research paper about new normal education

Advertisement

Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education

• Original Articles
• Open access
• Published: 09 August 2021
• Volume 3 , pages 715–742, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Chrysi Rapanta 1 ,
• Luca Botturi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4325-8346 2 ,
• Peter Goodyear 3 ,
• Lourdes Guàrdia 4 &
• Marguerite Koole 5  

53k Accesses

158 Citations

69 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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 emergency remote teaching (ERT), educators from all grades and contexts experienced the necessity of rethinking their roles, the ways of supporting the students’ learning 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 emphasis 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 gradually give place to a harmonious integration of physical and digital tools and methods for the sake of more active, flexible and meaningful learning.

Similar content being viewed by others

Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review

Education and the COVID-19 pandemic

Learning and teaching online during covid-19: experiences of student teachers in an early childhood education practicum.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

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 preparation and difficulties faced by teachers, educational administrators and institutions, 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 feature, 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 instruction and its affordances (Mohmmed et al. 2020 : 2); no time for the actual preparation 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 environments (Keengwe and Kidd 2010 : 533–534). It provides a well-considered learning ecosystem (Manfuso 2020 ), aimed at increased flexibility and better access to learning opportunities, through the careful design of unique courses that appropriately 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 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 integrated 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 diametrically 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 meaningful 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 face-to-face to online teaching and whether this transition has brought about positive 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 leading position in terms of promoting educational digital infrastructures, but also faces a low digital competence among its educators (Damşa et al. 2021 ). The researchers 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 teachers 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 practice, 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 context of online teaching and learning. In particular, it aimed at identifying the pedagogical and content-related aspects of university teachers’ online teaching readiness, such as their confidence in technology-based content knowledge (TCK; e.g. implementing curriculum in an online environment), technology-based pedagogical 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 personal 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 combined 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 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 possible’). 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, suggesting 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 students’ 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 participants 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 survey 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 pointing 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 survey 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 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 perceptions of success all significantly decreased during the ERT semester, while their perceptions of cheating increased. Similar results are presented by Aguilera-Hermida ( 2020 ) who conducted a mixed-method study with 270 students from North American 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 professors. 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 during 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 communication 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 Australia revealed mixed experiences. Students reported that they valued the increased opportunities for managing their own time and the wider range of assessment methods 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 contradictions which were not evident before: the social distancing between students 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 sufficient bandwidth, whose families lacked enough devices for everyone to use, who were unable to find appropriate study spaces at home or whose financial needs during 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 obvious — 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 university 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 following 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 necessity of ‘going back to normal’ without asking whether the pre-Covid instructional practices in many face-to-face lecture scenarios in HE, including expository, monological 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 analysis. 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. innovators, 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 university 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 possible 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 particular, 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 expertise 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 similar 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 presented to them, to which they all contributed with comments and revisions.

The interview questions were the following:

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

How might university teachers think about themselves and their role now? How do you think their identity has changed/must change?

How can learning assessment change in the post-Covid era?

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?

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 situation, 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 evidence 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 interviews. Finally, question 5 functions as a knowledge consolidation question, inverting the scope of Rapanta et al. ( 2020 ): previously we asked how campus-based teachers can transform themselves into online teachers amplifying their teaching presence; 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 discussion 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 teachers and students adjusted to the new situation, but also understood that online distance 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 emergency should become mainstream), proper curriculum and course design , including key decisions about synchronous/asynchronous learning, evaluation practices, etc.

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 patterns 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 infrastructure. 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’ actually mean? What distance is being measured in ‘distance learning’ ? Some teachers 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 pioneered in open, flexible and distance education.

Lourdes Guàrdia (E3)

There is no doubt that Covid-19 is accelerating digital transformation in the education 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 adoption that has been promoted and researched in recent years as highly effective will probably prevail over face-to-face models, where technology is not relevant 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 digitally 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 ‘attendance’ 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 presence as per the community of inquiry (CoI) model. The Oxford English dictionary provides several definitions of presence, most of which refer to the physical; however, 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 interaction and understanding. In this way, the implementation of digital technology may become more effective as faculty members make a parallel shift in their philosophical 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?

I see three points of change:

Those teachers who engaged seriously and curiously with their educational mission 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 .

Teachers discovered that they are not just ‘knowledge dispensers’ for their students: 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 informally. 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) function. I have also the feeling that many teachers (re-)discovered that students are for them important social and intellectual stimuli.

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.

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 technologies, 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 contracts. Doing something about the precarious working conditions of many teaching colleagues is now firmly on the agenda.

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, 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 manager 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.

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 technology 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 extensive 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?

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 distance, despite all proctoring services, and we have been forced to look for alternatives. 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 managers 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 cheating (assessment is control) and of its supposed yet apparent equality.

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.

There has been a great deal of talk – more heat than light sometimes – about academic integrity, cheating, proctoring and so on. In some ways I think making provision 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 universities 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 discussions 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, assessment 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 .

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 replacement of face-to-face examinations by virtual assessments has raised issues regarding students’ identity. The solution proposed by the majority of campus-based institutions 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, maintaining 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.

Probably there is still no consensus about how a potential assessment transformation 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 continuous 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.

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 institutions 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 privacy 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 proctoring 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?

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

Blend regulated activities with flexible ones , like online ones (but there is no need to be at distance or online to propose flexible work!).

Foster peer-interactions and peer-support : activating personal networks is part of being autonomous (that does not mean do everything by oneself).

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.).

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.

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 development 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 capability to construct an appropriate epistemic environment: knowing how to assemble the right tools and other resources, find knowledgeable people, organise a productive 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 people 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?

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 students responsibility, for example through allowing them to lead learning activities, how to design work in groups facilitating social interaction that can get them excited 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 significant impact on their knowledge.

Formative assessment is another crucial aspect related to students’ motivation 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 learning, 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.

Metacognitive skills can be challenging to teach. Instead of focusing on how to directly foster self-regulation, instructors might instead consider providing an environment 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 distance occurs in all educational situations including face-to-face ; nonetheless, there are strategies to reduce it. Learning environments can be designed to balance structure, 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 strategies, pace and topics. To explain in simple terms, learners who are more autonomous 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 semester 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.

Question 5: Overall, What are Some Lessons that Distance/Online Learning can Teach to Campus-based University Teachers?

First, teaching and learning can continue even under radical changes of circumstances. 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.

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 university 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.

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 scenarios 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 educational purpose, but when this purpose is delivered online, design is essential. It should include: active methodologies to engage students at any time, adequate learning 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.

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 distance 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 instructors 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 ).

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 common 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 underestimated the importance of space, and the other material (and digital) dimensions of social life, in structuring educational practices. In the face of the unpreparedness 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 procedures as online education, also given the lack of administrative support and technological infrastructure, it opened the path to initial digital teaching experiences. 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 possible, several aspects shall be taken into consideration such as flexibility, empowerment, professionalisation and strategic decision making.

Flexibility

The design of the learning environments must be flexible, in the sense that it is consistently 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 students 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 situations, 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 preparedness 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 both the essential, transferable skills and also the specific discipline-related competences, 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 curriculum and assessment design. Careful strategic planning on the part of the HE institutions is now more necessary than before. This planning must include and consistently connect decision making at, at least, the three levels as detailed below Footnote 1 :

Macro-Level Strategies

Macro-level strategies refer to all type of institutional organisation and communication 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 stakeholders 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 professional development, it should also opt for less precarious employment among university teachers, so that development makes sense in a more socially-situated, holistic, 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 stakeholders directly related to the teaching and learning process, and which take place outside 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 cultivated and sustained in the post-Covid era (see Kelly et al. 2016 , for accounts of networked professional learning among schoolteachers).

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 implementation 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 promote a flexible and continuous assessment of the learning activity, rather than sticking to one method or two and following them as an orthodoxy. Blending of instructional 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 materials to make sure that they adapt to learners’ needs, contexts and capacities. In addition, 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.

Learning design components for the post-Covid era universities

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 ).

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 passive digital learning activities, knowing that these are the ones that are less beneficial for students. This paradoxical situation is the same with non-digital learning 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 creating 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 effectiveness of teaching and learning. It is essential to address issues at all these levels (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 different 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 ).

Within a context of meaningful, strategic planning, the integration of technologies as part of pedagogical innovation is essential. Now that the pandemic has violently 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’ Footnote 2 — the only thing worse than this crisis is the tragedy of wasting it, in the sense of failing to learn from it.

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.

See https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/homilies/2020/documents/papa-francesco_20200531_omelia-pentecoste.html . Accessed 15 July 2021.

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.

Google Scholar  

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/10.1177/0306312721996053 .

Article   Google Scholar  

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/10.1177/23476311211007261 .

Asterhan, C. S., Howe, C., Lefstein, A., Matusov, E., & Reznitskaya, A. (2020). Controversies and consensus 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.

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/10.4337/9781845421663.00025 .

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.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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: Strategies 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/10.1177/1077800420960141 .

Conrad, D., & Openo, J. (2018). Assessment strategies for online learning . Edmonton: Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771992329.01 .

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-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&rid=7 . Accessed 28 June 2021.

Cramman, H., Moger, P., & Menzies, V. (2021). The impact of Covid-19 on the English education teaching 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 University. 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 perceptions. 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 evaluations 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/10.1177/0047239520934018 .

Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2019). The education ecology of universities: integrating learning, strategy and the academy . Abingdon: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Flaherty, C. (2020). Big Proctor: Is the fight against cheating during remote instruction worth enlisting third-party student surveillance platforms? Inside Higher Education, 11 May. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/11/online-proctoring-surging-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: Computer conferencing in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071 .

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 performance of students during the pandemic period of COVID 19. Education and Information Technologies . 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.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning . Accessed 28 June 2021.

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.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210118070559840 . 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. Frontiers 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/10.1080/17439884.2011.553621 .

Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education. 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/10.1080/13540600500238527 .

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. Nineteenth 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://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2020/05/emergency-remote-teaching-rigorousonline-learning-perfcon . 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.20210101.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 University 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. Innovative 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 distance 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/s1049096520001560 .

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 Computational Biology, 16 (10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008242 .

OED online (2021). “presence, n.”. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://www-oed-com.cyber.usask.ca/view/Entry/150669?redirectedFrom=presence . 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). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-19. Educational Philosophy and Theory . https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655 .

Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model.  Journal of asynchronous learning 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 University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771992770.01 .

Rapanta, C. (2021). Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogical argumentation 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 during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science 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 [Curricular administration for schools’ and teachers’ autonomy]. Direção Geral de Educação [General Rectorate for Education], Portugal. https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Curriculo/AFC/livro_gestao_curricular.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.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca . 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 education]. Editorial UOC (Online editions). http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/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/10.1080/0158037X.2021.1928052 .

Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers' readiness for online teaching 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/ajpe8142 .

Schlosser, L. A., & Simonson, M. (2009). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms. 3rd Edition. 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.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006132/software-algorithms-proctoring-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/education-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 .

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/10.4324/9781003045793 .

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/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869526 .

Zierer, K. (2015). Educational expertise: the concept of ‘mind frames’ as an integrative model for professionalisation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 41 (6), 782-798. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1121140 .

