adequately and meaningfully designed, taking into consideration

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 735

both the essential, transferable skills and also the specific discipline-related com-
petences, i.e. the ones required by young graduates in order to be able to ‘play the
epistemic games’ of their professional areas.

Strategic Decision‑making

Faculty teachers are not always the ones who make the decisions regarding curricu-
lum and assessment design. Careful strategic planning on the part of the HE institu-
tions is now more necessary than before. This planning must include and consist-
ently connect decision making at, at least, the three levels as detailed below1:

Macro‑Level Strategies

Macro-level strategies refer to all type of institutional organisation and communi-

cation processes that influence the top-down and bottom-up flow of information
and, ideally, sharing of knowledge. A clearly communicated strategy presupposes a
shared language and vision of what should and should not be done in order to move
forward. It also requires a certain stability of work conditions in terms of the stake-
holders involved, so that decisions taken are put forward in a smoother and more
integrated way. For example, if a university opts for investing in faculty’s profes-
sional development, it should also opt for less precarious employment among uni-
versity teachers, so that development makes sense in a more socially-situated, holis-
tic, identity-nurturing manner, rather than as an isolated, fragmented, goal-outcome
paradox.

Meso‑Level Strategies

Meso-level strategies refer to formal and informal synergies between stakehold-

ers directly related to the teaching and learning process, and which take place out-
side the classroom. As part of these strategic synergies, the experts mention the
importance of coordination activities across course teams, disciplinary groups and
between teachers and instructional designers, when the latter are available (and if
they are not, this is maybe something for the university to consider as a macro-level,
long-term planning strategy). The emergence of cognitive apprenticeships or even
communities of practice among educators and designers alike, which happened
informally to a great degree during the pandemic, can now be strategically culti-
vated and sustained in the post-Covid era (see Kelly et al. 2016, for accounts of net-
worked professional learning among schoolteachers).

1
  The idea of three levels is inspired from curricular decision-making literature (see for example, Roldão
amd Almeida 2018) where ‘macro’ refers to central policymaking, ‘meso’ to institutional and group
decision-making, and ‘micro’ to the individual implementation.

13
736 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

Micro‑Level Strategies

Micro-level strategies include pedagogical strategies and teaching methods that

bridge the ‘distance’ between teachers and students, with distance referring either
to the remote aspects of teaching and learning and/or to the transactional distance
present in all types of learning environments. These strategies include implementa-
tion of active learning methodologies, in which students adopt a central role in the
learning process in the sense of being engaged in activities that make them walk the
walk and not just talk the talk (Keys 2005). In an active teaching–learning process,
mutuality and shared responsibility are desirable, rather than one of the two parties,
either teachers or students, being more important than the other.
Another strategy is the blending of different instructional approaches that pro-
mote a flexible and continuous assessment of the learning activity, rather than stick-
ing to one method or two and following them as an orthodoxy. Blending of instruc-
tional approaches does not only refer to combining in situ with distance learning; it
primarily includes a blending of multimodal activities, tools, and methods to achieve
the desired learning outcomes (Picciano 2009). What will be blended and how
highly depends on how students welcome such approaches throughout the course
and across semesters.
Teachers must always be willing to design and redesign their syllabi and materi-
als to make sure that they adapt to learners’ needs, contexts and capacities. In addi-
tion, environments that promote peer-to-peer and teacher-student interaction help
achieve the balance between course structure and student autonomy. Especially
group work with concrete and scaffolded tasks to achieve is highly beneficial for
students, as it allows them to consolidate their knowledge through interaction with
peers, regulate themselves as part of a group and grow as members of a democratic
society where various — and often contradictory — opinions can be valid at the
same time (but some more valid than others according to the information used as
evidence to support them — see, for example, Iordanou and Rapanta 2021; Kuhn
et al. 2016; Rapanta 2021). Figure 1 presents a synthesis of the suggested advice by
the four experts.

Towards A Digitalisation of HE or A ‘Pedagogisation’ of Technology

Use In HE?

Given the uncertainty of the times, we opt for closing this sequel to Rapanta et al.
(2020) with a dilemma rather than a conclusion. This dilemma, emerging from the
expert answers, transcends the three levels of strategic decision making described
above. Should the focus of HE policymakers, designers and educators be on the
‘hard’ or ‘soft’ skills aspects of innovative learning? In other words, does the post-
Covid challenge relate to how HE institutions become more digitalised, or to how
pedagogically prepared and informed HE curricula are? This echoes previous
research on the transition to e-learning, where it emerged that e-learning design was
often a catalyst for a deeper instructional design reflection at an organisational level
(Botturi et al. 2006).

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 737

Fig. 1  Learning design components for the post-Covid era universities

Lohr et  al. (2021) suggest that students become more cognitively engaged,
and therefore learn better, when they move from passive to active, from active to
constructive and from constructive to interactive activities, what is known as the
ICAP (interactive > constructive > active > passive) framework of digital learning.
However, as constructive and interactive digital learning activities require more
time and effort by the teachers, what happens at the end is a prioritisation of pas-
sive digital learning activities, knowing that these are the ones that are less ben-
eficial for students. This paradoxical situation is the same with non-digital learn-
ing environments: although authoritative, non-interactive, recitational teaching
does not lead to substantial learning benefits (Mehan 2013), many teachers opt
for expository and evaluative forms of interaction with students rather than creat-
ing opportunities and ‘space’ for students to intervene and actively express and
defend their viewpoints.
Designing (inter)active learning environments is, therefore, a challenge that
endures. For digital learning—whether in a blended, hybrid, or online form—a
number of institutional, organisational and administrative factors condition the more
proximal influences on the teacher and student level, which then shape the effec-
tiveness of teaching and learning. It is essential to address issues at all these lev-
els (Hofer et al. 2021; Ellis and Goodyear 2019). Institutional, teacher and learner
expectations must be aligned in a way that allows time and effort to be dedicated to
careful course design, if results of design are to be meaningful. A carefully planned
course is one that includes constructive and interactive learning activities, leading to
assessable outcomes on a continuum of desired competences in the field for which
the course is designed. To achieve this alignment between expectations of the dif-
ferent primary stakeholders involved in what can be called an educational contract,
several strategies are possible, depending on the university’s requirements, resources
and organisational culture (Hofer et al. 2021).

13
738 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

Within a context of meaningful, strategic planning, the integration of technolo-

gies as part of pedagogical innovation is essential. Now that the pandemic has vio-
lently and abruptly necessitated such innovation, it is time to rethink the practices of
HE: moving towards a more harmonious integration of physical and digital tools and
methods for the sake of more active, flexible and meaningful learning. We end with
the words of Pope Francis: ‘Peggio di questa crisi c’è solo il dramma di sprecarla’2
— the only thing worse than this crisis is the tragedy of wasting it, in the sense of
failing to learn from it.

Funding  Open Access funding provided by SUPSI - University of Applied Sciences and Arts of South-
ern Switzerland. Chrysi Rapanta received national funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia, I.P., under the Norma Transitória – DL 57/2016/CP1453/CT0066. Peter Goodyear received
funding from the Australian Research Council under grant DP150104163.

Declarations 
Conflict of Interest  The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​
licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the
United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due
to Covid-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijedro.​
2020.​100011.
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. 2nd Edition. Edmonton:
Athabasca University Press.
Anderson, W. (2021). The model crisis, or how to have critical promiscuity in the time of Covid-19.
Social Studies of Science. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​03063​12721​996053.
Ashour, S., El-Refae, G. A., & Zaitoun, E. A. (2021). Post-pandemic higher education: Perspectives from
university leaders and educational experts in the United Arab Emirates. Higher Education for the
Future. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​23476​31121​10072​61.
Asterhan, C. S., Howe, C., Lefstein, A., Matusov, E., & Reznitskaya, A. (2020). Controversies and con-
sensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning. Dialogic Pedagogy, 8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5195/​
dpj.​2020.​312.
Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

2
 See https://​www.​vatic​an.​va/​conte​nt/​franc​esco/​it/​homil​ies/​2020/​docum​ents/​papa-​franc​esco_​20200​531_​
omelia-​pente​coste.​html. Accessed 15 July 2021.

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 739

Bates, T. (2004). The promise and the myths of e-learning in post-secondary education. In M. Castells
(Ed.), The Network society (pp. 271–292). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4337/​
97818​45421​663.​00025.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Introduction: expert interviews – an introduction to a new
methodological debate. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 1–16).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Botturi, L., Cantoni, L., Lepori, B., & Tardini, S. (2006). Fast prototyping as a communication catalyst
for e-learning design. In M. Bullen & D. Janes (Eds.), Making the transition to e-learning: Strate-
gies and issues (pp. 266–283). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Chemi, T. (2020). It is impossible: The teacher’s creative response to the covid-19 emergency and digitalized
teaching strategies. Qualitative Inquiry. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10778​00420​960141.
Conrad, D., & Openo, J. (2018). Assessment strategies for online learning. Edmonton: Athabasca Univer-
sity Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15215/​aupre​ss/​97817​71992​329.​01.
Council of Europe (2016). Competences for democratic culture: Living together as equals in culturally
diverse democratic societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Council of Europe (2018). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong
learning. Official Journal of the European Union, C 189/1. https://​eur-​lex.​europa.​eu/​legal-​conte​nt/​
EN/​TXT/​PDF/?​uri=​CELEX:​32018​H0604​(01)​&​rid=7. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Cramman, H., Moger, P., & Menzies, V. (2021). The impact of Covid-19 on the English education teach-
ing and learning environment and how this relates to sustaining and developing creativity, creative
thinking and teaching for creativity - A literature review. Project Report. Durham: Durham Univer-
sity. https://​dro.​dur.​ac.​uk/​32684/1/​32684.​pdf. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Damşa, C., Langford, M., Uehara, D., & Scherer, R. (2021). Teachers’ agency and online education in
times of crisis. Computers in Human Behavior, 121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2021.​106793.
Daniels, L. M., Goegan, L. D., & Parker, P. C. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 triggered changes to
instruction and assessment on university students’ self-reported motivation, engagement and percep-
tions. Social Psychology of Education, 24(1), 299-318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11218-​021-​09612-3.
Daumiller, M., Rinas, R., Hein, J., Janke, S., Dickhäuser, O., & Dresel, M. (2021). Shifting from face-
to-face to online teaching during COVID-19: The role of university faculty achievement goals for
attitudes towards this sudden change, and their relevance for burnout/engagement and student evalu-
ations of teaching quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2020.​
106677.
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00472​39520​934018.
Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2019). The education ecology of universities: integrating learning, strategy and
the academy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Flaherty, C. (2020). Big Proctor: Is the fight against cheating during remote instruction worth enlist-
ing third-party student surveillance platforms? Inside Higher Education, 11 May. https://​www.​
insid​ehigh​ered.​com/​news/​2020/​05/​11/​online-​proct​oring-​surgi​ng-​during-​covid-​19. Accessed 28
June 2021.
Galyen, K., Meekins, D., & Kilgore, W. (2021). Supporting teachers designing in liminality: Embracing a
new and flexible way forward. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 307–311.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11423-​020-​09923-w.
Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of online and blended learning for the conceptual development and
practice of distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/Revue
internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 23(2), 93-104.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Com-
puter conferencing in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08923​64010​95270​71.
Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher
education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iheduc.​2004.​
02.​001.
Gopal, R., Singh, V., & Aggarwal, A. (2021). Impact of online classes on the satisfaction and perfor-
mance of students during the pandemic period of COVID 19. Education and Information Technolo-
gies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10639-​021-​10523-1.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote
teaching and online learning. Educausereview, 27 March.  https://​er.​educa​use.​edu/​artic​les/​2020/3/​
the-​diffe​rence-​betwe​en-​emerg​ency-​remote-​teach​ing-​and-​online-​learn​ing. Accessed 28 June 2021.

13
740 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

Hofer, S. I., Nistor, N., & Scheibenzuber, C. (2021). Online teaching and learning in higher education:
Lessons learned in crisis situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 121.  https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
chb.​2021.​106789.
Hollander, J. B. (2021). The pandemic is taking higher education back to school. University World News,
23 January. https://​www.​unive​rsity​world​news.​com/​post.​php?​story=​20210​11807​05598​40. Accessed
28 June 2021.
Iglesias-Pradas, S., Hernández-García, Á., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Prieto, J. L. (2021). Emergency remote
teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic:
A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 119. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2021.​106713.
Iordanou, K., & Rapanta, C. (2021). “Argue with me”: A method for developing argument skills. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2021.​631203.
Jandrić, P. (2020). Postdigital research in the time of Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(2),
233– 238. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42438-​020-​00113-8.
Jandrić, P., Hayes, D., Truelove, I., Levinson, P., Mayo, P., Ryberg, T., & Hayes, S. (2020). Teaching in
the Age of Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 1069-1230. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s42438-​020-​00169-6.
Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design cognition:
contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media and Technology,
36(2), 129–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17439​884.​2011.​553621.
Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher edu-
cation. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 533-541.
Kelly, N., Clarà, M., Kehrwald, B., & Danaher, P. A. (2016). Online learning networks for pre-service
and early career teachers. Cham: Springer.
Keys, P. M. (2005). Are teachers walking the walk or just talking the talk in science education?. Teachers
and teaching, 11(5), 499-516. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13540​60050​02385​27.
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me: Developing thinking and writing through
dialog. New York: Routledge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2021.​631203.
Lau, T. C. W. (2021). Access from afar: Cultivating inclusive, flexible classrooms after Covid-19. Nine-
teenth Century Gender Studies, 17(1).
Lohr, A., Stadler, M., Schultz-Pernice, F., Chernikova, O., Sailer, M., Fischer, F., & Sailer, M. (2021). On
powerpointers, clickerers, and digital pros: Investigating the initiation of digital learning activities
by teachers in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 119. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​
2021.​106715.
Manfuso, L. G. (2020). From emergency remote teaching to rigorous online learning. Ed Tech, 7 May.
https://​edtec​hmaga​zine.​com/​higher/​artic​le/​2020/​05/​emerg​ency-​remote-​teach​ing-​r igor​ouson​line-​
learn​ing-​perfc​on. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Marek, M. W., Chiou S. C., & Wu, W. C. V. (2021). Teacher experiences in converting classes to distance
learning in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies,
19(1), 40-60. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4018/​ijdet.​20210​101.​oa3.
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation,
knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.
Martin, L. (2020). Foundations for good practice: the student experience of online learning in Australian
higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canberra: TEQSA.
Mehan, H. (2013). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. New York: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching during
Coronavirus pandemic: the current trend and future directive at Middle East College Oman. Innova-
tive Infrastructure Solutions, 5(3), 1-11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41062-​020-​00326-7.
Moore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of dis-
tance education (pp. 22–38). New York: Routledge.
Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2021). Thriving or surviving emergency remote teaching necessitated
by COVID-19: university teachers’ perspectives. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40299-​021-​00567-9.
Murphy, M. P. (2021). Concluding thoughts: What Can (’t) we research about emergency e-learning?.
PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(1), 188–190. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​s1049​09652​00015​60.
Nordmann, E., Horlin, C., Hutchison, J., Murray, J.-A., Robson, L., Seery, M. K., & MacKay, J. R.
(2020). Ten simple rules for supporting a temporary online pivot in higher education. PLoS Compu-
tational Biology, 16(10). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pcbi.​10082​42.