Download references

Open Access funding provided by SUPSI - University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern 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.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Chrysi Rapanta

University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Locarno, Switzerland

Luca Botturi

The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Peter Goodyear

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

Lourdes Guàrdia

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Marguerite Koole

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Botturi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P. et al. Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigit Sci Educ 3 , 715–742 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

Download citation

Accepted : 17 July 2021

Published : 09 August 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Emergency remote teaching
• Online learning and teaching
• Higher education
• Digital technologies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Journal of Public Health
• About the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom
• Editorial Board
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

Adapting to the culture of ‘new normal’: an emerging response to COVID-19

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jeff Clyde G Corpuz, Adapting to the culture of ‘new normal’: an emerging response to COVID-19, Journal of Public Health , Volume 43, Issue 2, June 2021, Pages e344–e345, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab057

• Permissions Icon Permissions

A year after COVID-19 pandemic has emerged, we have suddenly been forced to adapt to the ‘new normal’: work-from-home setting, parents home-schooling their children in a new blended learning setting, lockdown and quarantine, and the mandatory wearing of face mask and face shields in public. For many, 2020 has already been earmarked as ‘the worst’ year in the 21st century. Ripples from the current situation have spread into the personal, social, economic and spiritual spheres. Is this new normal really new or is it a reiteration of the old? A recent correspondence published in this journal rightly pointed out the involvement of a ‘supportive’ government, ‘creative’ church and an ‘adaptive’ public in the so-called culture. However, I argue that adapting to the ‘new normal’ can greatly affect the future. I would carefully suggest that we examine the context and the location of culture in which adaptations are needed.

To live in the world is to adapt constantly. A year after COVID-19 pandemic has emerged, we have suddenly been forced to adapt to the ‘new normal’: work-from-home setting, parents home-schooling their children in a new blended learning setting, lockdown and quarantine, and the mandatory wearing of face mask and face shields in public. For many, 2020 has already been earmarked as ‘the worst’ year in the 21st century. 1 Ripples from the current situation have spread into the personal, social, economic and spiritual spheres. Is this new normal really new or is it a reiteration of the old? A recent correspondence published in this journal rightly pointed out the involvement of a ‘supportive’ government, ‘creative’ church and an ‘adaptive’ public in the so-called culture. 2 However, I argue that adapting to the ‘new normal’ can greatly affect the future. I would carefully suggest that we examine the context and the location of culture in which adaptations are needed.

The term ‘new normal’ first appeared during the 2008 financial crisis to refer to the dramatic economic, cultural and social transformations that caused precariousness and social unrest, impacting collective perceptions and individual lifestyles. 3 This term has been used again during the COVID-19 pandemic to point out how it has transformed essential aspects of human life. Cultural theorists argue that there is an interplay between culture and both personal feelings (powerlessness) and information consumption (conspiracy theories) during times of crisis. 4 Nonetheless, it is up to us to adapt to the challenges of current pandemic and similar crises, and whether we respond positively or negatively can greatly affect our personal and social lives. Indeed, there are many lessons we can learn from this crisis that can be used in building a better society. How we open to change will depend our capacity to adapt, to manage resilience in the face of adversity, flexibility and creativity without forcing us to make changes. As long as the world has not found a safe and effective vaccine, we may have to adjust to a new normal as people get back to work, school and a more normal life. As such, ‘we have reached the end of the beginning. New conventions, rituals, images and narratives will no doubt emerge, so there will be more work for cultural sociology before we get to the beginning of the end’. 5

Now, a year after COVID-19, we are starting to see a way to restore health, economies and societies together despite the new coronavirus strain. In the face of global crisis, we need to improvise, adapt and overcome. The new normal is still emerging, so I think that our immediate focus should be to tackle the complex problems that have emerged from the pandemic by highlighting resilience, recovery and restructuring (the new three Rs). The World Health Organization states that ‘recognizing that the virus will be with us for a long time, governments should also use this opportunity to invest in health systems, which can benefit all populations beyond COVID-19, as well as prepare for future public health emergencies’. 6 There may be little to gain from the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is important that the public should keep in mind that no one is being left behind. When the COVID-19 pandemic is over, the best of our new normal will survive to enrich our lives and our work in the future.

No funding was received for this paper.

UNESCO . A year after coronavirus: an inclusive ‘new normal’. https://en.unesco.org/news/year-after-coronavirus-inclusive-new-normal . (12 February 2021, date last accessed) .

Cordero DA . To stop or not to stop ‘culture’: determining the essential behavior of the government, church and public in fighting against COVID-19 . J Public Health (Oxf) 2021 . doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab026 .

Google Scholar

El-Erian MA . Navigating the New Normal in Industrial Countries . Washington, D.C. : International Monetary Fund , 2010 .

Google Preview

Alexander JC , Smith P . COVID-19 and symbolic action: global pandemic as code, narrative, and cultural performance . Am J Cult Sociol 2020 ; 8 : 263 – 9 .

Biddlestone M , Green R , Douglas KM . Cultural orientation, power, belief in conspiracy theories, and intentions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 . Br J Soc Psychol 2020 ; 59 ( 3 ): 663 – 73 .

World Health Organization . From the “new normal” to a “new future”: A sustainable response to COVID-19. 13 October 2020 . https: // www.who.int/westernpacific/news/commentaries/detail-hq/from-the-new-normal-to-a-new-future-a-sustainable-response-to-covid-19 . (12 February 2021, date last accessed) .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1741-3850
• Print ISSN 1741-3842
• Copyright © 2024 Faculty of Public Health
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2017

Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes

• Mugenyi Justice Kintu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-1168 1 , 2 ,
• Chang Zhu 2 &
• Edmond Kagambe 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  7 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

769k Accesses

230 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper investigates the effectiveness of a blended learning environment through analyzing the relationship between student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It is aimed at determining the significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness taking student characteristics/background and design features as independent variables and learning outcomes as dependent variables. A survey was administered to 238 respondents to gather data on student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. The final semester evaluation results were used as a measure for performance as an outcome. We applied the online self regulatory learning questionnaire for data on learner self regulation, the intrinsic motivation inventory for data on intrinsic motivation and other self-developed instruments for measuring the other constructs. Multiple regression analysis results showed that blended learning design features (technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support) and student characteristics (attitudes and self-regulation) predicted student satisfaction as an outcome. The results indicate that some of the student characteristics/backgrounds and design features are significant predictors for student learning outcomes in blended learning.

Introduction

The teaching and learning environment is embracing a number of innovations and some of these involve the use of technology through blended learning. This innovative pedagogical approach has been embraced rapidly though it goes through a process. The introduction of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online teaching and learning) initiatives is part of these innovations but its uptake, especially in the developing world faces challenges for it to be an effective innovation in teaching and learning. Blended learning effectiveness has quite a number of underlying factors that pose challenges. One big challenge is about how users can successfully use the technology and ensuring participants’ commitment given the individual learner characteristics and encounters with technology (Hofmann, 2014 ). Hofmann adds that users getting into difficulties with technology may result into abandoning the learning and eventual failure of technological applications. In a report by Oxford Group ( 2013 ), some learners (16%) had negative attitudes to blended learning while 26% were concerned that learners would not complete study in blended learning. Learners are important partners in any learning process and therefore, their backgrounds and characteristics affect their ability to effectively carry on with learning and being in blended learning, the design tools to be used may impinge on the effectiveness in their learning.

This study tackles blended learning effectiveness which has been investigated in previous studies considering grades, course completion, retention and graduation rates but no studies regarding effectiveness in view of learner characteristics/background, design features and outcomes have been done in the Ugandan university context. No studies have also been done on how the characteristics of learners and design features are predictors of outcomes in the context of a planning evaluation research (Guskey, 2000 ) to establish the effectiveness of blended learning. Guskey ( 2000 ) noted that planning evaluation fits in well since it occurs before the implementation of any innovation as well as allowing planners to determine the needs, considering participant characteristics, analyzing contextual matters and gathering baseline information. This study is done in the context of a plan to undertake innovative pedagogy involving use of a learning management system (moodle) for the first time in teaching and learning in a Ugandan university. The learner characteristics/backgrounds being investigated for blended learning effectiveness include self-regulation, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, attitude to blended learning, gender and age. We investigate the blended learning design features of learner interactions, face-to-face support, learning management system tools and technology quality while the outcomes considered include satisfaction, performance, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction. Establishing the significant predictors of outcomes in blended learning will help to inform planners of such learning environments in order to put in place necessary groundwork preparations for designing blended learning as an innovative pedagogical approach.

Kenney and Newcombe ( 2011 ) did their comparison to establish effectiveness in view of grades and found that blended learning had higher average score than the non-blended learning environment. Garrison and Kanuka ( 2004 ) examined the transformative potential of blended learning and reported an increase in course completion rates, improved retention and increased student satisfaction. Comparisons between blended learning environments have been done to establish the disparity between academic achievement, grade dispersions and gender performance differences and no significant differences were found between the groups (Demirkol & Kazu, 2014 ).

However, blended learning effectiveness may be dependent on many other factors and among them student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes. Research shows that the failure of learners to continue their online education in some cases has been due to family support or increased workload leading to learner dropout (Park & Choi, 2009 ) as well as little time for study. Additionally, it is dependent on learner interactions with instructors since failure to continue with online learning is attributed to this. In Greer, Hudson & Paugh’s study as cited in Park and Choi ( 2009 ), family and peer support for learners is important for success in online and face-to-face learning. Support is needed for learners from all areas in web-based courses and this may be from family, friends, co-workers as well as peers in class. Greer, Hudson and Paugh further noted that peer encouragement assisted new learners in computer use and applications. The authors also show that learners need time budgeting, appropriate technology tools and support from friends and family in web-based courses. Peer support is required by learners who have no or little knowledge of technology, especially computers, to help them overcome fears. Park and Choi, ( 2009 ) showed that organizational support significantly predicts learners’ stay and success in online courses because employers at times are willing to reduce learners’ workload during study as well as supervisors showing that they are interested in job-related learning for employees to advance and improve their skills.

The study by Kintu and Zhu ( 2016 ) investigated the possibility of blended learning in a Ugandan University and examined whether student characteristics (such as self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning, computer competence) and student background (such as family support, social support and management of workload) were significant factors in learner outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, knowledge construction and performance). The characteristics and background factors were studied along with blended learning design features such as technology quality, learner interactions, and Moodle with its tools and resources. The findings from that study indicated that learner attitudes towards blended learning were significant factors to learner satisfaction and motivation while workload management was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction. Among the blended learning design features, only learner interaction was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction.

The focus of the present study is on examining the effectiveness of blended learning taking into consideration learner characteristics/background, blended learning design elements and learning outcomes and how the former are significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

Studies like that of Morris and Lim ( 2009 ) have investigated learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes in blended learning. They however do not deal with such variables in the contexts of blended learning design as an aspect of innovative pedagogy involving the use of technology in education. Apart from the learner variables such as gender, age, experience, study time as tackled before, this study considers social and background aspects of the learners such as family and social support, self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning and management of workload to find out their relationship to blended learning effectiveness. Identifying the various types of learner variables with regard to their relationship to blended learning effectiveness is important in this study as we embark on innovative pedagogy with technology in teaching and learning.

Literature review

This review presents research about blended learning effectiveness from the perspective of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It also gives the factors that are considered to be significant for blended learning effectiveness. The selected elements are as a result of the researcher’s experiences at a Ugandan university where student learning faces challenges with regard to learner characteristics and blended learning features in adopting the use of technology in teaching and learning. We have made use of Loukis, Georgiou, and Pazalo ( 2007 ) value flow model for evaluating an e-learning and blended learning service specifically considering the effectiveness evaluation layer. This evaluates the extent of an e-learning system usage and the educational effectiveness. In addition, studies by Leidner, Jarvenpaa, Dillon and Gunawardena as cited in Selim ( 2007 ) have noted three main factors that affect e-learning and blended learning effectiveness as instructor characteristics, technology and student characteristics. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino ( 2001 ) showed the need for examining learner characteristics for effective instructional technology use and showed that user characteristics do impact on behavioral intention to use technology. Research has dealt with learner characteristics that contribute to learner performance outcomes. They have dealt with emotional intelligence, resilience, personality type and success in an online learning context (Berenson, Boyles, & Weaver, 2008 ). Dealing with the characteristics identified in this study will give another dimension, especially for blended learning in learning environment designs and add to specific debate on learning using technology. Lin and Vassar, ( 2009 ) indicated that learner success is dependent on ability to cope with technical difficulty as well as technical skills in computer operations and internet navigation. This justifies our approach in dealing with the design features of blended learning in this study.

Learner characteristics/background and blended learning effectiveness

Studies indicate that student characteristics such as gender play significant roles in academic achievement (Oxford Group, 2013 ), but no study examines performance of male and female as an important factor in blended learning effectiveness. It has again been noted that the success of e- and blended learning is highly dependent on experience in internet and computer applications (Picciano & Seaman, 2007 ). Rigorous discovery of such competences can finally lead to a confirmation of high possibilities of establishing blended learning. Research agrees that the success of e-learning and blended learning can largely depend on students as well as teachers gaining confidence and capability to participate in blended learning (Hadad, 2007 ). Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ) note in their research that 75% of students and 72% of teachers were lacking in skills to utilize ICT based learning components due to insufficient skills and experience in computer and internet applications and this may lead to failure in e-learning and blended learning. It is therefore pertinent that since the use of blended learning applies high usage of computers, computer competence is necessary (Abubakar & Adetimirin, 2015 ) to avoid failure in applying technology in education for learning effectiveness. Rovai, ( 2003 ) noted that learners’ computer literacy and time management are crucial in distance learning contexts and concluded that such factors are meaningful in online classes. This is supported by Selim ( 2007 ) that learners need to posses time management skills and computer skills necessary for effectiveness in e- learning and blended learning. Self-regulatory skills of time management lead to better performance and learners’ ability to structure the physical learning environment leads to efficiency in e-learning and blended learning environments. Learners need to seek helpful assistance from peers and teachers through chats, email and face-to-face meetings for effectiveness (Lynch & Dembo, 2004 ). Factors such as learners’ hours of employment and family responsibilities are known to impede learners’ process of learning, blended learning inclusive (Cohen, Stage, Hammack, & Marcus, 2012 ). It was also noted that a common factor in failure and learner drop-out is the time conflict which is compounded by issues of family , employment status as well as management support (Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2004 ). A study by Thompson ( 2004 ) shows that work, family, insufficient time and study load made learners withdraw from online courses.

Learner attitudes to blended learning can result in its effectiveness and these shape behavioral intentions which usually lead to persistence in a learning environment, blended inclusive. Selim, ( 2007 ) noted that the learners’ attitude towards e-learning and blended learning are success factors for these learning environments. Learner performance by age and gender in e-learning and blended learning has been found to indicate no significant differences between male and female learners and different age groups (i.e. young, middle-aged and old above 45 years) (Coldwell, Craig, Paterson, & Mustard, 2008 ). This implies that the potential for blended learning to be effective exists and is unhampered by gender or age differences.

Blended learning design features

The design features under study here include interactions, technology with its quality, face-to-face support and learning management system tools and resources.

Research shows that absence of learner interaction causes failure and eventual drop-out in online courses (Willging & Johnson, 2009 ) and the lack of learner connectedness was noted as an internal factor leading to learner drop-out in online courses (Zielinski, 2000 ). It was also noted that learners may not continue in e- and blended learning if they are unable to make friends thereby being disconnected and developing feelings of isolation during their blended learning experiences (Willging & Johnson, 2009). Learners’ Interactions with teachers and peers can make blended learning effective as its absence makes learners withdraw (Astleitner, 2000 ). Loukis, Georgious and Pazalo (2007) noted that learners’ measuring of a system’s quality, reliability and ease of use leads to learning efficiency and can be so in blended learning. Learner success in blended learning may substantially be affected by system functionality (Pituch & Lee, 2006 ) and may lead to failure of such learning initiatives (Shrain, 2012 ). It is therefore important to examine technology quality for ensuring learning effectiveness in blended learning. Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou ( 2011 ) investigated learner perceptions after a learning management system use and found out that the actual system use determines the usefulness among users. It is again noted that a system with poor response time cannot be taken to be useful for e-learning and blended learning especially in cases of limited bandwidth (Anderson, 2004 ). In this study, we investigate the use of Moodle and its tools as a function of potential effectiveness of blended learning.

The quality of learning management system content for learners can be a predictor of good performance in e-and blended learning environments and can lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor quality technology yields no satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of technology significantly affects satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001 ). Continued navigation through a learning management system increases use and is an indicator of success in blended learning (Delone & McLean, 2003 ). The efficient use of learning management system and its tools improves learning outcomes in e-learning and blended learning environments.

It is noted that learner satisfaction with a learning management system can be an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness. Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) noted that learners showed an appreciation to Moodle’s contribution in their learning. They showed positivity with it as it improved their understanding of course material (Ahmad & Al-Khanjari, 2011 ). The study by Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) used descriptive statistics to indicate improved learning by use of uploaded syllabus and session plans on Moodle. Improved learning is also noted through sharing study material, submitting assignments and using the calendar. Learners in the study found Moodle to be an effective educational tool.

In blended learning set ups, face-to-face experiences form part of the blend and learner positive attitudes to such sessions could mean blended learning effectiveness. A study by Marriot, Marriot, and Selwyn ( 2004 ) showed learners expressing their preference for face-to-face due to its facilitation of social interaction and communication skills acquired from classroom environment. Their preference for the online session was only in as far as it complemented the traditional face-to-face learning. Learners in a study by Osgerby ( 2013 ) had positive perceptions of blended learning but preferred face-to-face with its step-by-stem instruction. Beard, Harper and Riley ( 2004 ) shows that some learners are successful while in a personal interaction with teachers and peers thus prefer face-to-face in the blend. Beard however dealt with a comparison between online and on-campus learning while our study combines both, singling out the face-to-face part of the blend. The advantage found by Beard is all the same relevant here because learners in blended learning express attitude to both online and face-to-face for an effective blend. Researchers indicate that teacher presence in face-to-face sessions lessens psychological distance between them and the learners and leads to greater learning. This is because there are verbal aspects like giving praise, soliciting for viewpoints, humor, etc and non-verbal expressions like eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, etc which make teachers to be closer to learners psychologically (Kelley & Gorham, 2009 ).

Learner outcomes

The outcomes under scrutiny in this study include performance, motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction. Motivation is seen here as an outcome because, much as cognitive factors such as course grades are used in measuring learning outcomes, affective factors like intrinsic motivation may also be used to indicate outcomes of learning (Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013 ). Research shows that high motivation among online learners leads to persistence in their courses (Menager-Beeley, 2004 ). Sankaran and Bui ( 2001 ) indicated that less motivated learners performed poorly in knowledge tests while those with high learning motivation demonstrate high performance in academics (Green, Nelson, Martin, & Marsh, 2006 ). Lim and Kim, ( 2003 ) indicated that learner interest as a motivation factor promotes learner involvement in learning and this could lead to learning effectiveness in blended learning.

Learner satisfaction was noted as a strong factor for effectiveness of blended and online courses (Wilging & Johnson, 2009) and dissatisfaction may result from learners’ incompetence in the use of the learning management system as an effective learning tool since, as Islam ( 2014 ) puts it, users may be dissatisfied with an information system due to ease of use. A lack of prompt feedback for learners from course instructors was found to cause dissatisfaction in an online graduate course. In addition, dissatisfaction resulted from technical difficulties as well as ambiguous course instruction Hara and Kling ( 2001 ). These factors, once addressed, can lead to learner satisfaction in e-learning and blended learning and eventual effectiveness. A study by Blocker and Tucker ( 2001 ) also showed that learners had difficulties with technology and inadequate group participation by peers leading to dissatisfaction within these design features. Student-teacher interactions are known to bring satisfaction within online courses. Study results by Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that student-teacher interaction strongly related with student satisfaction and high learner-learner interaction resulted in higher levels of course satisfaction. Descriptive results by Naaj, Nachouki, and Ankit ( 2012 ) showed that learners were satisfied with technology which was a video-conferencing component of blended learning with a mean of 3.7. The same study indicated student satisfaction with instructors at a mean of 3.8. Askar and Altun, ( 2008 ) found that learners were satisfied with face-to-face sessions of the blend with t-tests and ANOVA results indicating female scores as higher than for males in the satisfaction with face-to-face environment of the blended learning.

Studies comparing blended learning with traditional face-to-face have indicated that learners perform equally well in blended learning and their performance is unaffected by the delivery method (Kwak, Menezes, & Sherwood, 2013 ). In another study, learning experience and performance are known to improve when traditional course delivery is integrated with online learning (Stacey & Gerbic, 2007 ). Such improvement as noted may be an indicator of blended learning effectiveness. Our study however, delves into improved performance but seeks to establish the potential of blended learning effectiveness by considering grades obtained in a blended learning experiment. Score 50 and above is considered a pass in this study’s setting and learners scoring this and above will be considered to have passed. This will make our conclusions about the potential of blended learning effectiveness.

Regarding knowledge construction, it has been noted that effective learning occurs where learners are actively involved (Nurmela, Palonen, Lehtinen & Hakkarainen, 2003 , cited in Zhu, 2012 ) and this may be an indicator of learning environment effectiveness. Effective blended learning would require that learners are able to initiate, discover and accomplish the processes of knowledge construction as antecedents of blended learning effectiveness. A study by Rahman, Yasin and Jusoff ( 2011 ) indicated that learners were able to use some steps to construct meaning through an online discussion process through assignments given. In the process of giving and receiving among themselves, the authors noted that learners learned by writing what they understood. From our perspective, this can be considered to be accomplishment in the knowledge construction process. Their study further shows that learners construct meaning individually from assignments and this stage is referred to as pre-construction which for our study, is an aspect of discovery in the knowledge construction process.

Predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Researchers have dealt with success factors for online learning or those for traditional face-to-face learning but little is known about factors that predict blended learning effectiveness in view of learner characteristics and blended learning design features. This part of our study seeks to establish the learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features that predict blended learning effectiveness with regard to satisfaction, outcomes, motivation and knowledge construction. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh ( 2004 ) examined online learning effectiveness factors and found out that time management (a self-regulatory factor) was crucial for successful online learning. Eom, Wen, and Ashill ( 2006 ) using a survey found out that interaction, among other factors, was significant for learner satisfaction. Technical problems with regard to instructional design were a challenge to online learners thus not indicating effectiveness (Song et al., 2004 ), though the authors also indicated that descriptive statistics to a tune of 75% and time management (62%) impact on success of online learning. Arbaugh ( 2000 ) and Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that high levels of learner-instructor interaction are associated with high levels of user satisfaction and learning outcomes. A study by Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) indicated that technology and learner interactions, among other factors, influenced learner satisfaction in blended learning.

Objective and research questions of the current study

The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in view of student satisfaction, knowledge construction, performance and intrinsic motivation and how they are related to student characteristics and blended learning design features in a blended learning environment.

Research questions

What are the student characteristics and blended learning design features for an effective blended learning environment?

Which factors (among the learner characteristics and blended learning design features) predict student satisfaction, learning outcomes, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction?

Conceptual model of the present study

The reviewed literature clearly shows learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features play a part in blended learning effectiveness and some of them are significant predictors of effectiveness. The conceptual model for our study is depicted as follows (Fig.  1 ):

Conceptual model of the current study

Research design

This research applies a quantitative design where descriptive statistics are used for the student characteristics and design features data, t-tests for the age and gender variables to determine if they are significant in blended learning effectiveness and regression for predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

This study is based on an experiment in which learners participated during their study using face-to-face sessions and an on-line session of a blended learning design. A learning management system (Moodle) was used and learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features were measured in relation to learning effectiveness. It is therefore a planning evaluation research design as noted by Guskey ( 2000 ) since the outcomes are aimed at blended learning implementation at MMU. The plan under which the various variables were tested involved face-to-face study at the beginning of a 17 week semester which was followed by online teaching and learning in the second half of the semester. The last part of the semester was for another face-to-face to review work done during the online sessions and final semester examinations. A questionnaire with items on student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes was distributed among students from three schools and one directorate of postgraduate studies.