13
Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742 741

OED online (2021). “presence, n.”. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://​www-​oed-​com.​cyber.​
usask.​ca/​view/​Entry/​150669?​redir​ected​From=​prese​nce. Accessed 28 June 2021.
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping
review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iheduc.​2015.​02.​
002.
Peters, M. A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., & Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimag-
ining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-19. Educational Philosophy and
Theory. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00131​857.​2020.​17776​55.
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of asynchronous learn-
ing networks, 13(1), 7–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​24059/​olj.​v13i1.​1673.
Power, M. (2020). A critique of course-delivery strategies implemented by Canadian universities. In G.
Parchoma, M. Power, & J. Lock (Eds.), The Finest Blend (pp. 13–40). Edmonton: Athabasca Uni-
versity Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15215/​aupre​ss/​97817​71992​770.​01.
Rapanta, C. (2021). Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogicalargumentation method across
the curriculum? Teaching and Teacher Education,105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tate.​2021.​103404.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching dur-
ing and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Sci-
ence and Education, 2(3), 923-945. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42438-​020-​00155-y.
Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users´ shoes: Anticipating experience while designing
online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765-777. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
bjet.​12102.
Roldão, M. C., & Almeida. S. (2018). Gestão curricular para a autonomia das escolas e professores [Cur-
ricular administration for schools’ and teachers’ autonomy]. Direção Geral de Educação [General
Rectorate for Education], Portugal. https://​www.​dge.​mec.​pt/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​Curri​culo/​AFC/​livro_​
gestao_​curri​cular.​pdf. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Prieto, L. P., Ley, T., de Jong, T., & Gillet, D. (2020). Social practices in teacher
knowledge creation and innovation adoption: A large-scale study in an online instructional design
community for inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 15(4), 445-467. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11412-​020-​09331-5.
Roy, A. (2020). The pandemic is a portal. Financial Times, 3 April.  https://​www.​f t.​com/​conte​nt/​
10d8f​5e8-​74eb-​11ea-​95fe-​fcd27​4e920​ca. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Sangrà, A. (Coord.) (2020). Decálogo para la mejora de la docencia online: Propuestas para educar
en contextos presenciales discontinuos [Improving online teaching. Practical guide for online edu-
cation]. Editorial UOC (Online editions). http://​opena​ccess.​uoc.​edu/​webap​ps/​o2/​handle/​10609/​
122307. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Schatzki, T. R. (2021). Spatial troubles with teaching under COVID-19. Studies in Continuing Education.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01580​37X.​2021.​19280​52.
Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teach-
ing and learning in higher education: Who’s ready?. Computers in Human Behavior, 118. https://​doi.
​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2020.​106675.
Schlesselman, L. S. (2020). Perspective from a teaching and learning center during emergency remote
teaching. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(8), ajpe8142. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5688/​
ajpe8​142.
Schlosser, L. A., & Simonson, M. (2009). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms. 3rd Edi-
tion. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Simonson, M., Zvacek, S., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of
distance education. 7th Edition. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Swauger, S. (2020). Software that monitors students during tests perpetuates inequality and violates their
privacy. MIT Technology Review, 7 August. https://​www.​techn​ology​review.​com/​2020/​08/​07/​10061​32/​
softw​are-​algor​ithms-​proct​oring-​online-​tests-​ai-​ethics/. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Thierauf, D. (2021). Feeling better: A year without deadlines. Nineteenth Century Gender Studies, 17(1).
UNESCO (2020). Education in a post-Covid world: Nine ideas for public action. Paris: UNESCO. https://​
en.​unesco.​org/​news/​educa​tion-​post-​covid-​world-​nine-​ideas-​public-​action. Accessed 28 June 2021.
Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2021). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK
universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81, 623-
641. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10734-​020-​00561-y.

13
742 Postdigital Science and Education (2021) 3:715–742

Wyatt-Smith, C., Lingard, B., & Heck, E. (2021). “Lenses on Covid-19”: Provocations. In Wyatt-Smith,
C., Lingard, B., & Heck, E. (Eds.), Digital disruption in teaching and testing. New York: Routledge.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97810​03045​793.
Xie, J., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-
19. Distance Education, 42(1), 70-87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01587​919.​2020.​18695​26.
Zierer, K. (2015). Educational expertise: the concept of ‘mind frames’ as an integrative model for pro-
fessionalisation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 41(6), 782-798. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
03054​985.​2015.​11211​40.

Authors and Affiliations

Chrysi Rapanta1 · Luca Botturi2   · Peter Goodyear3 · Lourdes Guàrdia4 ·

Marguerite Koole5
1
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
2
University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Locarno, Switzerland
3
The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
4
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
5
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

13
 AQUADEMIA
2020, 4(2), ep20018
ISSN 2542-4874 (Online)

ed
https://www.aquademia-journal.com/

Rethinking Education in the New Normal Post-COVID-19 Era: A

Curriculum Studies Perspective

iew
Michael B. Cahapay 1*

1
College of Education, Mindanao State University, Fatima, General Santos City, PHILIPPINES
*Corresponding Author: mbcahapay@up.edu.ph

ev
Citation: Cahapay, M. B. (2020). Rethinking Education in the New Normal Post-COVID-19 Era: A Curriculum Studies Perspective. Aquademia,
4(2), ep20018. https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8315

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: 28 May 2020
Accepted: 29 May 2020
rr
All sectors worldwide, including education, have been devastated by the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic. As we
approach the new normal in the post-COVID-19 era, there is a need to consider education anew in the light of
emerging opportunities and challenges. Thus, this short article attempts to rethink education in the new normal
post-COVID-19 era through the perspectives of curriculum studies. The implications of the continuing crisis to
the four elements of curriculum - goal, content, approach, and evaluation - are discussed. Some emerging options
ee
may be cogently viewed within the perspectives of these elements. Aside from the lens curriculum studies, this
paper suggests that other aspects of education should be explored further to better reconsider education in this
new era in human history.

Keywords: education, new normal, COVID-19, curriculum studies

Toquero, 2020 on educational; Radwan & Radwan, 2020 on

tp

INTRODUCTION social and economic; Usak et al., 2020 on social and

COVID-19 was first experienced in Wuhan, China in late
December 2019 (Shereen et al., 2020). A highlight of COVID-
19 timeline shows that on January 13, 2020, the first
no
psychological). Within the educational dimension, there has
been extensive researches discussing the adoption of online
modality in instructional implementation in the new normal
post-COVID-19 era (e.g. see Sintema, 2020b on digitalized

coronavirus infection outside China was reported; February
02, 2020, the first coronavirus mortality outside China was
recorded; March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization
announced the outbreak a pandemic spreading to different
continents; April 10, 2020, the global death toll surpassed a
hundred thousand; May 11, 2020, countries like Spain, New
Zealand, Thailand, and Iran began to ease their quarantine
int
virtual classroom; Basilaia & Kvavadze, 2020 on online
education; Naciri et al., 2020 on mobile learning; Mulenga &
Marbán, 2020 on digital learning).
These emerging discussions as regards education in the
new normal post-COVID-19 era could be reconsidered through
the lens of curriculum studies. A curriculum can be defined as

a plan that has elements. Based on the seminal curriculum

restrictions after a decrease (Secon et al., 2020).
Educational systems are likewise preparing for the post-
COVID-19 era characterized by “new normal.” This expression
first emerged in the field of business. It was used to caution the
r
development models (e.g. Tyler, 1949; Taba, 1962), these
elements of the curriculum are the goal, content, approach,
and evaluation. Drawing notions from this perspective, a
curriculum development in any period and circumstance needs

belief of economists that industrial economies would revert to to look at these four elements.
normal after the recession (El-Erian, 2010). The term has since Considering the approaching new normal post-COVID-19
ep

been used in different contexts to mean that something which
was previously not typical has become typical. The Urban
Dictionary (2009) described “new normal” as the situation of
being after some intense change has occurred. It substitutes
the accepted, habitual, usual state after a certain event
Pr
period, a rethinking of education within the curriculum studies
perspectives is important. It presents glimpses of
opportunities and challenges in the future of education as far
as curriculum is concerned. By discussing the curriculum
possibilities in terms of goal, content, approach, and

happened. evaluation, educators in the field will be better informed of the

Several scholarly works have been recently published to key problems, decisions, and solutions that must be cogently
tackle the multidimensional implications of COVID-19 crisis considered as we approach the new era.
to the expected new normal period (e.g. see Sintema, 2020a &