Participants

Cluster sampling was used to select a total of 238 learners to participate in this study. Out of the whole university population of students, three schools and one directorate were used. From these, one course unit was selected from each school and all the learners following the course unit were surveyed. In the school of Education ( n  = 70) and Business and Management Studies ( n  = 133), sophomore students were involved due to the fact that they have been introduced to ICT basics during their first year of study. Students of the third year were used from the department of technology in the School of Applied Sciences and Technology ( n  = 18) since most of the year two courses had a lot of practical aspects that could not be used for the online learning part. From the Postgraduate Directorate ( n  = 17), first and second year students were selected because learners attend a face-to-face session before they are given paper modules to study away from campus.

The study population comprised of 139 male students representing 58.4% and 99 females representing 41.6% with an average age of 24 years.

Instruments

The end of semester results were used to measure learner performance. The online self-regulated learning questionnaire (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, & Lai, 2009 ) and the intrinsic motivation inventory (Deci & Ryan, 1982 ) were applied to measure the constructs on self regulation in the student characteristics and motivation in the learning outcome constructs. Other self-developed instruments were used for the other remaining variables of attitudes, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, satisfaction, knowledge construction, technology quality, interactions, learning management system tools and resources and face-to-face support.

Instrument reliability

Cronbach’s alpha was used to test reliability and the table below gives the results. All the scales and sub-scales had acceptable internal consistency reliabilities as shown in Table  1 below:

Data analysis

First, descriptive statistics was conducted. Shapiro-Wilk test was done to test normality of the data for it to qualify for parametric tests. The test results for normality of our data before the t- test resulted into significant levels (Male = .003, female = .000) thereby violating the normality assumption. We therefore used the skewness and curtosis results which were between −1.0 and +1.0 and assumed distribution to be sufficiently normal to qualify the data for a parametric test, (Pallant, 2010 ). An independent samples t -test was done to find out the differences in male and female performance to explain the gender characteristics in blended learning effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA between subjects was conducted to establish the differences in performance between age groups. Finally, multiple regression analysis was done between student variables and design elements with learning outcomes to determine the significant predictors for blended learning effectiveness.

Student characteristics, blended learning design features and learning outcomes ( RQ1 )

A t- test was carried out to establish the performance of male and female learners in the blended learning set up. This was aimed at finding out if male and female learners do perform equally well in blended learning given their different roles and responsibilities in society. It was found that male learners performed slightly better ( M  = 62.5) than their female counterparts ( M  = 61.1). An independent t -test revealed that the difference between the performances was not statistically significant ( t  = 1.569, df = 228, p  = 0.05, one tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means is small with effect size ( d  = 0.18). A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted on the performance of different age groups to establish the performance of learners of young and middle aged age groups (20–30, young & and 31–39, middle aged). This revealed a significant difference in performance (F(1,236 = 8.498, p < . 001).

Average percentages of the items making up the self regulated learning scale are used to report the findings about all the sub-scales in the learner characteristics/background scale. Results show that learner self-regulation was good enough at 72.3% in all the sub-scales of goal setting, environment structuring, task strategies, time management, help-seeking and self-evaluation among learners. The least in the scoring was task strategies at 67.7% and the highest was learner environment structuring at 76.3%. Learner attitude towards blended learning environment is at 76% in the sub-scales of learner autonomy, quality of instructional materials, course structure, course interface and interactions. The least scored here is attitude to course structure at 66% and their attitudes were high on learner autonomy and course interface both at 82%. Results on the learners’ computer competences are summarized in percentages in the table below (Table  2 ):

It can be seen that learners are skilled in word processing at 91%, email at 63.5%, spreadsheets at 68%, web browsers at 70.2% and html tools at 45.4%. They are therefore good enough in word processing and web browsing. Their computer confidence levels are reported at 75.3% and specifically feel very confident when it comes to working with a computer (85.7%). Levels of family and social support for learners during blended learning experiences are at 60.5 and 75% respectively. There is however a low score on learners being assisted by family members in situations of computer setbacks (33.2%) as 53.4% of the learners reported no assistance in this regard. A higher percentage (85.3%) is reported on learners getting support from family regarding provision of essentials for learning such as tuition. A big percentage of learners spend two hours on study while at home (35.3%) followed by one hour (28.2%) while only 9.7% spend more than three hours on study at home. Peers showed great care during the blended learning experience (81%) and their experiences were appreciated by the society (66%). Workload management by learners vis-à-vis studying is good at 60%. Learners reported that their workmates stand in for them at workplaces to enable them do their study in blended learning while 61% are encouraged by their bosses to go and improve their skills through further education and training. On the time spent on other activities not related to study, majority of the learners spend three hours (35%) while 19% spend 6 hours. Sixty percent of the learners have to answer to someone when they are not attending to other activities outside study compared to the 39.9% who do not and can therefore do study or those other activities.

The usability of the online system, tools and resources was below average as shown in the table below in percentages (Table  3 ):

However, learners became skilled at navigating around the learning management system (79%) and it was easy for them to locate course content, tools and resources needed such as course works, news, discussions and journal materials. They effectively used the communication tools (60%) and to work with peers by making posts (57%). They reported that online resources were well organized, user friendly and easy to access (71%) as well as well structured in a clear and understandable manner (72%). They therefore recommended the use of online resources for other course units in future (78%) because they were satisfied with them (64.3%). On the whole, the online resources were fine for the learners (67.2%) and useful as a learning resource (80%). The learners’ perceived usefulness/satisfaction with online system, tools, and resources was at 81% as the LMS tools helped them to communicate, work with peers and reflect on their learning (74%). They reported that using moodle helped them to learn new concepts, information and gaining skills (85.3%) as well as sharing what they knew or learned (76.4%). They enjoyed the course units (78%) and improved their skills with technology (89%).

Learner interactions were seen from three angles of cognitivism, collaborative learning and student-teacher interactions. Collaborative learning was average at 50% with low percentages in learners posting challenges to colleagues’ ideas online (34%) and posting ideas for colleagues to read online (37%). They however met oftentimes online (60%) and organized how they would work together in study during the face-to-face meetings (69%). The common form of communication medium frequently used by learners during the blended learning experience was by phone (34.5%) followed by whatsapp (21.8%), face book (21%), discussion board (11.8%) and email (10.9%). At the cognitive level, learners interacted with content at 72% by reading the posted content (81%), exchanging knowledge via the LMS (58.4%), participating in discussions on the forum (62%) and got course objectives and structure introduced during the face-to-face sessions (86%). Student-teacher interaction was reported at 71% through instructors individually working with them online (57.2%) and being well guided towards learning goals (81%). They did receive suggestions from instructors about resources to use in their learning (75.3%) and instructors provided learning input for them to come up with their own answers (71%).

The technology quality during the blended learning intervention was rated at 69% with availability of 72%, quality of the resources was at 68% with learners reporting that discussion boards gave right content necessary for study (71%) and the email exchanges containing relevant and much needed information (63.4%) as well as chats comprising of essential information to aid the learning (69%). Internet reliability was rated at 66% with a speed considered averagely good to facilitate online activities (63%). They however reported that there was intermittent breakdown during online study (67%) though they could complete their internet program during connection (63.4%). Learners eventually found it easy to download necessary materials for study in their blended learning experiences (71%).

Learner extent of use of the learning management system features was as shown in the table below in percentage (Table  4 ):

From the table, very rarely used features include the blog and wiki while very often used ones include the email, forum, chat and calendar.

The effectiveness of the LMS was rated at 79% by learners reporting that they found it useful (89%) and using it makes their learning activities much easier (75.2%). Moodle has helped learners to accomplish their learning tasks more quickly (74%) and that as a LMS, it is effective in teaching and learning (88%) with overall satisfaction levels at 68%. However, learners note challenges in the use of the LMS regarding its performance as having been problematic to them (57%) and only 8% of the learners reported navigation while 16% reported access as challenges.

Learner attitudes towards Face-to-face support were reported at 88% showing that the sessions were enjoyable experiences (89%) with high quality class discussions (86%) and therefore recommended that the sessions should continue in blended learning (89%). The frequency of the face-to-face sessions is shown in the table below as preferred by learners (Table  5 ).

Learners preferred face-to-face sessions after every month in the semester (33.6%) and at the beginning of the blended learning session only (27.7%).

Learners reported high intrinsic motivation levels with interest and enjoyment of tasks at 83.7%, perceived competence at 70.2%, effort/importance sub-scale at 80%, pressure/tension reported at 54%. The pressure percentage of 54% arises from learners feeling nervous (39.2%) and a lot of anxiety (53%) while 44% felt a lot of pressure during the blended learning experiences. Learners however reported the value/usefulness of blended learning at 91% with majority believing that studying online and face-to-face had value for them (93.3%) and were therefore willing to take part in blended learning (91.2%). They showed that it is beneficial for them (94%) and that it was an important way of studying (84.3%).

Learner satisfaction was reported at 81% especially with instructors (85%) high percentage reported on encouraging learner participation during the course of study 93%, course content (83%) with the highest being satisfaction with the good relationship between the objectives of the course units and the content (90%), technology (71%) with a high percentage on the fact that the platform was adequate for the online part of the learning (76%), interactions (75%) with participation in class at 79%, and face-to-face sessions (91%) with learner satisfaction high on face-to-face sessions being good enough for interaction and giving an overview of the courses when objectives were introduced at 92%.

Learners’ knowledge construction was reported at 78% with initiation and discovery scales scoring 84% with 88% specifically for discovering the learning points in the course units. The accomplishment scale in knowledge construction scored 71% and specifically the fact that learners were able to work together with group members to accomplish learning tasks throughout the study of the course units (79%). Learners developed reports from activities (67%), submitted solutions to discussion questions (68%) and did critique peer arguments (69%). Generally, learners performed well in blended learning in the final examination with an average pass of 62% and standard deviation of 7.5.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness ( RQ 2)

A standard multiple regression analysis was done taking learner characteristics/background and design features as predictor variables and learning outcomes as criterion variables. The data was first tested to check if it met the linear regression test assumptions and results showed the correlations between the independent variables and each of the dependent variables (highest 0.62 and lowest 0.22) as not being too high, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in our model. From the coefficients table, the VIF values ranged from 1.0 to 2.4, well below the cut off value of 10 and indicating no possibility of multicollinearity. The normal probability plot was seen to lie as a reasonably straight diagonal from bottom left to top right indicating normality of our data. Linearity was found suitable from the scatter plot of the standardized residuals and was rectangular in distribution. Outliers were no cause for concern in our data since we had only 1% of all cases falling outside 3.0 thus proving the data as a normally distributed sample. Our R -square values was at 0.525 meaning that the independent variables explained about 53% of the variance in overall satisfaction, motivation and knowledge construction of the learners. All the models explaining the three dependent variables of learner satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction were significant at the 0.000 probability level (Table  6 ).

From the table above, design features (technology quality and online tools and resources), and learner characteristics (attitudes to blended learning, self-regulation) were significant predictors of learner satisfaction in blended learning. This means that good technology with the features involved and the learner positive attitudes with capacity to do blended learning with self drive led to their satisfaction. The design features (technology quality, interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation and social support), were found to be significant predictors of learner knowledge construction. This implies that learners’ capacity to go on their work by themselves supported by peers and high levels of interaction using the quality technology led them to construct their own ideas in blended learning. Design features (technology quality, online tools and resources as well as learner interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation), significantly predicted the learners’ intrinsic motivation in blended learning suggesting that good technology, tools and high interaction levels with independence in learning led to learners being highly motivated. Finally, none of the independent variables considered under this study were predictors of learning outcomes (grade).