Copyright © 2020 by Author/s and Licensed by Veritas Publications Ltd., UK. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3828966
 2/5 Cahapay / AQUADEMIA, 4(2), ep20018
Thus, this paper attempted to rethink education in the new
normal post-COVID-19 era from the perspective of curriculum
studies.
RETHINKING EDUCATION IN THE NEW
NORMAL POST-COVID-19 ERA
A Focus on Preparedness as a Goal
The new normal post-COVID-19 era opens an opportunity
for rethinking the goals of education. One of the goals to make
the curriculum relevant, appropriate, and responsive is the
development of preparedness in times of disasters, diseases,
and emergencies. There are existing curriculum goals that
touch on a set of preparedness competencies in the different
ev
fields of study. However, the focus of these goals is specifically
on natural disaster preparedness. Considering the coming new
normal post-COVID-19 period, there is a desire for a more
focused goal on preparedness in terms of global disease
outbreaks.
rr
When formulating the goal of preparedness, there is a need
to define it. However, it appears that an agreed definition of
preparedness is a challenge such as its current state in the
medical education (McCabe et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2007). It
seems to remain a vague concept in which its terrains have not
ee
been defined well. It is common though to meet the related
terms such as health preparedness (Khan et al., 2018),
emergency preparedness (Gebbie & Qureshi, 2002), and
disaster preparedness (Kent, 1994).
There has been a call to integrate preparedness content
tp
into the curriculum. Basic education schools have realistically
incorporated preparedness frameworks in their curriculum in
recent years. In many countries like the Philippines,
preparedness as a goal of education for young learners has
been given attention (Kagawa & Selby, 2014; Valencia et al.,
no
2018). However, as preparedness is still a muddy juncture, it is
unknown if preparedness across different types of disasters,
diseases, and emergencies are the same. It should be noted
that in the new normal post-COVID-19 period, there is a need
to contextualize such preparedness goal within the pandemic
perspectives.
When it comes specifically to higher education, efforts to
int
expand the role of nursing in responding to global disease
outbreaks have been placed (Corless et al., 2018). Goal related
to preparedness has also been started in other higher
education fields (e.g. see Uhernik, 1998 in counselor
education; Kaslow, 2004 in professional psychology; Ng, 2012
r
in social work). These efforts should be strengthened on a
ep
larger scale and to more fields such as teacher education,
agricultural extension, transportation studies, allied health,
and other fields related to social services in the new normal
period.
The COVID-19 pandemic undeniably caught education
Pr
systems and learners off guard. This situation revealed gaps in
the curriculum. One of the steps to address this gap is to
develop a set of preparedness competencies forming a goal of
the curriculum.
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3828966
Between Integration and Reduction of Content
With the restrictions brought by COVID-19, a new normal
curriculum may also adopt the integration of content. This
ed
approach makes it possible to reduce the number of hours
spent on all the subjects but still addressing all the curriculum
expectations. This strategy will enable the assimilation of
curriculum content expectations from various subjects in
designing an instruction (Romano et al., 2012). For example,
in teaching literature, science, and history, contents may be
iew
integrated by going through historical periods and focus on
scientific inventions and literary works during each period.
Fogarty and Stoehr (1991) suggested a range of integration
models. They introduced ten integration models such as
fragmented, connected, nested, sequenced, shared, webbed,
threaded, integrated, immersed, and networked. These models
require the assimilation of skills and concepts from various
subjects or disciplines within a curriculum. It could be a good
strategy for educators to reduce curriculum pressures to cover
all content amid the continuing restrictions.
Aside from integrating the content, some educational
systems are also contemplating to reduce the curriculum
content. They want to teach content that is “essential” and
remove content that is not. However, one major problem in
this proposal lies in the question: How do we define “essential”
content? Print (1993) advised that in selecting content, one
must observe several considerations. Within the current global
COVID-19 outbreak, the following three considerations are
suggested by the researcher:
1. Significance. The criterion of significance applies
where content is considered in terms of how
fundamental it is to the theme under study. Where the
content is contemplated as valuable to the subject, it is
deemed significant, thus recommended for inclusion in
a curriculum.
2. Relevance. This criterion is anchored on the reality
that content should be related to the perspectives of the
community values, aspirations, principles, and
problems that would help learners become effective
citizens.
3. Utility. Curricularists should consider two usefulness
of the content: current and future. There is some
content that learners need to learn to apply in the
immediate present and other content to prepare them
to deal with the future.
The coming new normal post-COVID-19 era can be a
teachable moment for content that is significant, relevant, and
useful. For instance, Gonser (2020) specifically suggested
simple content such as “why hygiene matters” and “how germs
spread” to more complex ones like “ethical decisions, the
science behind how viral infections work, or the mathematics
underpinning pandemics.” Flannery (2020) interviewed
teachers who integrated relevant content. One teacher began
work with her students a topic on coronavirus vaccines in
animals which is a relevant topic both in the general situation
and ranching societies. Another teacher focused on teaching a
new normal behavior called social distancing. These are
examples of contents that are relevant in the new normal post-
COVID-19 era.
 Cahapay / AQUADEMIA, 4(2), ep20018
The COVID-19 condition itself is indeed reorganizing the
content of the curriculum. Between integration and reduction
of content, educators should carefully weigh each option
without sacrificing much of the knowledge that is worth
teaching to the learners.
A Range of Teaching Approaches
Furthermore, many educational systems are
contemplating responsive approaches to implement the
curriculum. Most of them are looking into the role of
technology. During an era of social distancing practice
demonstrating a major new normal behavior, many schools are
headed towards complete online modality or blended learning
modality in instruction.
The complete online modality of the instructional
approach during the post-COVID-19 era can be feasible. For
ev
example, in China that was the first epicenter of the virus,
more than 180 million children were ordered to remain at
home. But while schools were closed for quarantine, education
had to continue but this time in an altered modality. It was
implemented online through a variety of online courses and
rr
electronic textbooks (Patrinos & Shmis, 2020).
Moreover, blended learning is coincidentally known as the
“new normal” (Norberg et al., 2011) in the realm of educational
technology. Though there are obscurities in its definition,
ee
blended learning can be commonly described as an
instructional approach that integrates traditional classroom
methods and online digital methods (Graham 2013). It
necessitates the physical presence of both teacher and learner,
with features of learner control over time, setting, or pace
(Huang et al., 2009). Given these features of blended learning,
tp
it provides auspicious prospects for use in education come new
normal times.
While complete online and blended learning sound like the
“holy grail” in this new era in education, it requires massive
changes. For some developed countries, blended learning is an
no
established educational modality. It has enabled these
countries to cope with the impacts of the current COVID-19
plague. Online learning and teaching are supported by
developed structures and trained teachers (Olivier, 2020).
However, for other countries, schools must carefully plan
virtual learning solutions. It requires an assessment of their
int
capabilities based on the reliability of local power supplies,
internet connectivity, and readiness of the teachers (Obana,
2020).
Blended learning still requires an amount of traditional
classroom modality. Considering the social distancing practice
r
in this new era, group work approaches that require
interactions with close physical contacts such as formal and
ep
informal cooperative learning groups, think-pair-share, peer
instruction, and jigsaw, (Brame & Biel, 2015) might just be
modified or reduced, if not eliminated, from the options of
instructional methods of teaching.
On the other hand, there can be more use of methods that
Pr
require less movement and physical contact. One method is
direct instruction. It is an instructional approach that is
planned, sequenced, and managed by the teachers. The
implementation of instruction to learners is attained mainly
through strategies like lectures or demonstrations. With this
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3828966
3/5
method, teachers generally direct the process (The Glossary of
Educational Reform, 2013), thus keeping students less active.
The COVID-19 global outbreak is evidently redefining the
approaches to instructional implementation. The range of
ed
options that education systems are contemplating presents
not only opportunities but also challenges that must be
considered in the process.
Reminders on Instructional Evaluation
iew
The closure of many educational systems coincided with
the student evaluation period in schools. As a result, we have
seen different instructional evaluation practices that have
been adopted as a response to the COVID-19 crisis. These
practices are likely to be part of the new normal in education.
Many schools have issued implementing guidelines changing
many aspects of the evaluation component of the curriculum.
This time is indeed a new period in the curriculum.
There is massive replication of instructional evaluation to
online. Within the online instructional evaluation, there are
synchronous and asynchronous forms. The synchronous form
requires the teacher and the student to work together at an
arranged time through online applications like Zoom. It can
also be achieved, for example, through phone in which the
teacher provides assessment to the learners in real time. The
asynchronous form, on the other hand, is the form in which
the teacher and learners do not need to interact online in a live
manner. They are separated into different spaces and times. A
tool that is used to accomplish this assessment form is Moodle
in which teacher posts assessment tasks for learners (Liberman
et al., 2020).
When it comes to the grading system, it has been also
observed that many schools have decided to change their
assessment scales from quantitative to qualitative such as pass
or fail system (Farrington, 2020). While the decision is
supported by admirable intentions, some people worry about
its effects. The advantages and disadvantages of different
assessment scales are debated in the context of student
motivation (Barnes & Buring, 2012). Within the argument
favoring quantitative over qualitative, Dilanchyan (2020)
critiqued that such change would detach the motivation that
students need to strive for high grades.
While the usual quantitative assessment practice is
expected to be still the dominant practice in the new normal,
however, with the continuing global crisis, there will likely be
a propensity towards forms of error in the school assessment
systems. Considering the difficult circumstance of the
learners, the assessment construct called leniency error is a
situation where the teacher tends to be too “generous” and all
students are given high passing scores (Nitko & Brookhart,
2014). It is considered as one of the threats to the reliability of
student performance which some education stakeholders
expressed worries about.
The COVID-19 crisis is continuously reshaping
instructional evaluation. The massive migration of learner
assessment to online and the adjustments to grading systems
are inevitable. With these changes, educators are encouraged
to maintain high quality assessment.
 4/5 Cahapay / AQUADEMIA, 4(2), ep20018
CONCLUSION
The unprecedented impacts of the COVID-19 global
outbreak are indeed ushering educational systems to a new
normal period in human history. This paper attempted to
rethink education in the new normal post-COVID-19 era from
the perspective of curriculum studies.
A curriculum goal that must be emphasized in the new
normal curriculum is to develop preparedness competencies
among the learners. When it comes to curriculum content,
there are challenges to whether to integrate or reduce. On the
other hand, instructional approaches mostly shifting to online
modality should be considered in the light of different factors.
As regards instructional evaluation, some concerns related to
the assessment of learning present cogent reminders for
educators.
ev
This paper offers an insight into how curriculum can be
reshaped, considering the new normal post-COVID-19 era.
Other researches should look into other aspects of education
from a wider perspective. The COVID-19 pandemic affects
rr
political, economic, social, and psychological dimensions.
These dimensions continuously tackled in the emerging
studies should be further examined to better prepare
education systems in the new period in human history.
ee
REFERENCES
Barnes, K. D., & Buring, S. M. (2012). The effect of various
grading scales on student grade point averages. American
tp
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(3), 41.
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe76341
Basilaia, G., & Kvavadze, D. (2020). Transition to online
education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research,
no
5(4), em0060. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7937
Brame, C. J., & Biel, R. (2015). Setting up and facilitating group
work: Using cooperative learning groups effectively.
Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from http://cft.vanderbilt.
edu/guides-sub-pages/setting-up-and-facilitating-group-
work-using-cooperative-learning-groups-effectively/
Corless, I. B., Milstead, J. A., & Kirksey, K. M. (2018).
int
Expanding nursing’s role in responding to global
pandemics. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 412-415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2018.06.003
Dilanchyan, H. (2020, March 31). The pass/fail grading system
r
could severely affect your GPA. Chimes. Retrieved from
https://chimesnewspaper.com/47867/opinions/the-pass-
ep
fail-grading-system-could-severely-affect-your-gpa/
Direct instruction [Def.1 & 2] (2013). In The Glossary of
Educational Reform. Retrieved on May 22, 2020 from
https://www.edglossary.org/direct-instruction/
El-Erian, M.A. (2010). Navigating the new normal in industrial
Pr
countries. Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3828966
Farrington, R. (2020, March 30). Colleges go to pass-fail due to
Coronavirus concerns: What does this mean for students.
Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/
robertfarrington/2020/03/30/colleges-go-to-pass-fail-due
ed
-to-coronavirus-concerns-what-does-this-mean-for-
students/#620c39aa7eaa
Flannery, M. E. (2020). How teachers are integrating COVID-
19 crisis into their lessons. NEA Today. Retrieved from
http://neatoday.org/2020/04/22/teaching-about-
iew
coronavirus/
Fogarty, R., & Stoehr, J. (1991). Integrating curricula with
multiple intelligences: Teams, themes, and threads. Palatine,
IL: Skylight Publishing, Inc.
Gebbie, K. M., & Qureshi, K. (2002). Emergency and disaster
preparedness: core competencies for nurses. American
Journal of Nursing. 102(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/
00000446-200201000-00023
Gonser, S. (2020). Innovative ways to make Coronavirus a
teachable moment. Edutopia. Retrieved from
https://www.edutopia.org/article/innovative-ways-make-
coronavirus-teachable-moment
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in
blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education, (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York:
Routledge.
Huang, R. M., Lanqin, Z., & Haisen, Z. (2009). The theory of
curriculum design based on blended learning. E-education
Research, 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85170-
7_6
Kagawa, F., & Selby, D. (2015). Disaster risk reduction in the
school curriculum: The present and potential role of
development agencies and the implications for the Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005-2015 Successor (Unpublished
Report). Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/
english/hyogo/gar
Kaslow, N. J. (2004). Competencies in professional psychology.
American Psychologist, 59(8), 774-781. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.774
Kent, R. (1994). Disaster preparedness. United Nations Disaster
Management Training Program, 11.
Khan, Y., O’Sullivan, T., Brown, A., Tracey, S., Gibson, J.,
Généreux, M., Henry, B., & Schwartz, B. (2018). Public
health emergency preparedness: a framework to promote
resilience. BMC Public Health, 18(1344), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6250-7
Liberman, J., Levin, V., & Luna-Bazaldua, D. (2020). Are
students still learning during COVID-19? Formative
assessment can provide the answer. UKFIET. Retrieved
from https://www.ukfiet.org/2020/are-students-still-
learning-during-covid-19-formative-assessment-can-
provide-the-answer/
McCabe, O. L., Barnett, D. J., Taylor, H. G., & Links, J. M.
(2010). Ready, willing, and able: a framework for improving
the public health emergency preparedness system. Disaster
Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 4(2), 161-168.
https://doi.org/10.1001/dmp-v4n2- hcn10003
 Cahapay / AQUADEMIA, 4(2), ep20018
Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Is COVID-19 the
gateway for digital learning in mathematics education?
Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep269.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/7949
Naciri, A., Baba, M. A., Achbani, A., & Kharbach, A. (2020).
Mobile learning in higher education: Unavoidable
alternative during COVID-19. Aquademia, 4(1), ep20016.
https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8227
Nelson, C., Lurie, N., Wasserman, J., & Zakowski, S. (2007).
Conceptualizing and defining public health emergency
preparedness. American Journal of Public Health, 97(1), 9-1.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.114496
New normal [Def.1]. (2009). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved on
May 1, 2020, from https://www.easybib.com/reference/
guide/apa/dictionary
ev
Ng, G. (2012) Disaster work in China: Tasks and competences
for social workers. Social Work Education, 31(5), 538-556.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.581277
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2014). Educational assessment
of students (8th ed.). Pearson Education: New York.
rr
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-
based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207-
216. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913
Obana, J. (2020, March 18). Could educational technology be a
ee
‘holy grail’ amid Covid-19 crisis? The Manila Times.
Retrieved from https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/03/18/
business/columnists-business/could-educational-
technology-be-a-holy-grail-amid-covid-19-crisis/704202/
Olivier, W. (2020). Education post-COVID-19: Customised
tp
blended learning is urgently needed. The Conversation.
Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/education-
post-covid-19-customised-blended-learning-is-urgently-
needed-138647
Patrinos, H. A., & Shmis, T. (2020). Can technology help
no
mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on education systems in
Europe and Central Asia? [Blog post]. Retrieved from
https://blogs.worldbank.org/europeandcentralasia/can-
technology-help-mitigate-impact-covid-19-education-
systems-europe-and
Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design. Sydney:
SRM Production Services.
int
Radwan, A., & Radwan, E. (2020). Social and economic impact
of school closure during the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic: A quick online survey in the Gaza Strip.
Pedagogical Research, 5(4), em0068. https://doi.org/
r
10.29333/pr/8254
ep
Pr
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3828966
5/5
Romano, L., Papa, L., & Saulle, E. (2012). Awesome lesson
ideas to integrate science across the curriculum. Teach
Hub. Retrieved from http://www.teachhub.com/integrate-
science-across-curriculum
ed
Secon, H., Woodward, W., & Mosher, D. (2020). A
comprehensive timeline of the new coronavirus pandemic,
from China’s first case to the present. Business Insider.
[online]. 23 May 2020, 12, 31. Retrieved on May 24, 2020
from https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-
iew
pandemic-timeline-history-major-events-2020-3
Shereen, M. A., Khan, S., Kazmi, A, Bashir, N., & Siddique, R.
(2020). COVID-19 infection: Origin, transmission, and
characteristics of human coronaviruses. Journal of
Advanced Research, 24, 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jare.2020.03.005
Sintema, E. J. (2020a). Effect of COVID-19 on the performance
of grade 12 students: Implications for STEM education.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 16(7), em1851. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/
7893
Sintema, E. J. (2020b). E-Learning and Smart Revision Portal
for Zambian primary and secondary school learners: A
digitalized virtual classroom in the COVID-19 era and
beyond. Aquademia, 4(2), ep20017. https://doi.org/
10.29333/aquademia/8253
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Toquero, C. M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for higher
education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine
context. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), em0063.
https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7947
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and
instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Uhernik, J. (1998). The counselor and the disaster response
team: An emerging role. In G. R. Walz, J.C. Bleuer, & R.K.
Yep (Eds.), Compelling counseling interventions: Celebrating
VISTAS’ fifth anniversary (pp. 313-321). Ann Arbor, MI:
Counseling Outfitters.
Usak, M., Masalimova, R. A., Cherdymova, I. E., & Shaidullina,
R. A. (2020). New playmaker in science education: COVID-
19. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(2), 180-185.
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.00
Valencia, M. I. C., Ali, M., Maryani, E., & Supriatna, N. (2018,
September). Integration of disaster risk reduction in the
curriculum of Philippine educational institution. Paper
presented at 3rd Asian Education Symposium. Retrieved
from https://download.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/
aes-18/55917397
Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education (JSHE)
ISSN 2746-623X, Vol 1, No 4, 2021, 281-296 https://doi.org/10.35912/jshe.v1i4.721

Exploring the practices of secondary school

teachers in preparing for classroom observation
amidst the new normal of education
Kevin Caratiquit1*, Reynel Pablo2
Lal-lo National High School, Lal-lo, Cagayan, Philippines1*
Licerio Antiporda Sr. National High School, Buguey, Cagayan, Philippines2
kevin.caratiquit@deped.gov.ph1*, reynel.pablo@deped.gov.ph2
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to explore the practices of secondary
public school teachers in preparing for classroom observation
amidst the new normal of education. The emphasis of this study
was drawn from the central question, "What are the practices of
secondary public school teachers in preparing for classroom
observation amidst the new normal of education?".
Research Methodology: This study used a qualitative research
design. It employed a phenomenology design to explore the
practices of secondary public school teachers in preparing the new
Article History
normal classroom observation.
Received on 25 June 2021
Revised on 15 August 2021 Results: Teachers believe that classroom observation is a
Accepted on 18 August 2021 measuring tool for achieving their professional goals or
performance level. They also think that classroom observation can
evaluate and assess the students' learning outcomes effectively and
efficiently.
Limitations: This study was limited to 22 secondary public school
teachers in Cagayan, Philippines.
Contribution: It can be helpful for teachers to improve their
teaching techniques, strategies, methods, and instructional
materials to be used amid this new normal of education.
Keyword: Classroom observation, Teachers' performance, New
normal education
How to Cite: Caratiquit, K., & Pablo, R. (2021). Exploring the
practices of secondary school teachers in preparing for classroom
observation amidst the new normal of education. Journal of Social,
Humanity, and Education, 1(4), 281-296.
1. Introduction
COVID-19 has been declared a public health emergency. This infection is caused by a newly
discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, formerly known as 2019-nCoV). It has attracted global
attention as a result of the pandemic's vast growth and the imperative of eradicating the virus and
flattening the infectious disease curve (Guo, Cao, Hong, Tan, Chen, Jin, Tan, Wang, & Yan, Y.
(2020). There have been school closures in many countries. Policymakers must decide whether to
close or keep schools open in the face of a crisis. In many families throughout the world,
homeschooling has a significant impact on parents' productive output, children's social lifestyles, and
learning. Education is moving online on an unprecedented scale.

Academic experts began considering the traditional method of face-to-face instruction in the
aftermath of the pandemic. They began researching distance education as a viable option for filling
the classroom void for three to four months, thereby lowering the risk of infectious disease among
learners prior to the resumption of traditional activities, mentioned by Kaur in 2020 (As cited by
Adnan & Anwar (2020). With that, as student assessments move online, this leads to significant

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

careful planning and uncertainty for everyone. Numerous assessments have been altogether canceled.
Notably, these disturbances will not occur infrequently. They are almost sure to have long-term
implications for the affected collaborators and to exacerbate inequality.

Distance learning emphasizes the lack of physical meetings between instructors and learners; these
can be influenced by digital communication in the form of visual media, the demonstration of text
material, illustrations, and images in real-time or on a delayed basis (Griffiths, 2016). For years, the
Philippine Education System remained traditional but has evolved to meet the needs of the new
generation. Indeed, long before this "new normal" became apparent, teachers and students were
already utilizing the internet, computers, and other technologies in the classroom. However, the
distinction is between a face-to-face class and the virtual classes, now the "new normal." The
Department of Education established three modes of delivery for learning in the new normal. These
are referred to as Blended Learning, Distance Learning, and Homeschooling.

Distance learning's first mode of instruction, which comes in three varieties. The first is modular
distance learning. A module is a unit of instruction that contains knowledge about a subject, focuses
on learning activities, and concludes with a certain form of evaluation to demonstrate comprehension
(Sweet, 2020, as cited in Cahapay, 2020). In modular distance learning, learners will receive modules
collected weekly by the teacher. Parents must make a dropbox, also known as a learning package, in
which the educator can store modules, and the parents can keep track of the learner's activities in this
mode.

The second is Online Distance Learning, where it necessitates those learners to have access to the
internet. In this mode, the teacher and student will connect virtually and perform their task either
synchronously or asynchronously. Synchronous learning can take place online through classroom
lessons, instant messaging, and online education, whereas asynchronous learning can occur via blog
readings, documented videos, and dialogue boards (Lawless, 2020). Nevertheless, a recent
investigation found that most students dislike online education (Hernando-Malipot, 2020). Lastly,
there are Television and Radio-Based Instructions; these modalities of instruction are ideal for self-
motivated learners.

Blended learning is the second mode of instruction. It incorporates various techniques, including face-
to-face instruction, online strategies, and technology (Graham, 2019, as cited in Tupas & Linas-
Laguda, 2020). Additionally, it is a synthesis of constructivist and electronic teaching principles
(Johnson, List-Ivankovic, Eboh, Ireland, Adams, Mowatt, & Martindale, 2010). Due to its advantages
in assisting a diverse student body, it is commonly referred to as "hybrid learning." It may not require
internet access, and parents also must pick up teaching materials at the school. Ultimately, and maybe
most significantly, there is the option of homeschooling. This method of instruction is efficient if the
student has a mentor or a parent who is qualified and accessible always to assist the child's learning.
In accordance with that, this timely study explored the practices of secondary public school teachers
in preparing for classroom observation amidst the new normal of education. It is believed that
secondary public school teachers' practices in preparing the classroom observation in the new normal
will encourage teachers to improve their teaching techniques, strategies, methods, and instructional
materials to be used amid this pandemic.

Research Questions
This study was qualitative research that focused on exploring the practices of secondary public school
teachers in preparing for classroom observation amidst the new normal of education. Its emphasis was
drawn from the central question, "What are the practices of secondary public school teachers in
preparing for classroom observation amidst the new normal of education?"

Specifically, it sought to answer the following queries:

1. What strategies, techniques, methods, and tools do the teachers use to prepare for classroom
observation amidst the new normal of education?

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

282

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

 2. How do the teachers deliver their demonstration teaching for the new normal classroom
observation?
3. What do the teachers think of how their new normal classroom observation tools are rated?
4. How important is the new normal classroom observation for the teachers?
5. What are the problems do the teachers encounter in preparing for classroom observation amidst
the new normal of education?

2. Literature review
Teachers and students are being retrained and retooled to support schools' adoption of distance
learning delivery modalities, according to the Department of Education (2021). Changes in the
delivery of education influence the obligations and performance standards of teachers. Teachers'
expectations must be documented in a more context-sensitive Results-based Performance
Management System (RPMS).

As stipulated in DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015, RPMS stands for the Results-based Performance
Management System (RPMS). DepEd's vision, objective, values, and strategic goals are emphasized
throughout the organization. It also manages, monitors, and measures teacher performance and
organizational needs. The department wants to provide feedback on employees' progress and
accomplishments and track their progress against goals to determine if any corrective actions are
needed. Dizon, San Pedro, Munsayac, Padilla, and Pascual (2018) mentioned that DepEd strengthens
its performance and responsibility culture while adhering to its overall organizational directive,
vision, and mission by adopting the RPMS as its Strategic Performance Management System
(SPMS). According to Department of Education (2015), corporate objectives and performance
evaluation should be linked. Indicators are critical for monitoring individual performance and its
effect on company goals.

In line with this, DepEd classroom observation in the new normal uses an instrument called the
Classroom Observation Tool (COT) with three indicators: 1.) "Apply knowledge of content within
and across curriculum teaching areas." 2.) "Plan and deliver teaching strategies that are responsive to
the special educational needs of learners under challenging circumstances, including isolation, chronic
illness, displacement due to armed conflict, urban resettlement or disasters, child abuse, and child
labor practices." 3) "Select, develop, organize and use appropriate teaching and learning resources,
including ICT, to address learning goals." The COT is an interactive platform that gives vital
highlights and does not require complex inferences or judgments made by an observer. It is highly
objective and specific and can be used to code observed behavior easily.

Classroom observation is a critical component of the RMPS because it delivers instructions and
assesses learners' behavior. As the term suggests, learners observe behaviors and events recorded
(Impoff, 2020). It employs various instruments to facilitate the effective collection of data. Some of
the tools are also used in research, and they may include classroom observation schedules and stalling
observation schedules. Through these instruments, educators can stimulate change and gather more
valuable information while providing clear evidence and collecting data from naturalistic education
settings. Accordingly, this improves education and enhances understanding. A classroom teacher
invites a master teacher, head teacher, or the school head into their classroom to observe. Whether
they are master teachers or beginning teachers, all the teachers involved could dialogue together and
learn through a post-conference.

There are several relevant studies related to exploring the practices of secondary public school
teachers in preparing for classroom observation amidst the new normal of education. Barrogo (2020)
conducted one of these pertinent studies, analyzing teachers' attitudes toward the standardized
classroom observation tool. The researcher used a descriptive design in this study, with a survey as
the primary instrument for data collection. The findings indicated that a single standardized classroom
observation tool could be used to assist teachers in evaluating their performance and providing an
improvement plan, thereby continuing to improve teachers' preparation and competency.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-196

283

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Castillo (2021) conducted a qualitative study to understand junior high school teachers' perceptions
and experiences of conducting class observation during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. The
study did identify remarkable perceptions of junior high school educators regarding the importance of
conducting the class observation. A phenomenological research design is used in conjunction with an
accommodating interview with 15 teachers as study informants. The study found that instructional
leaders and teachers could coordinate and plan class observation tasks to benefit both parties.

Meanwhile, Garcia, Narca, Mariano, and Fronda (2020) determined the extent of teaching standards
expertise of Senior High School-Accountancy, Business, and Management (ABM) teachers by
utilizing the Classroom Observation Tool (COT). The study also examined the relationship between
significant differences in teachers' performance levels based on their profile variables. However, the
result proved that profile variables and grade level taught to have no significant difference in
performance.

Cabigao (2021) portrayed a teacher-approachable class observation post-conference structure based

on Carl Rogers' Self Theory, which emphasizes a person-centered approach, with the self as the
central focus of personality research. The framework begins with teachers sharing personal lived
experiences as conscious awareness during their teaching presentation. Educators are entitled to
discuss themselves in a welcoming and approachable environment to instill a positive atmosphere for
the duration of the post-conference portion of the classroom observation.

Wairimu (2016) also investigated teachers' perceptions of head teachers' classroom observation
practices in Nakuru North district government elementary schools. Classroom observation and the
head teacher checking students' workbooks were examined in relative to educators' perceptions of
duty performance. The research design was a descriptive survey. The study surveyed twenty school
administrators and ninety-four teachers. According to the research, school leaders visit classrooms
and convene conferences to resolve conflicts. Audits of teachers' professional documents were
conducted to ascertain the amount of work completed and the comments made by the majority of
school leaders. Teachers agreed that instructional supervision enhances teaching and learning and that
head teachers manage classrooms, which they viewed positively.

Moreover, by utilizing classroom observation tools throughout the teaching practice, an individual's
behavior is enriched cumulatively. As a result, knowledge about the new behavior influences the
actual rate of learning. Indeed, the teacher's comprehension learning process accelerates slightly,
resulting in enhanced behavioral changes. Education World (2021) stated that teacher classroom
observation would be included in the pool of opportunities for professional development. However,
new online or other distance learning protocols require teachers to change their daily tasks,
responsibilities, and accountability quickly. During the COVID crisis, educators may be needed to
create new formative or summative methods for monitoring students' development. Additionally, De
Villa and Manalo (2020) performed a relevant study to examine the secondary teachers' lived
experiences before the New Normal implemented distance learning. Specifically, it sought to
ascertain (1) teachers' preparation for the new normal of education, (2) the obstacles they face as they
prepare for distance learning, and (3) their coping mechanisms for overcoming those obstacles. The
findings indicated that educators make vital arrangements to embrace distance learning as education
changes to a new normal. While they face obstacles that may impair their job, they can adapt to the
new normal and complete their responsibilities. Before implementing distance learning, school
authorities should collaborate with teachers to address their resource and training needs to deliver
quality education.

Following this, Arrieta, Dancel, and Agbisit (2020) examined and comprehended junior high school
science teachers' difficulties and perspectives following another term or nearly three months of
continuing education in the new normal. The investigation discovered that science teachers had been
equipped and the curriculum had been altered. The instructional materials were strengthened, and
numerous obstacles such as student behavior, task distribution and operation, a limited amount of time
for competency integration, and student participation were overcome.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

284

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Another study, Butron (2021) evaluated teachers' responsiveness, emotional reactions, and activities
to ascertain the level of support they require at home to perform the task and responsibilities
efficiently and effectively in the new normal of education. Educators report completing daily tasks,
according to the findings. Despite working from home, teachers maintain a connection to the school,
and their primary responsibility under the new educational standard is to evaluate participants'
progress.

Also, Joshi, Vinay, M., and Bhaskar (2020) analyzed the strategies used by higher education
institutions to continue imparting education during a lockdown. Additionally, the study discusses the
difficulties that teachers face when teaching online from their homes. The outcomes indicated that
higher education institutions (HEIs) had held numerous programs to impart education in this
pandemic situation. However, from the teacher's perspective, these initiatives have been a failure.
Teachers face various challenges when teaching online, including a lack of technical resources,
interruptions from family, a lack of training, clarity, direction, and a lack of knowledge.

Furthermore, Ali and Kaur (2020) assessed how teachers coped with online learning after nationwide
school closures. They used a meta-synthesis methodology and cited relevant literature to understand
the essence of continuous learning during these unexpected times. The findings indicate that teachers
were gradually adopting aspects of online learning. Similarly, Barrera, Jaminal, and Arcilla (2020)
surveyed their students and teachers regarding readiness to flexible learning in the new normal of
education. The results discovered that teachers should be trained in online teaching, and the education
system should be revised to cater to the paradigm shift.

3. Research methodology
Research design
This study used a qualitative research design. It employed a phenomenology design to explore the
practices of secondary public school teachers in preparing the new normal classroom observation.
Phenomenology was used because it centers on the lived experiences of the secondary public school
teachers on their encounter with the new normal classroom observation.

Participants of the Study

The sources of data were the two secondary public school teachers in Cagayan, Philippines. These
public national high schools have Junior and Senior High Programs offering the general education
curriculum and the SHS curriculum mandated by the Department of Education. Purposive sampling
was used with the following distribution for each of the schools:

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents

Position and Public School 1 Public School 2 Total
Department
Teacher –I (JHS) 2 2 4
Teacher –II (JHS) 0 2 2
Teacher –III (JHS) 3 2 5
Master Teacher (JHS) 1 2 3
Teacher –I (SHS) 1 0 1
Teacher –II (SHS) 3 3 6
Teacher-III (SHS) 1 0 1
TOTAL 11 11 22

Instrumentation
A formal written communication addressed to the school heads contained the request for approval to
conduct the research. When communication was approved, the researchers through the channel asked
permission from both schools' junior and senior high school coordinators to collect the data. The
interview protocols were self-administered to fully consented participants from the two schools using
Google Meet.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-196

285

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

All responses from the two secondary schools were automatically recorded in the database and
checked initially to verify missing and incorrect inputs. Since the researchers utilized Google Meet in
collecting the data in the study, they have undergone recoding with the consent of the participants to
ensure that data needed are appropriately categorized. The study results were communicated in
generic form to all participants, other than acknowledging their participation. General
recommendations were stated, and directions were proposed.

The instrument used in gathering data for this research was mainly an interview protocol which
composed of two sections, including (1) the Profile and (2) the Practices of the Participants as what
methods, strategies, techniques, instructional materials, and evaluation system used in preparing the
new normal classroom observation

Analysis of data
The qualitative data collected was analyzed using content analysis in thematic manner, a qualitative
descriptive approach wherein data is quantified in content analysis. In contrast to the tradition of
quantitative data analysis, it does not imply that phrases and concepts are transformed into numerical
values for data analysis purposes. In some cases, however, it may mean that the repetition of the same
or comparable codes in the transcription is deemed necessary for developing a category or for
organizing the theme's structure. It is anticipated that the underlying codes will influence the
significance of the theme in the given data. Something significant regarding the research question will
be captured as a result. It was decided to use this method of data analysis because the researchers
wanted to collect information that showed that a specific narrative element was repeated across all of
the responses they received.

4. Results and discussions

After conducting a qualitative analysis of the responses from the 22 participants, four major themes
emerged from the data. Each theme has corresponding sub-themes that were culled from the
subsequent thematic analysis.

Figure 1. Themes and sub-themes

Theme 1. Importance of classroom observation in the new normal

Two sub-themes were identified by the researchers from the responses of the participants. The
importance of classroom observation in the new normal was categorized into (1) Professional
Improvement and (2) Student Learning and Development.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

286

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Professional improvement
Participants 2, 3, 11, 12, and 18 stated, "Classroom observation is a way to improve teaching skills
and teacher quality." They also mentioned, "It is another way for us to identify various tasks that the
teacher can perform and its development needs. A classroom observation is beneficial for identifying
those who require more assistance.". In addition, they said, "It is a basis in planning an in-service
training for teachers."

In addition, Participants 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 22 said, "It is useful to assess the teachers'
performance and evaluate the teachers' strengths and weaknesses in the teaching-learning process in
the new normal." They also added, "It serves as one of the measuring tools in achieving your
teacher/professional goals or performance level of a teacher. It may not measure all, but it will help
us in becoming better educators."

Moreover, Participants 15, 16, and 17 stated, "It helps me perform well and makes me grow
professionally. It is essential because it keeps me on track." A teacher's observations in the classroom
lead to improved teaching practices, especially this trying times. It is also a useful strategy that
teachers can employ to assist them in improving their classroom management skills.

Halim, Wahid, and Halim (2018) stated in their study that classroom observation promotes interaction
among coworkers to enhance teacher instruction and student learning. Classroom observation
feedback is an efficient strategy of informing teachers about their school environment and supporting
their ongoing professional development.

Student learning and development

Participants 1, 2, 10, 12, and 21 said, "It is used to deliver quality education to the learners. It is a tool
that helps teachers reflect on their performance to enhance the teaching methods and strategies to be
utilized in teaching the learners in the new normal." They mentioned, too, "It is a way to effectively
and efficiently evaluate and assess the students' learning outcomes." Teacher observation is a valuable
tool for professional growth and, as a result, for improving student outcomes. It also enhances the
teacher's teaching abilities, becoming a more effective and efficient public school teacher.

According to Pecoraro (2020), having access to a high-quality education enables students to

understand their school subjects better. It will improve their motivation to learn, which will result in
improved performance in class. Additionally, he stated that students would gain more understanding
and knowledge using effective learning practices. It will prepare them to be self-sufficient in any
condition, both inside and outside of school.

Theme 2. Tools utilized in classroom observation

Three sub-themes were identified by the researchers from the responses of the participants. The tools
utilized for classroom observation were categorized into: (1) Technological Devices, (2) Emerging
Applications, and (3) Instructional Plans.

Technological devices
Participants 3, 14, 15, 18, and 19 stated, "Laptop or smartphones/android phones and internet access
are the basic devices needed in doing the classroom observation in the new normal." They also added,
"Smart TV, if available, is also suggested to be used for a wider screen viewing." In addition, they
also said that "Using ring light will make the video presentation more effective and clearer for
viewing."

Due to the rapid growth in communication technology users, new technologies and education are
required to develop new student learning activities. In this pandemic, information technologies
devices can help students access study classes, interact with or converse with instructors, and ask
other students queries.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-196

287

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Friyanto, Prasetyo, and Albar (2020), in their study, "Technology-based education," reported that
Learners were incredibly supportive of the use of smartphones and computers to obtain lectures and
education, based on the current survey which was conducted by the Educause Center for Applied
Research (ECAR). According to a university survey, 67 percent of the students agreed that technology
is critical for academic activities in classroom instruction.

Hence, more excellent technology capabilities are improved leverage in the teaching process, and both
old and contemporary techniques impact learning results. It is essential to the curriculum's
effectiveness that it is kept up to date by incorporating newly created technology tools and equipment.

Emerging applications
Participants 12, 16, 17, 19, and 22 said, "Filmora, Kinemaster, Power Director, and VivaCut are
highly recommended for video editing software."

While fighting this pandemic, video lessons have developed, with most teachers noticing an
improvement in remote instruction. Based on ONVU Learning (2021), when video lessons are used in
classrooms, they significantly impact the student because teachers can evaluate their lessons without
face-to-face contact. The idea of sharing recordings with even more than one colleague or student
enables more discussion about the most effective methods for teaching specific topics or classes.

In addition, Participants 1, 8, 10, and 20 stated, "Interactive games were also employed in the video
lesson presentation." As reported in the study of Lieberman (2006), utilizing games to enhance the
learning process is highly effective. It was discovered that people gain knowledge when asked to
think, explore, and respond in games. Frequently, games require learners to solve complex problems.
They interact with the team environment, develop their abilities, and practice their abilities.
Additionally, they have the freedom to attempt and fail before succeeding and receiving support.
Learners adapt to game difficulties, ensuring that they remain challenging but not excessively
difficult.