In this study we have investigated learning outcomes as dependent variables to establish if particular learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features are related to the outcomes for blended learning effectiveness and if they predict learning outcomes in blended learning. We took students from three schools out of five and one directorate of post-graduate studies at a Ugandan University. The study suggests that the characteristics and design features examined are good drivers towards an effective blended learning environment though a few of them predicted learning outcomes in blended learning.

Student characteristics/background, blended learning design features and learning outcomes

The learner characteristics, design features investigated are potentially important for an effective blended learning environment. Performance by gender shows a balance with no statistical differences between male and female. There are statistically significant differences ( p  < .005) in the performance between age groups with means of 62% for age group 20–30 and 67% for age group 31 –39. The indicators of self regulation exist as well as positive attitudes towards blended learning. Learners do well with word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets and web browsers but still lag below average in html tools. They show computer confidence at 75.3%; which gives prospects for an effective blended learning environment in regard to their computer competence and confidence. The levels of family and social support for learners stand at 61 and 75% respectively, indicating potential for blended learning to be effective. The learners’ balance between study and work is a drive factor towards blended learning effectiveness since their management of their workload vis a vis study time is at 60 and 61% of the learners are encouraged to go for study by their bosses. Learner satisfaction with the online system and its tools shows prospect for blended learning effectiveness but there are challenges in regard to locating course content and assignments, submitting their work and staying on a task during online study. Average collaborative, cognitive learning as well as learner-teacher interactions exist as important factors. Technology quality for effective blended learning is a potential for effectiveness though features like the blog and wiki are rarely used by learners. Face-to-face support is satisfactory and it should be conducted every month. There is high intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction as well as good performance in examinations ( M  = 62%, SD = 7.5); which indicates potentiality for blended learning effectiveness.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Among the design features, technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support are predictors of learner satisfaction while learner characteristics of self regulation and attitudes to blended learning are predictors of satisfaction. Technology quality and interactions are the only design features predicting learner knowledge construction, while social support, among the learner backgrounds, is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation as a learner characteristic is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation is the only learner characteristic predicting intrinsic motivation in blended learning while technology quality, online tools and interactions are the design features predicting intrinsic motivation. However, all the independent variables are not significant predictors of learning performance in blended learning.

The high computer competences and confidence is an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness as noted by Hadad ( 2007 ) and this study finds learners confident and competent enough for the effectiveness of blended learning. A lack in computer skills causes failure in e-learning and blended learning as noted by Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ). From our study findings, this is no threat for blended learning our case as noted by our results. Contrary to Cohen et al. ( 2012 ) findings that learners’ family responsibilities and hours of employment can impede their process of learning, it is not the case here since they are drivers to the blended learning process. Time conflict, as compounded by family, employment status and management support (Packham et al., 2004 ) were noted as causes of learner failure and drop out of online courses. Our results show, on the contrary, that these factors are drivers for blended learning effectiveness because learners have a good balance between work and study and are supported by bosses to study. In agreement with Selim ( 2007 ), learner positive attitudes towards e-and blended learning environments are success factors. In line with Coldwell et al. ( 2008 ), no statistically significant differences exist between age groups. We however note that Coldwel, et al dealt with young, middle-aged and old above 45 years whereas we dealt with young and middle aged only.

Learner interactions at all levels are good enough and contrary to Astleitner, ( 2000 ) that their absence makes learners withdraw, they are a drive factor here. In line with Loukis (2007) the LMS quality, reliability and ease of use lead to learning efficiency as technology quality, online tools are predictors of learner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Face-to-face sessions should continue on a monthly basis as noted here and is in agreement with Marriot et al. ( 2004 ) who noted learner preference for it for facilitating social interaction and communication skills. High learner intrinsic motivation leads to persistence in online courses as noted by Menager-Beeley, ( 2004 ) and is high enough in our study. This implies a possibility of an effectiveness blended learning environment. The causes of learner dissatisfaction noted by Islam ( 2014 ) such as incompetence in the use of the LMS are contrary to our results in our study, while the one noted by Hara and Kling, ( 2001 ) as resulting from technical difficulties and ambiguous course instruction are no threat from our findings. Student-teacher interaction showed a relation with satisfaction according to Swan ( 2001 ) but is not a predictor in our study. Initiating knowledge construction by learners for blended learning effectiveness is exhibited in our findings and agrees with Rahman, Yasin and Jusof ( 2011 ). Our study has not agreed with Eom et al. ( 2006 ) who found learner interactions as predictors of learner satisfaction but agrees with Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) regarding technology as a predictor of learner satisfaction.

Conclusion and recommendations

An effective blended learning environment is necessary in undertaking innovative pedagogical approaches through the use of technology in teaching and learning. An examination of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes as factors for effectiveness can help to inform the design of effective learning environments that involve face-to-face sessions and online aspects. Most of the student characteristics and blended learning design features dealt with in this study are important factors for blended learning effectiveness. None of the independent variables were identified as significant predictors of student performance. These gaps are open for further investigation in order to understand if they can be significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness in a similar or different learning setting.

In planning to design and implement blended learning, we are mindful of the implications raised by this study which is a planning evaluation research for the design and eventual implementation of blended learning. Universities should be mindful of the interplay between the learner characteristics, design features and learning outcomes which are indicators of blended learning effectiveness. From this research, learners manifest high potential to take on blended learning more especially in regard to learner self-regulation exhibited. Blended learning is meant to increase learners’ levels of knowledge construction in order to create analytical skills in them. Learner ability to assess and critically evaluate knowledge sources is hereby established in our findings. This can go a long way in producing skilled learners who can be innovative graduates enough to satisfy employment demands through creativity and innovativeness. Technology being less of a shock to students gives potential for blended learning design. Universities and other institutions of learning should continue to emphasize blended learning approaches through installation of learning management systems along with strong internet to enable effective learning through technology especially in the developing world.

Abubakar, D. & Adetimirin. (2015). Influence of computer literacy on post-graduates’ use of e-resources in Nigerian University Libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. From http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/ . Retrieved 18 Aug 2015.

Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1 (4), 746–752.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning . Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-basedMBAcourses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63 (4), 9–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Askar, P. & Altun, A. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-Leader Krakow , 2008.

Astleitner, H. (2000) Dropout and distance education. A review of motivational and emotional strategies to reduce dropout in web-based distance education. In Neuwe Medien in Unterricht, Aus-und Weiterbildung Waxmann Munster, New York.

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self regulation in online and blended learning environments’. Internet and Higher Education, 12 (1), 1–6.

Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48 (6), 29–31.

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a predictor for success in online learning. International Review of Research in open & Distance Learning, 9 (2), 1–16.

Blocker, J. M., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using constructivist principles in designing and integrating online collaborative interactions. In F. Fuller & R. McBride (Eds.), Distance education. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 32–36). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 457 822.

Cohen, K. E., Stage, F. K., Hammack, F. M., & Marcus, A. (2012). Persistence of master’s students in the United States: Developing and testing of a conceptual model . USA: PhD Dissertation, New York University.

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between participation, demographics and academic performance. The Electronic Journal of e-learning, 6 (1), 19–30.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1982). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Available from selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2016.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems success: A Ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

Demirkol, M., & Kazu, I. Y. (2014). Effect of blended environment model on high school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13 (1), 78–87.

Eom, S., Wen, H., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4 (2), 215–235.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 95–105.

Goyal, E., & Tambe, S. (2015). Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (2), 14–22.

Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement. International Education Journal, 7 (4), 534–546.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development . Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hadad, W. (2007). ICT-in-education toolkit reference handbook . InfoDev. from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.301.html . Retrieved 04 Aug 2015.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in web-based distance education. Educause Quarterly. 3 (2001).

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Top 10 challenges of blended learning. Available on cedma-europe.org .

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30 , 249–261.

Kelley, D. H. & Gorham, J. (2009) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37 (3), 198–207.

Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2011). Adopting a blended learning approach: Challenges, encountered and lessons learned in an action research study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1), 45–57.

Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14 (3), 181–195.

Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, L. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (1), 16–39.

Kwak, D. W., Menezes, F. M., & Sherwood, C. (2013). Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–136.

Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. J. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31 (4), 423–439.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learner outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.

Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5 (3), 340–350.

Loukis, E., Georgiou, S. & Pazalo, K. (2007). A value flow model for the evaluation of an e-learning service. ECIS, 2007 Proceedings, paper 175.

Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5 (2), 1–16.

Marriot, N., Marriot, P., & Selwyn. (2004). Accounting undergraduates’ changing use of ICT and their views on using the internet in higher education-A Research note. Accounting Education, 13 (4), 117–130.

Menager-Beeley, R. (2004). Web-based distance learning in a community college: The influence of task values on task choice, retention and commitment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (9-A), 3191.

Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11 , 185–200.

Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E. & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analysing CSCL process. In Wasson, B. Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, V. (eds), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp 333–342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.

Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22 (1), 85–99.

Oxford Group, (2013). Blended learning-current use, challenges and best practices. From http://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf . Accessed on 17 Mar 2016.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46 (6–7), 335–342.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Mannual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: OUP McGraw-Hill.

Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 207–217.

Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators . New York, USA: Sloan-C.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401–426.

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47 (2), 222–244.

Rahman, S. et al, (2011). Knowledge construction process in online learning. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 8 (2), 488–492.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Computers & Education, 6 (1), 1–16.

Sankaran, S., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in Web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28 (3), 191–198.

Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49 (2), 396–413.

Shraim, K., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16 (3), 159–173.

Shrain, K. (2012). Moving towards e-learning paradigm: Readiness of higher education instructors in Palestine. International Journal on E-Learning, 11 (4), 441–463.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics’. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 59–70.

Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning: research perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Education and Information Technologies, 12 , 165–174.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306–331.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Thompson, E. (2004). Distance education drop-out: What can we do? In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning Through Teaching (Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, pp. 324–332). Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to drop-out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (3), 115–127.

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–137.

Zielinski, D. (2000). Can you keep learners online? Training, 37 (3), 64–75.

Download references

Authors’ contribution

MJK conceived the study idea, developed the conceptual framework, collected the data, analyzed it and wrote the article. CZ gave the technical advice concerning the write-up and advised on relevant corrections to be made before final submission. EK did the proof-reading of the article as well as language editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mountains of the Moon University, P.O. Box 837, Fort Portal, Uganda

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Edmond Kagambe

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Ixelles, Belgium

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Chang Zhu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mugenyi Justice Kintu .

Rights and permissions

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C. & Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Download citation

Received : 13 July 2016

Accepted : 23 November 2016

Published : 06 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Blended learning effectiveness
• Learner characteristics
• Design features
• Learning outcomes and significant predictors

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, teaching and learning continuity amid and beyond the pandemic.

• Office of the University President, Palompon - Office of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Garcia-Center for Research and Development, Olvido - Office of the Board and University Secretary, Cebu, Philippines

The study explored the challenges and issues in teaching and learning continuity of public higher education in the Philippines as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study employed the exploratory mixed-method triangulation design and analyzed the data gathered from 3, 989 respondents composed of students and faculty members. It was found out that during school lockdowns, the teachers made adjustments in teaching and learning designs guided by the policies implemented by the institution. Most of the students had difficulty complying with the learning activities and requirements due to limited or no internet connectivity. Emerging themes were identified from the qualitative responses to include the trajectory for flexible learning delivery, the role of technology, the teaching and learning environment, and the prioritization of safety and security. Scenario analysis provided the contextual basis for strategic actions amid and beyond the pandemic. To ensure teaching and learning continuity, it is concluded that higher education institutions have to migrate to flexible teaching and learning modality recalibrate the curriculum, capacitate the faculty, upgrade the infrastructure, implement a strategic plan and assess all aspects of the plan.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges economically, socially, and politically across the globe. More than just a health crisis, it has resulted in an educational crisis. During lockdowns and quarantines, 87% of the world’s student population was affected and 1.52 billion learners were out of school and related educational institutions ( UNESCO Learning Portal, 2020 ). The suddenness, uncertainty, and volatility of COVID-19 left the education system in a rush of addressing the changing learning landscape.