Meanwhile, Participants 1, 4, 8, 10, and 11 said, "As a 21st-century educator, I utilized different
online educational platforms such as Google Meet, Google Form, and Google Classroom in teaching.
I would maximize the use of online educational technologies. I used Google Meet, Kahoot, and
Quizziz for the assessment and PowerPoint in discussion and video clips to motivate my learners as
an add-on. As a teacher-innovator, I incorporated interactive platforms and games into my work.
Several educators who've been a completely remote struggle to strike a balance between instructional
pedagogy and engagement. Additionally, I facilitated discussions and teamwork and ensured that time
was set aside for socioemotional learning. I always make an effort to be accessible and adaptable."

During this new normal of education, the utilization of information and communication technology
(ICT) facilitates cooperation. Bringing students together to discuss and debate their work aids in
communication skills. ICT motivates learning as society's demand for new technology has not
forgotten about learners and their needs. Technology is both inspiring and encouraging to learners in
the classroom.

ICT improves student engagement and effective learning. Learners become more engaged in their
work when ICT is incorporated into lessons. Technology allows new ways to make learning more fun
and enjoyable by teaching novel concepts. As a result of this increased engagement, they will be able
to maintain knowledge more effectively and efficiently (ICTE Solutions, 2020).

Besides, Participants 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22 shared that "The module was supplemented with
video material. By using cloud computing like Google Drive, I delivered or sent recorded video
lessons online. I recorded a video lesson. I utilized the different applications in video presentation
wherein the teacher is speaking to the camera, and photographs were also added. Through the video
lesson, the topic has been explained clearly. I also attended webinars on different video editing tools
and software. Learning more about video editing is one of the strategies I used in preparing the New

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

288

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Normal Classroom Evaluation."

Nowadays, both sides of the classroom can benefit from the use of video learning. Video lessons,
once completed, can be reused and updated to save time at the school for live discussions and student
engagements.

EdSurge (2020), in his essay "The Importance of Videos for Teaching and Learning," mentioned that
In studies, video learning had been shown to have positive effects on a variety of levels, including
greater productivity and comprehensible input, as well as the ability of the students to enable
discussions and address problems on their own. EdSurge (2020) also mentioned that video allows
both the learner and the educator to interact one-on-one without ever being in the same room together.
Teachers in general and special education can benefit from video training because it allows them to
teach the students at their own pace, which helps close the training gap. Multiple viewings of a video
are recommended for students to gain and keep learning material. Captions, for example, make it
possible for deaf students to follow along with the video.

Instructional plans
According to Participants 2, 11, and 13, "Daily lesson log or individual workweek plan is still
essential in conducting a classroom observation in the new normal. I still used the lesson plan as a
guide. I am drafting my lesson plan first before drafting my script." A teacher with a plan is a more
confident teacher, according to Jensen (2001). They know what to do when and how. Everything has
been gathered and decided upon beforehand, so the lesson will run more smoothly. The teacher will
not end up wasting class time flipping through the workbook or making photocopies. A confident
teacher will inspire more compassion from students, reduce discipline issues, and make them more
open to learning.

Participants 1 and 13 mentioned that "I still used 4As Lesson Plan as a format in preparing my lesson.
My approach in my lesson is 4As, the Activity, Analysis, Abstraction, and Application." Even in this
educational crisis, educators must plan their lessons daily or weekly in advance and employ the most
effective teaching methods. Attending classes without a study guide has a negative effect on both
teachers and students. When an educator is not adequately prepared, they project an image of
incompetence and unprofessionalism to their colleagues, administrative staff, and students. (Impoff,
2020). Collaboration between students and teachers is essential in promoting quality and creative
learning experiences, and the 4As may be one of the most helpful features in this endeavor. Kolb's
Experiential Learning Theory is the foundation of this approach, which aims to approach the child as
a whole. It also recognizes the student's previous schemes. It integrates them into a new one, so this
structure will likely bring out what was stored and that what has been missing would be filled in
eventually, leading to a more in-depth understanding of the lesson content.

On the other hand, Participants 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 said, "Classroom Observation Tool in the new
normal is still important as a guide during the observation process." According to Department of
Education (2021), for SY 2020-2021, the adjustments to RPMS, its tools, procedures, and protocols
reflect the current system in place at the Department of Education to govern teachers' functions. The
chosen RPMS objectives are intended to assist teachers in adapting and responding more rapidly and
effectively to developing circumstances linked with the pandemic's challenges.

Moreover, Participants 4 and 11 mentioned, "Aside from the Classroom Observation Tool as a guide,
Performance Monitoring Plan and Observation Note are also needed in conducting classroom
observation in the new normal." Observation is an effective means of observing a teacher's progress.
When utilized correctly, it also supports teachers by providing a comprehensive picture, and thus
specific objectives can be set. Providing feedback is a complex skill, which needs to be learned and
honed. Monitoring aims to track, identify, and improve project implementation to meet project goals
and objectives. Continuous observation, structured documentation, as well as critical reflection are all
part of monitoring.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-196

289

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Theme 3. Teaching-learning process
The teaching-learning process was categorized into (1) Practices in Preparing the Classroom
Observation and (2) Learning Delivery.

Practices in preparing the classroom observation

According to Participants 6 and 10, "Upon preparing my lesson, I consider the different learning
styles of my learners. In my subject, I utilized a team-based learning approach, a group collaboration
teaching practice used to engage students' knowledge."

Several research results show that student learning styles are highly dependent on the teaching
methods employed by the teacher. For different learning styles, these teaching methods are
ineffective. In other words, the most effective learning method for students proved to be less effective
for students with different learning styles.

Students' preferred learning styles can encourage them to reflect on their preferred methods of
instruction, giving them a greater sense of belonging and control over their education. Learning styles
serve as a reminder that each student is unique. Finally, they can increase teachers' enjoyment of
teaching and help them develop their professional skills (Colors-NewYork, 2019). Additionally,
cooperative learning can effectively motivate students, promote active learning, and develop students'
critical reasoning, interaction, and decision-making skills. On the other hand, if teamwork is not
properly planned and facilitated, it can be frustrating for both students and instructors.

In addition, Participants 14 and 21 shared that "I applied various tools and strategies to deliver the
lesson, such as integrating online interactive games with the learners to gain interest in the topic. I
gave a formative assessment to every end of the topic to assess their learning. Online quizzes were
utilized. Before you start, it is important to know your capabilities in terms of ICT skills. Also, you
must still find ways on how your video lesson to be more appealing and interactive to the learners."

ICT could indeed improve the value of education in various aspects, including by enhancing student
motivation and engagement, enabling the acquisition of core concepts, and improving teacher
instruction, among other things. When used appropriately, ICTs are transformative tools that can
facilitate the transition to a learner-centered environment (Life Learners Academy 2018). New normal
education through ICT can enable teachers and students, facilitate change, and promote 21st-century
competencies. It can allow teachers and students to shift the focus of teaching and learning processes
from focusing on the teacher to the students. It will increase students' learning gains by encouraging
and developing their resourcefulness, problem-solving abilities, and informational reasoning skills.

Learning delivery
Participants 1, 5, and 16 mentioned that "In terms of learning delivery, it is the same as I have during
the Face-Face. I start it with motivation, discussion, and activities. It starts with introducing the
teacher, checking previous activities, reviewing past lessons, discussing the new lesson, and
reinforcing activities. I made sure that my lesson plan was well crafted."

A well-prepared teacher is well on their way to providing their students with a successful instructional
experience. Developing engaging lessons takes a significant amount of time and effort. To succeed as
a new teacher, you must be willing to put in the necessary effort. When lessons are delivered
effectively, students' comprehension increases, resulting in increased student participation and an
overall increase in the quality of student work.

Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that even the most carefully planned lesson will be ineffective
without engaging delivery procedures and classroom discipline techniques. All teachers should
acknowledge that they are not self-contained islands. The district's educational philosophy and
uniqueness should serve as the guiding force for the classroom. Every teacher's classroom
management effort must reflect the school's code of discipline that should be fair, responsible, and
meaningful (Kean Universit, 2019).

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

290

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Theme 4. Teachers' impression towards classroom observation in the new normal
The impression of teachers towards classroom observation in the new normal was categorized in the
following: (1) Remarks of Teachers to the Classroom Observation in the New Normal, (2) Teachers'
Options in Delivering Instructions, and (3) Implications Regarding the Overall Quality of the
Demonstration Teachings and the New Normal COTs.

Remarks of teachers to the classroom observation in the new normal

Participants 1, 2, 4, and 9 stated that "I think that the new classroom observation is a unique
experience and challenge for teachers. Classroom observation serves as our guide in assessing
ourselves and planning for the following year's activities. It is effective because teachers with so much
passion prepare it." Moreover, Participants 10 and 25 stated that "Performance evaluation will
improve the teaching process of teachers. Thus, learners will be benefited because their teachers are
improving when it comes to their teaching process despite pandemic. The formulated evaluation
system is suited to the needs of the teachers who are in distance learning gear. It is still appropriate
to conduct performance evaluation."

Currently, observation is a reliable means for assessing and observing a teacher's progress as they
learn their craft. Because observation provides such a comprehensive picture and allows for
establishing particular objectives, it can also be used to assist teachers if done correctly. Observation
and criticism are highly multifaceted skills that require extensive training and practice to master
appropriately.

As Halim et al. (2018) mentioned in their study, it is critical to observe classroom activities to make
the teaching-learning process more visible. In order to assist teachers in improving their effectiveness
in the classroom, this program provides them with constructive and critical feedback on their effective
teaching and teaching methods. Education professionals must pay close attention to the interactions
between teachers and students in the classroom because these interactions can impact the learning
prospects available to students.

Teachers' options in delivering instructions

According to Participants 5, 8, 15, and 19, "I prefer a video lesson. It starts with introducing the
teacher, checking previous activities, reviewing past lessons, discussing the new lesson, and
reinforcing activities. Observation of a video lesson- easy to access anytime, easy to deliver, and use
in many ways. Observation of a video lesson is easier to prepare than the other option, and it does not
require an internet connection. I prefer observing a video lesson because I can edit the video to
remove mistakes before having it rated."

Students can access video lessons from any location by using their laptops, tablets, or smartphones.
Learners take pleasure in the learning process at their own pace. Video lectures can be uploaded to
YouTube and then shared with students via a link.

Video lectures are a well-known method of distance learning. However, they can be incorporated into
one's classroom instruction. Such a novel educational approach will engage students and inspire
colleagues. Additionally, during interactive video lectures, people can access additional valuable
resources and materials for self-study. Additionally, you can record another lecture to supplement the
class activities. (ISpring, 2021).

Implications regarding the overall quality of the demonstration teachings and the new normal COTs
As mentioned by Participants 17, 20, 21, and 22, "Classroom observation can be done maybe just
once to package the whole performance of the teacher in a year. For the teachers to be observed, this
is, shall I say, another burden because instead of focusing on his subject matter, they will prepare all
year round for his classroom observation. Before we can easily assess the students after the lesson's
discussion, we cannot do it immediately because there is no interaction between them. Before, there
are many criteria to assess the teacher's performance level, but it is simpler and less criterion today.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-196

291

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Performance evaluation is suited to our present situation and helped our learners amidst the crisis. It
is not easy to evaluate teachers online as to their effort and readiness while teaching. DepEd finds
means and ways to address teachers teaching problems. Observation via video lesson because it is
where I am most comfortable. I am happy and contented with my rating. It is a good and reliable tool.
Before, the rater evaluates teachers' performance. Unlike in the new normal, the rater hardly
evaluates actual performance because everything is based on videos. The number of COT was indeed
reduced to half, but the preparation for the two COTs is more challenging. It will pave the way for the
school administration and the whole department and the needs of teachers' improvement in terms of
delivering quality education without face to face. Classroom observation is much harder compared to
before. I realized the importance of having the learners in face-to-face classroom observation to
assess the teachers' performance."

To ensure that educators are prepared for the new normal classroom observation, both teachers and
observers agreed on some predetermined indicators prior to the observation taking place. Another
study discovered that an effective supervision process entails three steps: planning for observation,
conducting observation, and tracking the observation results post-observation. Classroom observation
is the process of sitting in on another teacher's class and observing, learning, and expressing what is
going on. Additionally, a classroom observation is described as evaluating and documenting specific
details about what occurs in a classroom setting. Teachers are frequently exposed to innovative
teaching methods that they were unaware of throughout the classroom observation process prior to the
observation. As a result, observation is essential throughout a teacher's professional life and career.
The further problem is that many educators, even the most experienced ones, seem to be utterly
ignorant about the nature of their interconnections with individual students. One of the main
objectives of classroom observation was to assist teachers in improving the quality of their instruction
in the classroom. Teachers can develop a greater understanding of how their classroom operates by
conducting reviews and implementing desired changes. Additionally, teachers are aware of their
strengths and weaknesses and constantly look to improve their instruction (Halim et al., 2018).

5. Conclusion
With the preceding findings, the researchers concluded the following: first, observing classrooms is a
way to improve teaching skills and teacher quality. It is another way to identify different tasks that the
teacher can perform and their development needs. It also helps identify those who need help getting
the extra training they need to be effective. Classroom observation in the new normal is a tool that
enables teachers to reflect on their performance to improve the methods and strategies used to teach
learners this time of the pandemic. Second, this pandemic, a laptop or smartphone or android phone,
and internet access, are the primary devices required for conducting classroom observations in the
new normal. Another, in preparing a video lesson, video editing software such as Filmora,
KineMaster, Power Director, and VivaCut are highly recommended by teachers. Keeping a daily
lesson log or creating an individual workweek plan is still necessary for classroom observation in the
new normal. They also integrate 4As teaching approach and information and communications
technology (ICT) in their class to assist their interactions with students. Also, teachers are constantly
checking the learning styles of their learners to incorporate best practice strategies into their activities,
curriculum, and assessment procedures. They make sure lessons are meaningful, and their lessons are
well crafted. Finally, when teachers observe a classroom for the first time, they encounter a novel and
challenging experience. They will benefit from improved teaching processes because of performance
evaluation. As a necessary consequence, learners will benefit as their teachers improve their teaching
abilities in the face of the pandemic. Additionally, they prefer video lessons because they are
convenient, deliver, and utilize in various ways. Video lessons are more accessible to prepare than
other types of lessons. A classroom observation is defined for teachers as the process of evaluating
and documenting detailed information about a classroom. Classroom observation frequently aids in
their exposure to novel teaching techniques that may not have occurred previously.

Recommendation
With the conclusions drawn, the researchers recommended the following:

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

292

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

 1. Class observers, such as the school head and master teachers, should be adequately trained to
provide the most effective supervisory observations and guidance.
2. Schools should have a follow-up intervention that will focus on improving the teaching-
learning process. Discussions about the latest RMPS standards, video editing, and photo
editing should be part of the in-service training for educators.
3. Teachers should be given additional load and internet allowance for online classes. Teacher
software licenses, such as Adobe Cloud and Filmora, should be provided by the Department
of Education to all teachers.
4. Webinars regarding the different teaching techniques and strategies on conducting classes
this time of new normal should be initiated by the school every quarter for continuing
education of teachers.
5. Future researchers may conduct a comparative study on the implementation of the RPMS
before and during this new normal.

Limitation and study forward

This study is limited to 22 secondary public school teachers in Cagayan, Philippines.

References
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students
perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 1(2), 45-51.
https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.2020261309
Ali, W., & Kaur, M. (2020). Mediating educational challenges amidst covid-19 pandemic. Asia
Pacific Institute of Advanced Research, 6(2), 40-57. https://apiar.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/4_APJCECT_V6_I2_2020_pp.40-57.pdf
Arrieta, G. S., Dancel, J. C., & Agbisit, M. P. (2020). Teaching Science in The New Normal:
Understanding The Experiences of Junior High School Science Teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan
MIPA, 21(2), 146-162. http://jurnal.fkip.unila.ac.id/index.php/jpmipa/article/view/21460
Barrera, K. I., Jaminal, B., & Arcilla, F. J. (2020). Readiness for flexible learning amidst COVID 19
pandemic of Saint Michael college of Caraga, Philippines. SMCC Higher Education Research
Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.18868/cte.02.060120.01
Barrogo, S.D. (2020). Teachers' Perception of Standardized Classroom Observation
Tool. International Journal of Academic Pedagogical Research (IJAPR), 4(7), 1-
5. https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.13603
Butron, V. (2021). Responsiveness, Emotions, and Tasks of Teachers in the New Normal of
Education in the Philippines. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews,
2(4), 310-315. https://www.ijrpr.com/uploads/V2ISSUE4/IJRPR378.pdf
Cabigao, J. R. (2021). Class Observation Post-Conference Framework for Teachers. International
Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2), 256-258.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349692651_Class_Observation_Post-
Conference_Framework_for_Teachers
Cahapay, M. B. (2020). Philippine basic education learning continuity plan: Creating space for
Indigenous Peoples toward inclusive post-COVID-19 education. International Journal of
Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning, 2(1), ep2102.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346474579_Philippine_Basic_Education_Learning_
Continuity_Plan_Creating_Space_for_Indigenous_Peoples_toward_Inclusive_post-COVID-
19_Education
Castillo, E. C. (2021). Adjusting to the New Normal Education: Perceptions and Experiences of
Fellow Junior High School Teachers on the Conduct of Class Observation this COVID-19
Pandemic. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research, 5(4), 41-44.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eleanor-Castillo-
2/publication/350515482_Adjusting_to_the_New_Normal_Education_Perceptions_and_Expe
riences_of_Fellow_Junior_High_School_Teachers_on_the_Conduct_of_Class_Observation_t
his_COVID-19_Pandemic/

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-196

293

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Colors-NewYork. (2019). How do school buildings affect learning? Colors-NewYork.com –
Reconstructing the story of humanity's past. https://colors-newyork.com/how-do-school-
buildings-affect-learning/
Department of Education. (2021). [DM-PHROD-2021-0010] guidelines on the implementation of
RPMS for SY2020-2021_signed.pdf. Google Docs.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wm6qwntEPMqP-5ZWjk1CrkZMmZbLbkj4/view
Department of Education. (2021). RM-s2021-024 - DepEd Region VIII. DepEd Region VIII.
https://region8.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RM-s2021-024.pdf
Department of Education. (2020, July 22). Ano ang pwedeng learning delivery modality?
https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/07/22/ano-ang-pwedeng-learning-delivery-modality/
Department of Education. (2015, February 6). February 6, 2015 DO 2, S. 2015 – Guidelines on the
establishment and implementation of the results-based performance management system
(RPMS) in the Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/02/06/do-2-s-2015-
guidelines-on-the-establishment-and-implementation-of-the-results-based-performance-
management-system-rpms-in-the-department-of-education/
De Villa, J., & Manalo, F. K. (2020). Secondary teachers' preparation, challenges, and Coping
mechanism in the pre-implementation of Distance learning in the new normal. IOER
International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(3), 1-11.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Franz-
Manalo/publication/344599746_Secondary_Teachers'_Preparation_Challenges_and_Coping_
Mechanism_in_the_Pre_-
Implementation_of_Distance_Learning_in_the_New_Normal/links/5f836d9d299bf1b53e20bc
8d/Secondary-Teachers-Preparation-Challenges-and-Coping-Mechanism-in-the-Pre-
Implementation-of-Distance-Learning-in-the-New-Normal.pdf
Dizon, A. D., San Pedro, A. B., Munsayac, M. M., Padilla, J., & Pascual, M. C. (2018). Level of
implementation of the results-based performance management system in the Department of
Education division of gapan city, Philippines. International Journal of Research -
GRANTHAALAYAH, 6(1), 484-503. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v6.i1.2018.1658
EdSurge. (2019, October 2). The importance of videos for teaching and learning. Giving Compass.
https://givingcompass.org/article/the-importance-of-videos-for-teaching-and-learning/
Friyanto, A., Prasetyo, I., & Albar, C. N. (2020). Technology-based education. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1764 (2021) 012193. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-
6596/1764/1/012193/pdf
Garcia, R. E., Narca, J. A., Narca, J. A., Mariano, L. K., & Fronda, J. G. (2020). Analysis of senior
high school -accountancy, business and management Strand teachers performance.
International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 8(1), 131-137.
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i1.2020.260
Graham, C. R. "Current Research in Blended Learning." In M. G. Moore and W. C. Diehl (Eds),
Handbooks of Distance Learning (4th, 2019, pp. 173-188). New York NY: Routledge.
Griffiths, B. (2016). A Faculty's Approach to Distance Learning Standardization. Teaching and
Learning in Nursing, 11(4), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2016.04.004
Guo, Y., Cao, Q., Hong, Z., Tan, Y., Chen, S., Jin, H., Tan, K., Wang, D., & Yan, Y. (2020). The
origin, transmission and clinical therapies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak
– an update on the status. Military Medical Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-
020-00240-0
Halim, S., Wahid, R.A., & Halim, T. (2018). Classroom observation- A powerful tool for continuous
professional development (Cpd). International Journal on Language, Research and Education
Studies, 2(2), 162-168. https://doi.org/10.30575/2017/ijlres-2018050801
Hernando-Malipot. (2020, July 3). DepEd: Most students prefer 'modular' learning over online.
Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2020/07/03/deped-most-students-prefer-modular-learning-
over-online/
Impoff. (2020, November 20). Importance of lesson plan and effective lesson planning. IMPOFF.
https://impoff.com/importance-of-lesson-plan/IvyPanda. (2019, June 3). Classroom
observation theory - 852 words | Research paper example. Free Essays.
https://ivypanda.com/essays/classroom-observation-theory/

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

294

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

Johnson, N., List-Ivankovic, J., Eboh, W., Ireland, J., Adams, D., Mowatt, E., & Martindale, S.
(2010). Research and evidence based practice: Using a blended approach to teaching and
learning in undergraduate nurse education. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(1), 43-47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2009.03.012
Joshi, A., Vinay, M., & Bhaskar, P. (2020). Online Teaching amidst COVID-19 in India: An Outlook.
Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 105 111.
http://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/454
Kaur, G. (2020). Digital Life: Boon or bane in teaching sector on COVID-19. CLIO an Annual
Interdisciplinary Journal of History, 6(6), 416-427
Kean University. (2021). Effective lesson planning, delivery techniques. Kean University.
https://www.kean.edu/~tpc/Classroom%20Management/EFFECTIVE%20LESSON%20PLA
NNING%20&%20Classroom%20Mgmt.htm
Lawless, C. (2020, November 12). Synchronous vs asynchronous learning: Which is right for your
learners? LearnUpon. https://www.learnupon.com/blog/synchronous-learning-asynchronous-
learning/
Lieberman. (2006, July 14). What can we learn from playing interactive games? ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285448990_What_Can_We_Learn_From_Playing_I
nteractive_Games
Life Learners Academy. (2018, June 19). The importance of ict in education. Life Learners Limited.
https://lifelearners.ng/the-importance-of-ict-in-education/
ONVU Learning. (2021, March 16). What will lesson observation look like in the new normal?
ONVULearning. https://www.onvulearning.com/blogs/lesson-observation-in-the-new-normal
Pecoraro. (2020, November 12). 6 benefits of quality education for students. Student Caring - Helping
Parents, Professors and Their College Students Achieve Success.
https://www.studentcaring.com/6-benefits-quality-education-students/
Sweet, K. (2020). What is an educational module? Classroom. https://classroom.synonym.com/what-
educational-module-4739884.html
Education World. (2021). Teachers observing teachers: A professional development tool for every
school. Education World | Connecting educators to what works.
https://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin297.shtml The importance of videos
for teaching and learning. (2019, October 2). Giving Compass.
https://givingcompass.org/article/the-importance-of-videos-for-teaching-and-learning/
ICTE Solutions. (2020). The |Importance of ICT in Education|.
https://www.ictesolutions.com.au/blog/why-schools-should-invest-in-ict/ The importance of
project monitoring. (2020, February 17).
ISpring. (2021). Top 8 advantages of using video presentations in teaching. eLearning Software: LMS
and Authoring Tool | iSpring. https://www.ispringsolutions.com/articles/key-advantages-of-
video-lectures
Tupas, F. P., & Linas-Laguda, M. (2020). Blended learning – An approach in Philippine basic
education curriculum in new normal: A review of current literature. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 8(11), 5505-5512. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081154
Wairimu, M. J. (2016). Teachers' Perception on Classroom Observation and Checking of Pupils'
Exercise Books by Head Teachers on Performance of Duty in Primary Schools in Nakuru
North District, Kenya. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 3(3), 1-8.

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-196

295

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

 Appendix A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Guide Questions

Practices of Secondary School Teachers in Preparing for Classroom Observation Amidst the
New Normal of Education
1. How important is performance evaluation for you as a teacher?
2. What do you think are the differences in the performance evaluation system before and
during this new normal?
3. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition to distance learning, do
you believe it is still appropriate to conduct a teacher performance evaluation? Why?
4. Which of the three options (1) Online Observation; (2) Observation of a video lesson; or
(3) Observation of demonstration teaching via Learning Action Cell) of the New Normal
Classroom Observation do you prefer to use? Why?
5. What are the techniques, strategies, and methods do you use in preparing the New Normal
Classroom Observation?
6. What are the tools do you use in accomplishing the New Normal Classroom Observation?
7. Will you walk us through the process of how you conduct your teaching demonstration
for the New Normal Classroom Observation?
8. What are the problems/difficulties do you encounter in preparing the New Normal
Classroom Observation?
9. With respect to the manner you were rated using the New Normal COT, do you believe it
is valid and reliable? What should be done to improve its implementation?
10. As a teacher, what is your impression regarding the overall quality of the demonstration
teachings and the New Normal COTs?

Concluding Script
Thank you again for your time for this interview. The narrations and insights you have shared will be
helpful in developing the research we are currently venturing into. In return, we are committing that
we will be providing you the final

2021 | Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education/ Vol 1 No 4, 281-296

296

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3909514

 ISSN: 2581-8651 Journal of Humanities and
Vol-4, Issue-1, Jan – Feb 2022
Education Development
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/jhed.4.1.8
Peer-Reviewed Journal (JHED)

Teachers in The New Normal: Challenges and Coping

Mechanisms in Secondary Schools
Aina Joyce D. Agayon1,2, Angel Kem R. Agayon1,2, Jupeth T. Pentang2*

1Barotuan National High School, El Nido Del Norte District, Palawan Philippines
Email: ainajoyce.dichos@deped.gov.ph, angelkem.agayon@deped.gov.ph
2College of Education, Western Philippines University, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines

Email: jupeth.pentang@wpu.edu.ph
*correspondence

Received: 15 Dec 2021; Received in revised form: 18 Jan 2022; Accepted: 27 Jan 2022
©2022 The Author(s). Published by TheShillonga. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Abstract
Teachers encountered numerous challenges posed by the COVID-19 outbreak. Herewith, this study aimed to determine the
challenges encountered by Filipino teachers in the new normal and their coping mechanisms. This study employed a
qualitative inquiry to determine the challenges encountered and coping mechanisms employed by teachers amid modular
instruction, involving 10 teachers from five secondary schools in the Philippines who participated voluntarily. Data were
gathered through a written narrative from each participant and were analyzed thematically. Themed findings showed that
these teachers are greatly challenged in terms of learning quality transfer, module distribution and retrieval, students’
difficulties in following instruction, power disruption, internet connection, and health risks posed by the pandemic.
Nevertheless, these teachers dealt with these difficulties by employing their own coping techniques. Teaching can be
challenging and frustrating, especially in these difficult times, but as these teachers demonstrated, everything is possible.
Hence, educators must be ready for any situation that may arise. This situation is unlikely to get better anytime soon;
instead, teachers will need to adjust to and accept this reality.
Keywords— challenges, coping mechanisms, COVID-19 pandemic, Filipino teachers, modular instruction.
I. INTRODUCTION development despite any challenges and changes in the
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) educational platform, where learning occurs at home.
pandemic continuously impacts educational systems Nevertheless, quality learning experiences do not occur
around the world and this paradigm shift is changing only within the four walls of the classroom; learning can
dramatically in the Philippines. With this, teachers’ roles occur at any time and from any location (Pentang, 2021c).
are critical in ensuring that students learn successfully. The Teachers face different challenges due to these
occurrence of the COVID-19 put schools, teachers, abrupt changes in the new educational system. Modular
students, parents, and other stakeholders to the test. Many instruction, as an alternative modality for learning
school districts moved activities online in order to continuity, resulted in various challenges. Still, teachers
maintain instruction even when schools were closed must keep track of their students’ development and
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and monitor the progress of their students. When feasible, the
Development, 2020). Aside from online learning, most teacher should visit students at home who need
public schools especially in remote areas employed remediation or help (Llego, 2021). On a regular basis,
modular instruction through printed self-learning modules. difficulties in applying the distance learning strategy
Additionally, most students (Cos et al., 2021; Manlangit et developed. Dangle and Sumaoang (2020) asserted that the
al., 2020) and parents opted the modular distance learning key challenges that occurred were the shortage of school
among other alternative modalities. As a result, teachers’ finances in the creation and delivery of modules. Cardullo
capacity to give high-quality training and preparation for et al. (2021) added that teachers were caught off guard for
students deteriorated. The pandemic drove teachers with a emergency remote instruction owing to a lack of distant
crucial role in facilitating and monitoring the student’s education expertise as well as computer literacy. Indeed,