The disruption of COVID-19 in the educational system is of great magnitude that universities have to cope with at the soonest possible time. The call is for higher education institutions to develop a resilient learning system using evidence-based and needs-based information so that responsive and proactive measures can be instituted. Coping with the effects of COVID-19 in higher education institutions demands a variety of perspectives among stakeholders. Consultation needs to include the administration who supports the teaching-learning processes, the students who are the core of the system, the faculty members or teachers who perform various academic roles, parents, and guardians who share the responsibility of learning continuity, the community, and the external partners who contribute to the completion of the educational requirements of the students. These complicated identities show that an institution of higher learning has a large number of stakeholders ( Illanes et al., 2020 ; Smalley, 2020 ). In the context of the pandemic, universities have to start understanding and identifying medium-term and long-term implications of this phenomenon on teaching, learning, student experience, infrastructure, operation, and staff. Scenario analysis and understanding of the context of each university are necessary to the current challenges they are confronted with (Frankki et al., 2020). Universities have to be resilient in times of crisis. Resiliency in the educational system is the ability to overcome challenges of all kinds–trauma, tragedy, crises, and bounce back stronger, wiser, and more personally powerful ( Henderson, 2012 ). The educational system must prepare to develop plans to move forward and address the new normal after the crisis. To be resilient, higher education needs to address teaching and learning continuity amid and beyond the pandemic.

Teaching and Learning in Times of Crisis

The teaching and learning process assumes a different shape in times of crisis. When disasters and crises (man-made and natural) occur, schools and colleges need to be resilient and find new ways to continue the teaching–learning activities ( Chang-Richards et al., 2013 ). One emerging reality as a result of the world health crisis is the migration to online learning modalities to mitigate the risk of face-to-face interaction. Universities are forced to migrate from face-to-face delivery to online modality as a result of the pandemic. In the Philippines, most universities including Cebu Normal University have resorted to online learning during school lockdowns. However, this sudden shift has resulted in problems especially for learners without access to technology. When online learning modality is used as a result of the pandemic, the gap between those who have connectivity and those without widened. The continuing academic engagement has been a challenge for teachers and students due to access and internet connectivity.

Considering the limitation on connectivity, the concept of flexible learning emerged as an option for online learning especially in higher institutions in the Philippines. Flexible learning focuses on giving students choice in the pace, place, and mode of students’ learning which can be promoted through appropriate pedagogical practice ( Gordon, 2014 ). The learners are provided with the option on how he/she will continue with his/her studies, where and when he/she can proceed, and in what ways can the learners comply with the requirements and show evidences of learning outcomes. Flexible learning and teaching span a multitude of approaches that can meet the varied needs of diverse learners. These include “independence in terms of time and location of learning, and the availability of some degree of choice in the curriculum (including content, learning strategies, and assessment) and the use of contemporary information and communication technologies to support a range of learning strategies” ( Alexander, 2010 ).

One key component in migrating to flexible modality is to consider how flexibility is integrated into the key dimensions of teaching and learning. One major consideration is leveraging flexibility in the curriculum. The curriculum encompasses the recommended, written, taught or implemented, assessed, and learned curriculum ( Glatthorn, 2000 ). Curriculum pertains to the curricular programs, the teaching, and learning design, learning resources as assessment, and teaching and learning environment. Adjustment on the types of assessment measures is a major factor amid the pandemic. There is a need to limit requirements and focus on the major essential projects that measure the enduring learning outcomes like case scenarios, problem-based activities, and capstone projects. Authentic assessments have to be intensified to ensure that competencies are acquired by the learners. In the process of modifying the curriculum amid the pandemic, it must be remembered that initiatives and evaluation tasks must be anchored on what the learners need including their safety and well-being.

Curriculum recalibration is not just about the content of what is to be learned and taught but how it is to be learned, taught, and assessed in the context of the challenges brought about by the pandemic. A flexible curriculum design should be learner-centered; take into account the demographic profile and circumstances of learners–such as access to technology, technological literacies, different learning styles and capabilities, different knowledge backgrounds and experiences - and ensure varied and flexible forms of assessment ( Ryan and Tilbury, 2013 ; Gachago et al., 2018 ). The challenge during the pandemic is how to create a balance between relevant basic competencies for the students to acquire and the teachers’ desire to achieve the intended outcomes of the curriculum.

The learners’ engagement in the teaching-learning process needs to be taken into consideration in the context of flexibility. This is about the design and development of productive learning experiences so that each learner is exposed to most of the learning opportunities. Considering that face-to-face modality is not feasible during the pandemic, teachers may consider flexible distant learning options like correspondence teaching, module-based learning, project-based, and television broadcast. For learners with internet connectivity, computer-assisted instruction, synchronous online learning, asynchronous online learning, collaborative e-learning may be considered.

The Role of Technology in Learning Continuity

Technology provides innovative and resilient solutions in times of crisis to combat disruption and helps people to communicate and even work virtually without the need for face-to-face interaction. This leads to many system changes in organizations as they adopt new technology for interacting and working ( Mark and Semaan, 2008 ). However, technological challenges like internet connectivity especially for places without signals can be the greatest obstacle in teaching and learning continuity especially for academic institutions who have opted for online learning as a teaching modality. Thus, the alternative models of learning during the pandemic should be supported by a well-designed technical and logistical implementation plan ( Edizon, 2020 ).

The nationwide closure of educational institutions in an attempt to contain the spread of the virus has impacted 90% of the world’s student population ( UNESCO, 2020 ). It is the intent of this study to look into the challenges in teaching and learning continuity amidst the pandemic. The need to mitigate the immediate impact of school closures on the continuity of learning among learners from their perspectives is an important consideration ( Edizon, 2020 ; Hijazi, 2020 ; UNESCO, 2020 ). Moreover, the teachers' perspectives are equally as important as the learners since they are the ones providing and sustaining the learning process. Teachers should effectively approach these current challenges to facilitate learning among learners, learner differentiation, and learner-centeredness and be ready to assume the role of facilitators on the remote learning platforms ( Chi-Kin Lee, 2020 ; Edizon, 2020 ; Hijazi, 2020 ).

Statement of Objective

This study explores the issues and challenges in teaching and learning amid the pandemic from the lenses of the faculty members and students of a public university in the Philippines as the basis for the development of strategic actions for teaching and learning continuity. Specifically, this study aimed to:

a.1. Preferred flexible learning activities.

a.2. Problems completing Requirements due to ICT Limitation

a.3. Provision of alternative/additional requirement.

a.4. Receipt of learning feedback.

a.5. Learning environment.

Objective 2: determine the profile of faculty and students in terms of online capacity as categorized into:

b.1. Access to Information Technology.

b.2. Access to Internet/Wi-fi.

b.3. Stability of internet connection.

Objective 3: develop emerging themes from the experiences and challenges of teaching and learning amidst the pandemic.

Methodology

The design used in the study is an exploratory mixed-method triangulation design. It was utilized to obtain different information but complementary data on a common topic or intent of the study, bringing together the differing strengths non-overlapping weaknesses of quantitative methods with those of qualitative methods ( Creswell, 2006 ). The use of the mixed method provided the data used as a basis for the analysis and planning perspective of the study.

This study was conducted in the context of a state university funded by the Philippine government whose location was once identified as having one of the highest COVID19 cases in the country. With this incidence, the sudden suspension of classes and the immediate need to shift the learning platform responsive to the needs of the learners lend a significant consideration in this study. This explored the perspectives of the learners in terms of their current capacity and its implications in the learning continuity using online learning. These were explored based on the availability of gadgets, internet connectivity, and their learning experiences with their teachers. These perspectives were also explored on the part of the teachers as they were the ones who provided learning inputs to the students. These are necessary information to identify strategic actions for the teaching and learning continuity plan of the university.

After getting the quantitative and qualitative findings, these data were reviewed to provide a clear understanding of teachers’ and learners’ context and their experiences. From this information, a scenario analysis through scenario building was conducted which led to the development of the strategic actions for teaching and learning continuity. Scenario analysis is a method used in predicting the possible occurrences of consequences of a situation assuming the phenomenon will be continued in the future ( Kishita et al., 2016 ). This approach is considered a useful way for exploring plausible events that may or may not happen in the future ( Bekessy and Selinske, 2017 ). This approach was used to analyze the behavior of both teachers and students as part of the whole system in response to an unexpected event such as the pandemic which creates a theoretical scenario of best -case (optimistic) or worse case (pessimistic) scenario to enable the university to develop a holistic strategic plan for the teaching and learning continuity ( Balaman, 2019 ).

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used simultaneously. In this study, objectives 1 and 2 require data on the profile of the teachers and learners which can best be acquired using a descriptive quantitative design. This was done through an online structured survey was conducted to identify the challenges in teaching and learning using google forms. Choices were provided in the Google form which the respondents can choose from. The surveys were done by the Cebu Normal University - Center for Research and Development and Federation of Supreme Student Council.

The qualitative approach was utilized to answer objective number 3 which looked into the experiences and challenges of the teachers and the learners. The narratives which the respondents submitted were done through online open-ended questions to allow them to share their experiences and challenges. These were analyzed using a thematic approach to best provide a clear description of the experiences and challenges.

After the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data, the team of researchers developed the possible scenarios that will take place as the basis for the flexible strategic actions that the university will adapt depending on the classification of community quarantine and the health situation of the locale where the university is located. In the analysis of the current status of Cebu Normal University, parameters are reviewed and outcomes are utilized through scenario building. Scenario building provides the contextual basis for the development of the new normal in the university. Scenario building as explained by Wilkinson (1995) is a good strategy to use on how current observations play their role in future situations. Each scenario is constructed about the future, modeling a distinct, plausible world. Scenarios are plausible alternative futures of what might happen under particular assumptions by focusing on key drivers, complex interactions, and irreducible uncertainties ( Polcyznski, 2009 ).

The prospective scenarios created are the best, probable scenarios, and worse scenarios. Current or existing situations/conditions of CNU served as the probable scenario, while the ideal case situation served as the best scenario. From the scenario built, key problems and challenges are developed as a basis for the model developed ( Imperial, 2020 ). This provided the strategic long-term and short-term strategies for CNU’s academic operations. The best scenario is based on the perspective that the university allows limited face-to-face classes in the remaining months of the semester. The probable scenario is with the current enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) status of the city or province where the university is located, at least six (6) months, after, face-to-face interactions will be allowed with the opening of the new school year will. Worse Scenario happens when the locale is placed under sustained community quarantine and face-to-face classes will never be allowed at the start of the new school year. The strategic actions of the university are inclusive of the three (3) scenarios to allow flexibility of the responses of the university in this pandemic.

There were 3,646 student respondents (85% of the student population) and 252 (97% of the teaching personnel) teaching personnel who responded to the survey. To determine accessibility and reach of communication transmission related to the teaching-learning process, the location of the respondents was also identified. The majority of the student respondents (67%) are located in Cebu province; 17% in Cebu City, and 12% in other provinces. The 63% or 157 faculty members are residing in Cebu province while 32% or 81 of them reside in Cebu City; other provinces 5%. Qualitative feedback was also gathered to explore further the challenges experienced and clarify information about open-ended online messaging. Data was gathered from March-April 2020 in a state-funded university in the Philippines with the campus located in the center of the city. To comply with the ethical guidelines, strict adherence to data privacy protocols and data use restrictions were followed. The data were analyzed and were considered in identifying emerging themes scenarios in teaching and learning.