https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed 67

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389

Agayon et al.
the pandemic tests the teachers’ flexibility and adaptation
in times of crisis. As a result, it motivates them to come up
with innovative ways to interact with their learners.
Teachers underwent training to equip them to provide
better teaching in the face of the COVID-19 threat. Still,
teachers cannot simply ignore uncontrolled circumstances
(Lagua, 2020). Despite the challenges, educators continue
to make learning possible, doing everything they can to
acclimate to the new normal.
One of the teachers’ abilities is to adapt in the face
of adversity. Different challenges arise, particularly during
this difficult time, and teachers are still adjusting to the
new normal. As a result, teachers employ a variety of
coping strategies to deal with the difficulties they face.
These coping mechanisms assist teachers in overcoming
challenges and are a great help in improving the situation.
With the foregoing facts and observations added by the
lacuna in the literature concerning the experiences of
schools in El Nido Del Norte in the province of Palawan,
Philippines towards modular distance learning, this study
determined the challenges encountered by high school
teachers. It also described their coping mechanisms, which
will aid in the resolution of issues that may arise during the
implementation of the new normal alternative learning
system. Lastly, it seeks to suggest a plan of action to avoid
these challenges based on the participant’s coping
mechanism.
1.1 Significance of the Study
Students will be reassured that their teachers are
genuinely concerned about them. Besides, teachers can be
provided with encouragement and a positive outlook in the
face of challenges brought about by the paradigm shift in
the educational system. It will assist teachers in becoming
more aware of potential issues that they may face in the
new normal and prepare them for such situations and
enable them to come up with alternative solutions to their
problems. Furthermore, the findings will allow schools to
conduct orientations and training to address the issues
raised while the governing bodies will be informed of the
trends pertaining to struggles among high school teachers.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The study explored the experiences of high school
teachers with modular instruction using printed self-
learning modules. Specifically, the study:
a. determined the challenges encountered by the
teachers with respect to modular learning;
b. described the coping mechanisms employed by
the teachers to overcome their struggles; and
c. proposed a plan of action arising from the
challenges and coping mechanisms reported.
https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389
Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Education in Time of Pandemic
Teachers in the new normal face challenges brought
by the COVID-19 pandemic which posted rapid
adjustments in the educational system (Alvarez, 2021;
Anzaldo 2021; Castroverde & Acala, 2021), including
parents of the students (Guiamalon et al., 2021; Kintanar et
al., 2021; Pascual, 2021). Even though other countries
have already been rid of the virus’s menace, the
Philippines remains one of the most seriously hit. The
pandemic has a significant impact on education in the
country, where academic institutions and schools
encounter major adjustments. The pandemic caused
hindrances to face-to-face education (Abbas, 2021; Cos et
al., 2021). The education sectors work together to ensure
the continuity of education and that every school continues
to achieve its goal and vision of providing excellent
education to every Filipino student (Dangle & Sumaoang,
2020). As a result, the Department of Education (DepEd)
instituted DepEd Order No.12 series of 2020, which
formulated new learning delivery modalities at all levels,
as represented in the Learning Continuity Plan (LCP) for
the school year 2020-2021 up to the present (Guiamalon et
al., 2021). Different learning modalities presented include
online distance learning, blended learning, homeschooling,
and modular distance learning in digital or printed format.
Among the different modalities offered, the use of printed
self-learning modules is the method used by most public
schools. It is because only a few learners, especially in
remote areas can access the internet since only a few have
gadgets and there is a limited internet connection.
2.2 Teachers in Time of Pandemic
Teachers play a crucial role in ensuring that students get
the most out of the modules that are delivered to them
during the pandemic. Tosun et al. (2021) noted the lack of
experience among teachers towards the current situation.
Regardless of any circumstances, Pentang (2021c) stated
that teachers must use available and applicable pedagogy
to effectively deliver their lessons. Despite the challenges
posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers continue to
serve by developing modules that act as students’ learning
guides (Lapada et al., 2020). However, Malipot (2020)
stressed that teachers also air their problems on modular
distance learning such as: reproduction costs and being
forced to attend school as late as 11:00 p.m. to complete
the printing on time. Macaraeg et al. (2021) mentioned that
the country’s Teachers Dignity Coalition claimed that
modular distance learning has created extra workload,
health risks, and additional expenses which causes teachers
to beg for donations of bond paper and ink to print. These
only evidently show that challenges really do exist in the
Page | 68
Agayon et al.
use of printed self-learning modules. Despite challenges
that may impede their work, teachers manage to cope with
the new normal and complete their tasks (De Villa &
Manalo, 2020).
To verify the findings and insights above, this study
was carried out to picture the realities and trends
concerning the challenges and coping mechanisms of high
school teachers in El Nido Del Norte, Palawan Palawan,
Philippines.
III. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
The study employed a qualitative research design to
determine the challenges encountered and coping
mechanisms employed by the teacher-participants. It was
deemed necessary that an in-depth inquiry is appropriate to
record the teachers’ challenges and coping mechanisms as
the pandemic continually posed shifts in the educational
system. In addition, a qualitative approach is essential with
the limited number of participants who are available and
willing to share their stories.
3.2 Participants and Sampling Procedure
Participants of the study were 10 secondary teachers
from five public high schools in El Nido Del Norte in the
province of Palawan, Philippines. Employing a non-
probability availability sampling, each school has two
volunteers who participated in the study, based on their
availability, willingness, and voluntarism. The participants
freely completed and signed a consent form while their
personal information and school details were treated with
utmost confidentiality and anonymity.
3.3 Data Gathering and Analysis
An approved request letter from authorities and a
consent form were secured from the participating schools
and volunteer teachers. To maintain anonymity, the names
of the institutions and teachers who participated were kept
unknown all throughout the manuscript. Besides, all
participants were oriented about the purpose of the study.
Having complied with all the required preliminaries, data
were gathered from December 2021 to January 2022.
Data were gathered through an open-ended narrative
that allows the participants to share their experiences
towards modular instruction or self-learning modules
highlighting two key points, (a) challenges encountered
and (b) coping mechanisms employed. This scheme was
implemented with the rising cases of COVID-19 in the
locality where face-to-face interaction is not possible
whereas online interview was not also an option with the
intermittent power interruption and poor internet
https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389
Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
connectivity. This confirms that possible procedures can
be employed to learn from the experiences of the teachers
which is necessary for the current study.
The researchers use the following approach to
analyze the data collected: (1) thoroughly read the
narratives of each participant; (2) extract substantial
statements; (3) formulate meanings; (4) organize the
collection of meanings into themes; (5) interpret the
themes and; and (6) give recommendations. The
researchers interpreted the stories shared in everyday life
in the same way that narrative analysis is done (Magulod
et al., 2021).
IV. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.1 Challenges Encountered
The COVID-19 pandemic put the educational
system to the test where teachers encountered various
challenges. The result revealed that teachers in the
secondary schools in El Nido Del Norte came across
different challenges in teaching using the printed self-
learning modules amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Theme 1: Quality learning. Due to a variety of
circumstances, teachers had difficulties in the transfer of
quality learning. It was revealed that teachers were
challenged in validating the performances of their students.
From the narrative, “teachers cannot monitor and evaluate
the actual progress of the students”. Assessing and
engaging students are crucial issues in these times (Khlaif
et al., 2021). With today’s mode of instruction, it is really a
challenge to validate students’ output and performance. In
addition, Anzaldo (2021) claimed that not all learners do
their modules committedly and without the presence of
teachers and classmates who remind them of their work,
students are more likely to become sidetracked and lose
sight of deadlines. Particularly, given the lack of face-to-
face lectures and the fact that they were only using
modules on their own. Akin to Pentang et al. (2020),
learners who independently worked on their modules do
not fully guarantee quality learning.
Another concern was found in the study. Parents are
the ones answering the modules. Parents’ writing was
recognized by the teachers. As it can be noted on the
participants narrative, “it is evident that the outputs
submitted were not from the students but the output of the
parent/guardian”. Anzaldo (2021) support this claim that
parents pamper their children and do their task instead of
them. The parent’s primary role in modular learning is to
establish a connection and guide the child (Manlangit et
al., 2020), however, it is alarming that they go beyond this
role.
Page | 69
Agayon et al.
Parallel with Castroverde and Acala (2021),
teachers were also challenged with the late submission of
outputs and the number of response sheets that students
passed with incomplete answers, “there were lots of late
submissions and lacking/missing entries”. This may be due
to the numerous tasks provided in each module. Similarly,
Olivo (2021) showed that parents perceived that modular
distance learning was generally implemented well except
for the learning activities which they claimed were too
many to complete in a given time period. Dangle and
Sumaoang (2020) agreed that the great number of
activities in each module is one of the main problems that
emerged in the implementation of modular distance
learning. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this is one of
the reasons why students were not able to complete their
answers or even late in the submission.
Theme 2: Distribution and retrieval of modules.
The teachers expressed their struggles with module
distribution and retrieval as a result of the elements that
contribute to this load. The findings resulted that teachers
were challenged because of the lack of resources, “we do
not have ample resources, printers, bond papers, etc.”. In
these difficult times, printers play an important role in
enabling instructors to print modules. However, the
teachers do not have access to printers. As a result, several
teachers utilized their own money to purchase one for their
classes, “we spent from our own pocket”. Likewise,
Tagupa (2018) mentioned that teachers are frequently
forced to spend their own wages on necessities that they
should not be shouldering. Another issue for teachers was
when modules were not posted on time. The teachers rely
on modules to be downloaded from the regional or national
level, “we have a hard time securing a copy”. Anzaldo
(2021) emphasized that perhaps they might produce the
module sooner to assist teachers in completing their
weekly home learning plans. When uploads are delayed,
teachers must construct their own instructional activities
for their learners. Thus, increasing the teacher’s workload.
Aside from these concerns, teachers showed displeasure
when students failed to claim modules on time, “we
prepared the modules on time, so we expect it to be
distributed on time too”. Despite the difficulties of
purchasing their own printer and designing their own
modules in order to continue assisting students, they will
be confronted with the truth that there are still students
who were late in claiming modules. It is an additional
hardship since it merely adds extra work to the teachers
because they will have to wait for late outputs, which
means they will not be able to compute their grades.
Furthermore, there are students who were late in
submitting answer sheets. Teachers were challenged
because of the deadline for the submission of grades, “we
https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389
Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
have compliances too, teachers have to submit their
reports on time”. Another aspect is that a teacher has
limited time to wait due to the numerous activities
indicated in the module that must be completed.
Accordingly, Dangle and Sumaoang (2020) reported that
one of the primary challenges that occurred in the
implementation of modular distance learning was many
activities in each module. Thus, this could be one of the
reasons why retrieval of modules was not being completed
on time, which may also contribute to the student’s poor
performance.
Theme 3: Students difficulty in following
instruction. The teachers were challenge with the student’s
difficulty in understanding modules instruction,
“instructions were clear and simple, why do they rely on a
long and repetitive one as practice during face-to-face
classes”. This was evident too in the study of Alvarez
(2021) where students were confused regarding the
instructions indicated in their modules. This may be due to
the poor reading comprehension ability of the students.
Regardless of what instruction the teacher may use,
reading comprehension difficulty will be a hindrance to
student’s development (Abbas, 2021). In this regard,
teachers are encouraged to consider developing the
comprehension ability of the students since the printed
modules requires reading.
Theme 4: Power interruption and internet
connection. The teachers aired the challenges in terms of
(a) power interruption since teachers who utilized Wi-Fi,
which is powered by electricity were greatly affected since
they rely on power supply to finish their tasks such as
charging their laptops and printing modules. Aside from
causing work delays, it may also cause harm to electronic
devices in the worst-case situation (b) teachers were also
hampered by poor and inconsistent internet connections, as
teachers depend on strong internet connections to interact
with their learners, “we experience intermittent power
interruption and no/unstable internet connection, it
disrupts our preparation for the modules and
communication with the students with their parents”. As a
result, teachers traveled to locations with a reliable internet
connection. Akin to Tosun et al. (2021), issues such as lack
of internet access and infrastructure inadequacies in rural
areas hinder learning delivery. With the emergence of
technology in teaching-learning as well as unprecedented
challenges (Pentang, 2021b), teachers are encouraged to
implement innovative programs to support not only
learning continuity but also the delivery of quality
education with the support of school administrators. This
calls the attention too of the local government unit, electric
cooperatives, and telecommunication companies to support
the educational sector of the country.
Page | 70
Agayon et al.
Theme 5: Health risks. The teachers were challenged with
the health risk in distributing and retrieving modules, “we
have co-teachers who were infected by COVID-19”.
Despite the risk that threatens their lives, teachers
continued to serve and teach students to provide quality
education for the learners. Indeed, teachers have no choice
but to do their jobs regardless of any circumstances, “this
is our profession and we made it our passion, we still have
to go out and serve our students”. This proves the
commitment and dedicated service of the teachers despite
the fears of getting infected by COVID-19. Even during
the pandemic, commitment, dedication, and a passion for
clients and service remained (Pizaña et al. 2021).
4.2 Coping mechanisms
Despite the challenges mentioned, the teachers were
able to cope with modular instruction, similar with De
Villa and Manalo (2020). This demonstrates the teachers’
flexibility, adaptability, and innovativeness. Six emerging
themes were identified among the coping mechanisms.
Theme 1: Money Matters! The teachers claimed
that they spent their own money in order to cope with the
lack of resources. Teachers 5, 6, 9, and 10 expressed,
“…limited resources were among the major problems, to
cope with this, I used my own money to compensate for
what is needed…”. Likewise, teacher 4 stated, “...when
there is a shortage of school materials, I just willingly
provide it using my own money…”. Teacher 8 added,
“…if no available materials, self-provide…”. Teachers
have no choice but to find ways to prepare learning
materials especially printed modules. Sadly, Tagupa
(2018) noted that teachers must handle these themselves or
their ratings would suffer. Money matters, indeed, not for
teachers to spent personally, but for them to serve their
students.
Theme 2: Find Ways! The teachers modify the
activities to suit the learner’s needs. They craft activities
aligned with the most essential learning competencies
when there is no available module. Teachers 4, 5, and 6
stated, “…if modules are still not available, making simple
activity sheets that are aligned with the competencies of
the subject is necessary...”. Further, teacher 1 shared, “…I
reduce the learning activities by assigning activities that
will only meet the competencies…”. In addition, teacher 2
claimed, “…I craft my own module using the approved
most essential learning competencies…”. These manifest
how flexible and creative Filipino teachers are. Guiamalon
et al. (2021) advanced that teachers should develop an
appropriate strategy and continue to apply adequate
measures to satisfy the need for new normal education,
such as making their own modules or activities when
needed. Hodges et al. (2020) further stated that due to the
https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389
Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
present health issue, many educators have been forced to
invent short online learning solutions. Evidently, teachers
find ways in all circumstances, subjecting themselves
beyond what is required and expected of them.
Theme 3: I-n-t-e-r-n-e-t! The teachers secure a
place where the internet connection is fast and stable.
Teachers 2, 5, and 7 expressed, “…I travel to other
location just to have good internet connection…sometimes,
we share from the Wi-Fi of our friends or neighbors to get
online…”. Besides, Teachers 4, 8, and 9 shared, “…when
there is a need to connect to the internet, I go to a place
with a good internet connectivity…”. I-n-t-e-r-n-e-t,
despite the connectivity being shattered, teachers always
do their best to connect to the internet to download
learning resources as well as to connect with their students.
Teachers who go long distances merely to teach and find
an internet signal for their online lessons need to be
respected and honored (Olivo, 2021).
Theme 4: Communicare! The teachers
communicate with care (communicare) the students to
clarify concerns regarding their modules as well as to
remind parents about their role. Teachers 4, 8, and 9
claimed, “…when it comes to giving instruction to the
students…I do it personally upon distribution of modules
then I will follow-up through chats…”. Besides, Teachers
5, 6, and 7 stated, “…aside from written instruction, If I
have a chance, I tell personally the instruction, I find time
to text or call them…”. Teacher 2 added, “…I speak their
language, I give instruction in Cuyonon if the student is a
Cuyonon…”. Students struggled to answer their modules
because it is modular and self-paced learning, given that
some children, including their parents, have no one to turn
to for assistance. Teachers 3, 5, and 6 stated, “…tap
parents through home visitation…parent-teacher meetings
to guide their children and prioritize their evaluation for
their better future…”. Furthermore, Teacher 2 shared,
“…Advise parents to avoid spoiling their children, only
facilitate but not the one to answer the modules…”.
Likewise, Teachers 4 and 9 agreed, “…informing parents
for their duty as parents through orientation, homeroom
limited/face-to-face and home visitation…”. Indeed,
parental assistance is essential, especially in this new
normal. Communicare with parents is a strong mechanism
for teachers to assure that the students are doing well.
Pascual (2021) mentioned that teachers can support parents
by suggesting an adjustment in a daily routine of a child at
home which can foster a child’s literacy development.
Parents can serve as mentors, tutors, and guides to their
children. Pentang (2021a) demonstrated that careful
mentoring, tutorials, and assistance can improve the
performance of home-schooling students who work with
their modules under limited supervision.
Page | 71
Agayon et al.
Theme 5: Moni-tour! The teachers monitor and
toured (tracked) students’ development and performance
using answer sheets, retrieve modules, and feedback
forms. Teachers 4 and 8 stated, “…I monitor my students’
progress through their outputs and performances…”.
Teacher 7 added, “…I base their progress on the retrieved
outputs and their attitudes in claiming or passing
modules…”. Similarly, Teacher 9 mentioned, “…I monitor
through checking their activities and summative test…”.
With no face-to-face interactions to help students, it is
critical to moni-tour and evaluates their progress. If not
observed, teachers may be astonished to realize that
students are not interested in doing or responding to their
modules. Since student monitoring and assessment of
learning is difficult in today's educational setting (Baryam,
2021), it is critical to rigorously validate the student's
work. Still, the teachers were able to make time and double
the effort to cope in monitoring and evaluating students’
learning.
Theme 6: Time’s Up! The teachers remained
consistent in setting the schedule for the distribution and
retrieval of modules. Teachers 2 and 8 claimed, “…I
remained consistent with the schedule, from time to time I
follow up through messenger and other means to reach out
my students…”. Teachers 3 and 6 added, “…I am
constantly reminding my students about the schedule of
distribution and retrieval of the printed modules…”.
Teachers 4 and 5 furthered “…I set time and date for the
distribution & retrieval…I add reminders to the distributed
materials…”. Before the time is up, the teachers set a good
example of time management and constantly encourage the
students about the schedules. Accordingly, delays in both
distribution and retrieval are reduced. Unfortunately, late
delivery of modules by service providers, frequently
created stress for teachers since they needed to duplicate
the modules themselves for the modular learners (Melorin,
n.d.). Still, the United Nations International Children’s
Emergency Fund (UNICEF, 2020) underlined that it is the
responsibility of teachers to ensure that modules are
delivered and retrieved on time.
4.3 Suggested Plan of Action
In dealing with various challenges that may emerge
throughout the teaching process, teachers may have these
plans of action.
Safety & health protocols. Teachers should make it
a habit to always practice safety and health protocols to
mitigate the spread of the virus as well as not to get
infected while performing their function in and out of the
school, and they are encouraged to get fully vaccinated.
It is best for schools to install designated hand-
washing areas, provide hygiene kits for teachers, and limit
https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389
Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
the entry of clients within the vicinity with stricter
implementation of the safety and health protocols.
Lack of resources. Teachers may direct the
concerns to the proper authority. They may also look for
sponsorships and work on donation drives or fund-raising
campaigns, or partner with their co-teachers to minimize
the problems pertaining to the printing of modules.
Schools may allot more budget in the production,
distribution, and retrieval of modules from their
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses.
Internet connection. Teachers may install Wi-Fi-
boosters and external antennas. Schools may also provide
sufficient load cards to the teachers. Further, the
Department of Education may enter with a memorandum
of understanding/agreement with the Department of
Energy and Department of Information and
Communications Technology to support the electrification
of remote areas and a establish strong internet connection,
respectively, for the schools, teachers, students, and
parents to connect and communicate with each other.
Modules. Teachers should double-check
downloaded modules before distributing them to the
students. In case of no available modules to download,
they can create one by referencing the competencies of the
subject. Teachers may also provide fewer activities but are
still aligned with the necessary competencies.
Giving instruction. Teachers must try to explain in
every way possible for students to easily understand the
given instruction. Also, teachers must be always open and
give chance for the students to raise questions. If possible,
provide examples and illustrations to facilitate the
students. Since feedback is important (Pentang, 2021a),
teachers may further allow both the students and parents to
provide theirs.
Monitoring and evaluation. Teachers must keep
records of students’ accomplished outputs (both formative
and summative) and keep them informed of their
performance (transparency). Pre- and post-tests may be
required where research may take place to help define the
progress of the students.
Teachers must recheck provided answer keys to
avoid errors. Teachers may also check for plagiarism for
essay-type questions. Further, teachers should return the
graded outputs of their students. Since monitoring and
evaluation are equally important in ensuring quality
education and preparing competitive graduates (Kankaew
et al., 2021), stricter measures may be implemented by
schools and concerned teachers.
Distribution and retrieval of modules. Teachers
must be consistent with the schedule. To be efficient,
Page | 72
Agayon et al.
distribute modules and retrieved outputs during home
visits. More importantly, ensure the completeness of
entries and details before allowing the students to submit.
With the technological advancements in education with the
continuing development in educational technologies as
teaching-learning tools (De Souza et al., 2021; Pentang,
2021b), teachers may explore online and offline tools to
facilitate the distribution and retrieval of modules.
Parent’s support. Teachers must earn the support of
the parents and partner with them to help the students learn
with their modules. It is best to involve them in classroom
conferences and keep them informed of the student’s
progress in school. The whole community may take part
too (Capulso et al., 2021).
V. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of the study found varying degrees of
challenges that teachers experienced in implementing
printed self-learning modules. Learning about the result of
this study will help teachers to overcome problems arising
regarding the ongoing shift in education. Teaching can be
challenging at times especially in these trying times, but
just like how these teachers addressed the challenges they
faced, all is possible. Teachers dealt with these difficulties
by employing their own coping techniques. Even though
they have experienced such obstacles, the good news is
that as educators, they still looked for possible solutions to
solve the issues.
Based on the findings and conclusions, the
researchers suggest that teachers should always bear in
mind the safety and health protocols. Teachers should
devise strategies to address the issue of material scarcity.
Teachers should design instructional activities that are
tailored to the requirements of their students. The school
should have reliable and consistent internet access.
Teachers should connect with their students or parents and
give feedback on their performance. Teachers should
constantly evaluate their students’ growth. Lastly, teachers
must be prepared for any eventuality that may develop.
This situation will not soon return to normal, but
rather it is more like teachers are in need to adjust and
accept the circumstance. This necessitates the presence of
extension projects from state universities and colleges
(Pentang, 2021a; Pentang et al., 2020; Pizaña et al., 2021)
as well as non-government higher education institutions,
where they play an important role in extension activities
and outreaches by conducting series of tutorials and
distributing learning materials to the students to
supplement the instruction provided by teachers. A home-
school link program (Kintanar et al., 2021) may be
established to teach parents about effective modular
https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389
Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
distance learning at home.
LIMITATIONS
We considered the study’s small sample size of only
ten participants to be a disadvantage. The researchers
recommend that future studies increase the number of
participants and widen the scope of the locale in order to
validate the results. With the use of narratives as an
innovative way to obtain data during the pandemic, the
researchers strongly recommend adopting such a method
for researchers who have difficulty in conducting online or
face-to-face interviews or focused group discussions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researchers are grateful to the schools and
teachers who participated in the study, as well as the
guidance from the Department of Education - El Nido Del
Norte District with the Western Philippines University -
Puerto Princesa Campus.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND FUNDING
The researchers do not have any contending
interests. The study was personally funded by the
researchers.
REFERENCES
[1] Abbas, K. D. A. (2021). Factors influencing students
reading comprehension difficulties amidst the use of
modular distance learning approach in Mindanao State
University Sulu - Senior High School. Open Access
Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences, 4(6), 447.
https://doi.org/10.37275/oaijss.v4i2.78
[2] Alvarez, M. (2021). Issues and concerns of teachers in
Mindanao State University-Sulu towards modular distance
learning approach: An analysis. Indonesian Community
Empowerment Journal, 1(2), 40-41.
https://doi.org/10.37275/icejournal.v1i2.12
[3] Anzaldo, G. D. (2021). Modular distance learning in the
new normal education amidst Covid-19. International
Journal of Scientific Advances, 2(3), 263-266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.51542/ijscia.v2i3.6
[4] Bayram, H. (2021). Challenges secondary school teachers
face during the distance education process. International
Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 6(12), 613-658.
http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoecc.306
[5] Capulso, L. B., Magulod, G. C., Jr., Nisperos, J. N. S., Dela
Cruz, J. M. M., Dizon, A. M., Ilagan, J. B., Salise, G. C.,
Vidal, C. J. E., Pentang, J. T., & Dugang, M. A. P. (2021).
The teacher and the community, school culture and
organizational leadership. Beyond Books Publication.
Page | 73
Agayon et al.
[6] Cardullo, V., Wang, C., Burton, M., & Dong, J. (2021). K-
12 teachers’ remote teaching self-efficacy during the
pandemic. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and
Learning, 4(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-
2020-0055
[7] Castroverde, F., & Acala, M. (2021). Modular distance
learning modality: Challenges of teachers in teaching amid
the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Research
Studies in Education, 10(8), 7-15.
https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2021.602
[8] Cos, F. L., Duero M. C., & Paguia, M. R. S. (2021). The
viability of DepEd textbooks as the primary material for the
modular distance learning modality of Carrascal National
High School. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and
Learning, 1(2), 69-75.
http://www.sciepub.com/JITL/abstract/13265
[9] Dangle, Y. R. P., & Sumaoang, J. D. (2020). The
implementation of modular distance learning in the
Philippine secondary public schools. In 3rd International
Conference on Advanced Research in Teaching and
Education, 100, 108.
https://www.doi.org/10.33422/3rd.icate.2020.11.132
[10] De Villa, J. A., & Manalo, F. K. B. (2020). Secondary
teachers’ preparation, challenges, and coping mechanism in
the pre-implementation of distance learning in the new
normal. IOER International Multidisciplinary Research
Journal, 2(3), 144-154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4072845
[11] De Souza, R., Parveen, R., Chupradit, S., Velasco, L. G.,
Arcinas, M., Tabuena, A. C., Pentang, J. T., & Ventayen, R.
J. M. (2021). Language teachers’ pedagogical orientations in
integrating technology in the online classroom: Its effect on
students motivation and engagement. Turkish Journal of
Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(10), 5001-5014.
https://turcomat.org/index.php/turkbilmat/article/view/5268
[12] Guiamalon, T. S., Alon, S. A. S., & Camsa, S. U. (2021).
Teachers issues and concerns on the use of modular learning
modality. International E-Journal of Advances in Social
Sciences, 7(20), 457-469.
http://dx.doi.org/10.46529/socioint.202115
[13] Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A.
(2020, March 27). The difference between emergency
remote teaching and online learning. Educause.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-
between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
[14] Kankaew, K., Beltran, J. A., Khamidullina, Z., Magulod, G.
C., Jr., Capulso, L. B., Cabacang, G. S., Anh, V. T., Vela, L.
A. P., & Pentang, J. T. (2021). Immediate program learning
outcomes of information technology candidates and their
introspections towards IT education relevance and global
competence initiatives. Psychology and Education Journal,
58(2), 5417-5427.
http://www.psychologyandeducation.net/pae/index.php/pae/
article/view/2953
[15] Khlaif, Z. N., Salha, S., Affouneh, S., Rashed, H., &
ElKimishy, L. A. (2021). The Covid-19 epidemic: Teachers’
responses to school closure in developing countries.
https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389
Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 95-109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1851752
[16] Kintanar, F. C., Elladora S. T., & Cuizon F. R. (2021).
Plight of the parents of the Filipino learners in the
implementation of the modular distance learning.
International Journal of Educational Science and Research,
11(2), 35-48.
http://www.tjprc.org/view_paper.php?id=15421
[17] Lagua, B. (2020, October 30). Teaching in the new normal.
The Manila Times.
https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/10/30/business/columnist
s-business/teaching-in-the-new-normal/788762
[18] Llego, M. A. (2021). DepEd learning delivery modalities for
school year 2020-2021. TeacherPH.
https://www.teacherph.com/deped-learning-delivery-
modalities/
[19] Magulod, G. C., Jr., Capulso, L. B., Delos Reyes, R. J. V.,
Luna, A. R. F., Orte, C. J. S., Maglente, S. S., Pentang, J. T.,
Olitres, B. J. D., Vidal, C. J. E., & Samosa, R. C. (2021).
How to write and publish your thesis. Beyond Books
Publication.
[20] Malipot, M. H. (2020, August 4). Teachers air problems on
modular learning system. Manila Bulletin.
https://mb.com.ph/2020/08/04/teachers-air-problems-on-
modular-learning-system/
[21] Manlangit, P., Paglumotan, A. M., & Sapera, S. C. (2020,
October 5). Nanay, handa na ba kayong maging
tagapagdaloy? Supercharging Filipino parents is key for
successful modular distance learning. Flip Science.
https://www.flipscience.ph/news/features-
news/tagapagdaloy-modular-distance-learning/
[22] Melorin, M. (n.d.). Module distribution and retrieval: A
challenge. Schools Division Office - San Juan City.
https://www.depedsanjuancity.ph/single-post/module-
distribution-and-retrieval-a-challenge
[23] Olivo, M. G. (2021). Parents’ perception on printed modular
distance learning in Canarem Elementary School: Basis for
proposed action plan. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education
Research, 2(4), 296-309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.04.03
[24] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(2020, September 24). Strengthening online learning when
schools are closed: The role of families and teachers in
supporting students during the Covid-19 crisis. Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-
responses/strengthening-online-learning-when-schools-are-
closed-the-role-of-families-and-teachers-in-supporting-
students-during-the-covid-19-crisis-c4ecba6c/
[25] Pascual, E. A. (2021). Parent-teacher-learner collaboration
in modular distance learning. International Journal of
Research Publications, 83(1), 189-202.
https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP100831820212196
[26] Pentang, J. T. (2021a). Impact assessment and clients’
feedback towards MATHEMATICS project
implementation. International Journal of Educational
Page | 74
Agayon et al. Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED)
4(1)-2022
Management and Development Studies, 2(2), 90-103.
https://doi.org/10.53378/346107
[27] Pentang, J. T. (2021b). Technological dimensions of
globalization across organizations: Inferences for instruction
and research. International Educational Scientific Research
Journal, 7(7), 28-32.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3896459
[28] Pentang, J. T. (2021c). The concept of curriculum and its
foundation. The Educator’s Link, 1(6), 9.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355953574_The_
Concept_of_Curriculum_and_its_Foundation
[29] Pentang, J. T., Bautista, R. M., Pizaña, A. D., & Egger, S. P.
(2020). Mathematical needs of Laura Vicuña learners.
Western Philippines University Graduate Journal, 5(1), 78-
82. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3980365
[30] Pizaña, A. D., Pizaña, R. E. C., Pogoy, A. M., & Pentang, J.
T. (2021). Lived experiences of extension project
implementers amidst COVID-19 pandemic: The unspoken
frontliners. European Scholar Journal, 2(4), 431-436.
https://scholarzest.com/index.php/esj/article/view/648
[31] Tagupa, H. (2018, June 29). Are PH teachers really
underpaid? Inquirer.net. https//:
https://opinion.inquirer.net/114243/ph-teachers-really-
underpaid
[32] Tosun, N., Mihci, C., Bayzan, S. (2021). Challenges
encountered by in-service K12 teachers at the beginning of
the Covid-19 pandemic period: The case of Turkey.
Participatory Educational Research, 8(4), 359-384.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.21.95.8.4
[33] UNICEF (2021, September 14). Classroom precautions
during COVID-19: Tips for teachers to protect themselves
and their students. United Nations International Children's
Emergency Fund.
https://www.unicef.org/coronavirus/teacher-tips-classroom-
precautions-covid-19

https://theshillonga.com/index.php/jhed Page | 75

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4026389

REFERENCES

• Pedagogical Practices and Learning Performance in New Normal Classrooms

https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s4123
9-020-00234-x

• Education in the time of Pandemic and Teachers in Time of Pandemic

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4026389

• Exploring the practices of secondary school teachers in preparing for

classroom observation amidst the new normal of education
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3909514

• Glimpses of Teaching in the New Normal: Changes, Challenges, and

Chances
http://ijlter.myres.net/index.php/ijlter/article/view/1306

• Rethinking Education in the New Normal Post-COVID-19 Era: A Curriculum

Studies Perspective
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3707838

• The Relationship of the Strategies and Practices of the School Heads and
Master Teachers and Teachers’ Competencies and Skills in the New Normal
https://jurnal-fkip.ut.ac.id/index.php/ijtaese/article/view/665

• Secondary school teachers psychological status and competencies in e-

teaching during Covid-19
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021023410

• The changes we need: Education post COVID-19

 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-
3?trk=public_post_main-feed-card_feed-article-content
• Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning in unpredictable times:
pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped
classrooms
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-
020-00234-x

• School Readiness in the New Normal Era of Online Teaching and Learning
at Junior High School
http://www.ieomsociety.org/brazil2020/papers/356.p5u df

• Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic

Challenges for Higher Education
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

• Digital Teaching as The New Normal? Swedish Upper Secondary Teachers’

Experiences of Emergency Remote Teaching During The COVID-19 Crisis
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14749041211022480

• Blended Learning: The New Normal and Emerging Technologies

https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-
017-0087-5

• COVID 19 Response: An Analysis of Teachers’ Perception on Pedagogical

Successes And Challenges Of Digital Teaching Practice During New
Normal
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-
017-0087-5