The data gathered were reviewed and analyzed by looking into the challenges that need to be addressed and the ideal perspectives that should have been implemented to generate different scenarios. Scenario building provides the contextual basis for the development of the new normal in the university. Scenario building as explained by Wilkinson (1995) is a good strategy to use on how current observations play their role in future situations. Each scenario is constructed about the future modeling a distinct, plausible world. Scenarios are plausible alternative futures of what might happen under particular assumptions by focusing on key drivers, complex interactions, and irreducible uncertainties ( Polcyznski, 2009 ). The prospective scenarios created are the best and probable scenarios. Current or existing situations/conditions of the university served as the probable scenario, while the ideal case situation served as the best scenario. From the scenario built, key problems and challenges are developed as a basis for the model developed ( Imperial, 2020 ). The model will provide the strategic long-term and short-term strategies for the university’s academic operations Figure 1 .

FIGURE 1 . Schematic diagram of the conceptual analysis.

Results and Discussion

Challenges on teaching and learning amid the pandemic.

In the quantitative data gathered through an online survey, the students reported their concerns related to their learning experiences during the suspension of physical classes. Most of the student respondents reported that adjustments were made by the teachers in terms of course outcomes and syllabi. However, most of them claimed that the learning activities were not flexible enough to be done either offline or online as they could not as shown in Table 1 comply with the requirements within the expected schedule.

TABLE 1 . The profile of flexibility of the learning activities for offline or online learning among students (n = 1,689).

Moreover, as shown in Table 2 , students reported that the majority of them were unable to accomplish the tasks assigned by the teachers due to their inability to access the internet or use suitable gadgets to finish the tasks.

TABLE 2 . Number of students who reported if they have problems. Completing requirements due to ICT limitation (n = 1952).

Part of the survey for students focused on how students reacted to home-based tasks assigned to them to complete the learning competencies of the course. Teachers provided alternative tasks online through electronic mails and an online portal Table 3 .

TABLE 3 . Provision of alternative/additional requirement (n=1952).

Students confirmed that some online classes and additional requirements were still provided to them by the faculty ( Table 4 ) The majority of the students responded that the alternative tasks were adequate. The nature and content of the alternative tasks provided were suited to the remaining concepts to be addressed in their coursework ( Table 4 ). Despite that, several students still reported that these alternative tasks are not sufficient to enable them to acquire the remaining competencies required of them at the end of the semester.

TABLE 4 . Adequacy of alternative tasks for learning attainment (n=74).

Students in one college were surveyed on the receipt of feedback from their respective teachers. A comparable response from students claimed they received and didn’t receive immediate feedback as to whether what they submitted to the professors is okay or what aspect they still need to improve more. As teaching continuity was made possible through online modality and other home-based tasks, they still had difficulty complying with the requirements of the course. The survey included the type of home environment the students have to assess factors that influence their difficulty. Students were asked whether their home learning environment is conducive to learning or not.

Data in Table 5 show that learners believed that their home environment is not conducive for learning when schools were closed and physical contact was discontinued as there were many disruptions including internet connectivity. On the part of the faculty, there were challenges met as evidenced by the feedbacks of the students. The teaching-learning process requires an active engagement of the faculty. They are the drivers of the learning process and the success of the learning outcomes would partially depend on their extent of active participation as facilitators, mentors, or coaches to the learners.

TABLE 5 . Students learning environment.

In the teaching-learning process, students need feedback on the progress of their outputs and whether they did well in their tasks. As shown in Table 6 , the majority of the students reported receiving no feedback from their teachers on the online module while a majority hope to get immediate feedback. Further exploration is required to determine why teachers are unable to provide immediate feedback for students.

TABLE 6 . Feedback from teachers (n = 154).

Faculty and Students’ Access to Technology

One of the modalities in teaching and learning that gained popularity amid COVID-19 was online learning. When classes were suspended, universities migrated from the face to face interaction to the online modality. Hence, this survey was conducted to determine the capability of the students and teachers in terms of available information technology gadgets and connections.

The profile of both the faculty and students’ access to internet-based information showed that the majority can access this information ( Table 7 ). Moreover, the majority of the students (82.61%) and faculty (94.4%) have internet access Table 8 . However, most of them reported unstable internet connections which makes their home environment less conducive to sustain learning facilitated by the online readings and activities given Table 9 . The majority of the students used mobile phones for online learning which is not capable of addressing online tasks and submission of requirements. On top of this, concerns for limited internet access of students and faculty emanate from external service providers most especially when using cellular data in areas where satellite signals are limited.

TABLE 7 . Faculty and students’ access to information technology (n = 4,072).

TABLE 8 . Faculty, staff and students’ access to internet/Wi-fi.

TABLE 9 . Stability of internet connection (n = 1952).

Emerging Themes in Teaching and Learning

A qualitative survey was also conducted to substantiate the quantitative data gathered. The narrative comments of the respondents in the survey were analyzed and were grouped into emerging themes and scenarios of teaching and learning.

The Trajectory Towards Flexibility in Teaching Design, Delivery, and Assessment

The sudden cancellation of classes in the middle of the semester placed both faculty and students unprepared. Questions on how to continue their classes, the learning modality, the appropriate assessment, and access to learning materials were foremost in the mind of both teachers and students. The narratives of the respondents became the basis for identifying the emerging scenarios in teaching and learning amid and beyond the pandemic.

For many years, students have been exposed to traditional, face-to-face classroom-based teaching. Outcomes-based education has been integrated into the curriculum and its implementation, but the learning delivery is still under the actual supervision of teachers. Due to ECQ students have to shift to independent learning through the home-based tasks assigned to them by their teachers. Ordinarily, many students have trouble making the transition to the more independent learning required at university compared with their secondary years .

“It’s very difficult for me to learn on my own in the confines of my home, but I don’t have a choice ,” narrated one student.

This shows that this pandemic has created a new platform in teaching and learning delivery that students are compelled to accept. In this situation, students have to take responsibility for their learning, be more self-directed, make decisions about what they will focus on how much time they will spend on learning outside the classroom ( The Higher Education Academy, 2014 ; Camacho and Legare, 2016 ). In the new setting, students are expected to read, understand and comply with the tasks without the guidance of the teachers. They are forced to assume self-directed independent learning.

The teachers on the other hand affirmed that the use of face-to-face delivery would not work anymore in the new learning environment.

“ One thing that I have learned is to adjust my materials to ensure that learners can still acquire the competencies without the face-to-face interaction with my students ” narrated one teacher.

With the concerns on access to online services, faculty members considered the use of a non-online approach and explored the necessary modifications that can be applied in the future. Hence, in the narrative, several faculty members said they have prepared modules as an option for pure online learning delivery.

Assessment of student learning outcomes is very important. A concern on how to assess learning outcomes and how to answer assessment tasks emerged as a major concern as reflected in the narratives of the teacher and student respondents. The assessment measures are essential as an assurance that learners have attained various knowledge and skills and that they are ready for employment or further study ( Coates, 2015 ). There is a need to address the teachers’ concern on how to conduct off-classroom performance evaluation and the bulk of submissions that they have to evaluate which are submitted online or offline. The design and planning are important factors to consider not only in the assessment per se but also in the parameters on how students will be graded ( Osborn, 2015 ). For the teachers, the following concerns emerged,

“Difficulty assessing performance-based tasks (RLE) , ” “Difficulty tracking, checking of students’ outputs” and “Concerns on failing due to non-submission of requirements online and low midterm Performance”

In the assessment of learning, the teacher respondents agreed that they have to think of innovative ways of assessing students in the context of their situation and home environment so the outcomes expected of the course will be manifested by the students.

One of the challenges of online or distance learning is the difficulty in participating in groupwork activities. The challenge is how the schedule or availability of group members be accommodated within the group ( Gillett-Swan, 2017 ; Kebritchi, Lipschuetz, and Santiague, 2017 ). More particularly when online assessments are done with certain deadlines or time limits.

“Difficulty complying group activities”

“Time-based online exams”

The challenges seen in this phase are to determine the flexible learning system most applicable for CNU learners, the readiness of the students and faculty to handle the tasks to assign and to be complied by the students, the appropriateness of the learning delivery vis-à-vis learning outcome, and the preparation of the learning materials fit for self-directed independent learning.

In times of disaster, the educational system takes on a different route for effective learning continuity. The learning curriculum requires it to be more responsive to the current needs of the learners and the teachers.

“ Concerns in completing OJT”

“Dissertation/Thesis defense scheduled”

“Concerns on when the academic year ends”

The flexibility that the curriculum has to adopt requires the offering of choices on the current reality of the educational environment and customizing a given course to meet the needs of the learners. It is therefore crucial in considering the provision of the possibility of making learning choices to learners. These learning choices can cover class times, course content, instructional ( Huang et al., n.d. ).

It is a challenge for the university to consider the restructuring of the curriculum to address the gaps in the learning outcomes left when classes were suspended and the re-scheduling of the mid-semester On-the-Job Training of some programs. Amidst this crisis, flexibility in the next academic calendar has to be considered while it is uncertain when the COVID-19 crisis will be contained.

The Role of Technology

In the overall narratives concerning teaching-learning delivery and assessment, the role of information technology particularly on internet connection has been repetitively mentioned by both teachers and students. In the crisis scenario, faculty and students could eventually bounce forward to the usual teaching-learning activities outside the classrooms had this concern been made available to all. Per survey results, most of the students and some faculty members are residing outside the city and are experiencing unstable if no internet connection at all.

“ No internet connectivity/unstable connectivity”

“Occasional power interruptions”

In designing for online or distance learning, there is a need to understand the role of technology to attain the success of the engagement ( Kerka, 2020 ). Internet is not the only factor to consider but also the equipment that is needed for the teachers and the learners to engage effectively. If these are not available, there is a need to evaluate the approach used in the teacher-learner interaction.

“Limited gadgets (one laptop shared with other siblings/no laptop or PC only phone)”

“No printer for completion of a requirement to be submitted”

With the current health crisis with the shifting of learning delivery, the challenge would be on how to provide an inclusive IT infrastructure to provide quality education for all learners ( Internet access and education: Key considerations for policy makers, 2017 ).

The Learner’s and the Teacher’s Learning Environment

In an attempt to address the disruption of classes and promote continuity of learning, teachers immediately resort to online learning as the most workable way of delivery of the lessons. In this new learning setup, students are forced to stay at home and transfer their classrooms to the same location. In most cases, it is often overlooked that learners come from different home settings and have different home arrangements.

“Not appropriate learning environment (congested home setting)”

“Lack of support from parents (assigning home tasks when a student is supposed to be work on learning tasks)”

“Overlapping of home activities and academic activities”

In most cases, families frequently engaged their children in learning activities, however, different patterns were observed across different social groups. Families in low socio-economic position households, and those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods provided fewer learning experiences. This may in part be due to the challenges that families living in socially and economically disadvantaged circumstances face in accessing the financial and social resources needed to provide a rich early home learning environment for learning. The findings reveal that education is still pursued in economically challenging settings but with more challenges. A home learning environment has a positive “direct association” with a child’s academic performance ( Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015 ). The findings require a three-helix platform in education that is the partnership between academe, industry, and the stakeholders.

Maslow Before Bloom Orientation: Safety and Security

Prevailing sentiments among employees and students are their concern for their safety and security. The basic needs of humans according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs are foremost in the minds of the university’s clients and workers. As reported by the students and employees, their foremost concern is safety and the psychological manifestations of the anxiety of being infected.

“Foremost concern is safety and security even after ECQ is lifted”

“Fear of being infected with COVID”

“With PUI/PUM family members or the students themselves”

“Psychological and emotional reactions (anxiety, panic, fear, loneliness, a feeling of helplessness, mood swings, anger)”

The second category of concerns is on security and the possibility of sustaining their education due to loss of jobs, loss of family members, and the uncertainty of traveling to the university.

“Family financial crisis–no budget to buy loads, sustain needs”

“Unable to go home”

“Transportation concerns”

The concerns raised by the participants of the study require the university to provide access to considerable support to deal with the struggles, challenges, and even trauma because of the pandemic. There is a need to help manage mental health, self-esteem, and relationships after the quarantine which left some of the students isolated for quite a time ( Sweeney, 2020 ). Mental health programs have to be in place in formal learning settings. Because of the unprecedented challenges that students and teachers experienced in the pandemic, the ability to successfully hurdle through formal learning may be limited if the overall well-being is compromised.

Strategic Scenario Analysis

This section presents the analysis of the possible scenarios that might take place in the university based on the following components: the planned curriculum, instruction (teaching-learning process), assessment, student engagement, and technology and infrastructure. The probable scenario is the current enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) status of the City or province where the university is located. During ECQ, no face-to-face interaction is allowed and province-wide lockdowns are implemented. The best scenario allows the limited face-to-face class and the worse scenario happens when the locale is under ECQ and placed on a lockdown due to the increasing COVID-19 cases.

In the area of curriculum and instruction, the action points revolved around the identification of courses that can be flexibly offered, rescheduling offerings when health measures permit it and providing interventions for competencies that were not met. The additional action points would refer to the creation of materials that would meet the needs of the students in the different scenarios and the provision of access to all resources that aid learning. Lastly, plans for assessment delivery are laid out to ensure the validity of means and with consideration to quarantine measures. Laying down the scenarios provide options for the educational institution to be able to meet the demands of the changes enforced by the pandemic to the delivery of learning to students. Reviewing these options reveal that the differences in the plan of action for this area of concern are a matter of granting access to students for resources needed for learning continuity.

The next area of concern is student engagement which reveals the different levels of engagement of parents and guardians, the means of communication with students, and an investment in the capability-building of faculty members to facilitate the teaching-learning process amid the pandemic. The focus on the trainings for the faculty members in the area implies that flexible learning in this health crisis requires a particular skill set to heighten student engagement without diminishing the role of support systems in the students’ homes and the need for appropriate technology to facilitate the needed interactions. This leads to the last area of concern on technology and infrastructure. The University has to take into account and facilitate the provision of needed equipment, materials, systems, software, and physical structures to support flexible learning. The complete scenario matrix is reflected in Table 10 .

TABLE 10 . Scenario matrix.

Migrating to Flexible Teaching and Learning: The University’s Strategic Response for Academic Continuity

After exploring the perspectives of the respondents and the analysis of the emerging scenarios in teaching and learning, the University implemented the proactive response to ensure academic continuity in times of crisis. It is evident that for universities to thrive and lead, the flexible teaching-learning modality needs to be adopted taking into consideration the best and worst-case scenarios. Migrating to flexi learning means recalibrating the written curriculum, capacitating the faculty, and upgrading technological infrastructure to respond to the changing scenarios amid and beyond the pandemic. Outlined in the paragraphs that follow were the ways forward pursued by the university as a response for academic continuity.

Recalibrate the Curriculum

To address the competencies which were left at the time of the class suspension, discipline-based course mapping was conducted. A series of cluster meetings by faculty members teaching similar courses teaching load were done for the revision of the unified syllabus, integration of the outcomes-based teaching and learning strategies using flexible learning platforms such as distance and online learning options, and the learning assessment strategies suitable for individual student needs. A syllabi repurposing is conducted and the revisiting of the syllabi focusing on the essential course outcomes. This strategy enables the faculty to revise the activities/course work/tasks/experiences that can be delivered through blended learning. This also enabled them in designing the instructional strategies, activities, and assessments that will achieve the learning objectives. The modification of the syllabi incorporated the development of modules, assessment tasks that can be delivered using differentiated instruction/in class or off class.

A program-based curriculum review was also conducted to identify courses that would need to be re-scheduled in its offering due to its nature and requirement such as swimming courses. Moreover, On-the- Job (OJT) which was supposedly offered during summer or mid-year was transferred to a later semester as industry partners are limiting its personnel at the height of the pandemic.

Reconfiguring the OJT, practice teaching and Related Learning Experience based on simulation set-up with scenario-based activities with assigned equivalency hours was also developed. The Practice teaching using blended learning or online approach, Nursing used alternative Related learning simulation.

The strategic actions included short-term plans of possible limited physical classes and long-term plans of pure online classes. Embedded in the plans are the in-class and off-class mode, re-structuring and retrofitting requirement for limited face-to-face classes, and the upgrading of internet-based facilities for pure online classes. On top of this, they need to cater to learners who have no access to the internet includes the translation of online learning modules to printed modules.

Capacitate the Faculty

Flexible learning capacitation of faculty was also addressed as online learning was new to the university. The university conducted an upskilling and rewiring through series of online trainings on module development for flexible learning distance education and the use of an online learning management system for faculty members. Reskilling and reconfiguring of faculty through webinar series on laboratory teaching using simulation learning for teachers handling laboratory, RLE, OJT. And a cross-skilling and reimagining using series of online webinars on developing counseling skills of faculty members concerning the COVID crisis. The university initiated the Higher Education Connect webinar series by discipline which served as an avenue of sharing and exchanging best practices during the pandemic-induced suspension of physical classes. The series of online for and webinars provided the teachers’ professional development including information sharing platform, Online learning platform, Hands-on training platform, Repository of web tools, and Laboratory for data analytics.

Safe learning infrastructure for Reframing Teaching and Learning was addressed through Telecounseling Services with mobile hotline numbers to cater to the needs of the clients and Student Communication Center with hotline numbers accessible by phone or online to cater to the academic concerns of the students. The university also initiated the Adopt-a-Student program for stranded students during the Enhanced Community Quarantine and assisted in the process of going back to their provinces.

Upgrade the Infrastructure

The university’s priority is to ensure that technology is sustainable and feasible. The ICT focal persons of the university were mobilized to Determine basic computer configuration and minimum Operating System requirements and provide alternative solutions to learners with technological/location-related challenges. For example, provide small learning activity packages for learners with slow internet connections. Ensure changes to the learning activity that can be made with internal resources. Determine the characteristics, possibilities, and limitations of the learning management system (LMS) to be used and ensure consistency of access across platforms (if applicable).

An Organizational Structures as a support system was also created which was the Center for Innovative Flexible Learning to provide assistance and monitoring so that the existing Information Technology Office of the university will not be overwhelmed.

It is also strategic to develop collaboration with stakeholders (Local Government Units (LGU), Alumni, Partner agencies). The forging of partnerships with LGU provides avenues where students during off-class students will go to the learning hub in the LGU complete with internet connectivity for students to work on their tasks in case they don’t have connectivity at home, so students will not go to the internet café and pay. This will also provide opportunities for resource sharing for the benefit of the students.

ICT Infrastructure in teaching and learning and student services was also addressed through Online enrollment, full utilization of Google Classroom as the learning management system, and the fully online delivery of classes. The university also changed its internet subscription to higher bandwidth and subscription to zoom for online meetings and conferences. Internet Connectivity of faculty members has assisted a monthly internet allowance. Gadget on loan for students in coordination with Student Supreme Council. Library online services through Document Delivery Services (DDS) and Modern Information Assistant in the New Normal Innovative Education.

Implementation and On-Going Assessment of the Strategic Response

The implementation of the strategic response entails the collaborative engagement of all stakeholders in the university. The process requires the involvement of the administration, faculty, staff, students, parents, and other stakeholders that enables the institution to move forward, managing and mitigating risks successfully. Hence, the university is implementing the continuous process of consultation, feedbacking, and intensive monitoring as important ingredients for the plans to be successfully implemented. The regular conduct of dialogues and discussions among stakeholders, capacity building of students and faculty, open communication through hotline centers, and continuous quality assurance monitoring mechanisms enable the university to enhance and implement successfully the strategic programs and activities amid the pandemic.

Anchored on the initial success of the evidenced-based strategic plans, the university at present has institutionalized the flexible learning system with the establishment of the Center for Flexible Learning that manages, capacitates, and assists the students and the faculty members in the continuing implementation of the flexible learning modality. Technology support has been provided by increasing the internet bandwidth to ensure uninterrupted connectivity in the campus and providing internet allowance to the faculty. Students with limited or no connectivity are given printed modules as instructional resources. In anticipation of the limited face-to-face classes as safety and health protocols may allow, the curricular offerings, teaching-learning processes, and assessment tools have been enhanced by applying best practices that maximize quality teaching and learning. On-going trainings and webinars for the faculty, students, and stakeholders to thrive in the new educational landscape have been conducted. The university has also established professional learning communities which become avenues for the sharing of resources and practices that continuously support and enhance teaching and learning continuity amid and beyond the pandemic.

Teaching and learning continuity amid the pandemic requires an analysis of the parameters by which the university operates from the perspective of the stakeholders to include the students, faculty, curriculum, and external stakeholders. Grounded on data, higher education institutions have to conduct strategic scenario analysis for best, possible and worse scenarios in the areas of curriculum and instruction, student engagement, and technology and infrastructure. To ensure teaching and learning continuity amid and beyond the pandemic, higher education institutions need to migrate to flexible teaching and learning modality by recalibrating the curriculum, capacitating the faculty, and upgrading the infrastructure. These strategic actions have to be continuously assessed, modified, and enhanced to respond to the volatile, uncertain, and changing scenarios in times of crisis.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

FD, DP, LG, and MO contributed to the conception and design of the study. DP and LG organized the data and facilitated the initial analysis. FD and DP wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors wrote sections of the manuscript and contributed to the manuscript revision. MO ran the final plagiarism test and grammar check prior to submission.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Alexander, S. (2010). Flexible Learning in Higher Education . Sydney, NSW: International Encyclopedia of Education , 441–447. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-044894-7.00868-x

CrossRef Full Text

Australian Institute of Family Studies (2015). How Does the home Environment Influence Children’s Learning?

Balaman, S. Y. (2019). Decision-Making for Biomass-Based Production Chains: The Basic Concepts and Methodologies . New York: Academic Press .

Bekessy, S., and Selinske, M. J. (2017). Social-Ecological Analyses for Better Water Resources Decisions. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-810523-8.00010-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Camacho, D. J., and Legare, J. M. (2016). Shifting Gears in the Classroom-Movement toward Personalized Learning and Competency-Based Education. Competency-based Educ. 1, 151–156. doi:10.1002/cbe2.1032

Chang-Richards, A., Vargo, J., and Seville, E. (2013). Organisational Resilience to Natural Disasters: New Zealand’s Experience (English Translation). China Pol. Rev. 10, 117–119.

Google Scholar

Chi-Kin Lee, J. (2020). “Managing and Leading university Response to Support Psychosocial Health during COVID-19 Pandemic,” in Webinar Series 2 in SEAMEO's Response to Pandemic COVID-19 ( SEAMWO ).

Coates, H. (2015). “Assessment of Learning Outcomes,” in The European Higher Education Area (Cham: Springer ), 399–413. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_26

Creswell, J. W., and Plano, C. V. L. (2006). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research . Thousand Oaks: Calif: SAGE Publication .

Edizon, F. (2020). Rewiring Higher Education in the Time of COVID-19 and beyond .

Gachago, D., Jones, B., and Edwards, S. (2018). “Towards Flexible Learning through Distance Learning: ND Real Estate Learners’ Experiences,” in ICEL 2018 13th International Conference on E-Learning (Capetown: Academic Conferences and publishing limited ), 93.

Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The Challenges of Online Learning: Supporting and Engaging the Isolated Learner. Jld 10, 20–30. doi:10.5204/jld.v9i3.293

Glatthorn, A. (2000). The Principal as Curriculum Leader . 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Goodland .

Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible Pedagogies: Technology-Enhanced Learning . Hull, England: The Higher Education Academy , 1–24.

Henderson, N. (2012). What Is Resiliency and Why Is it So Important? | Resiliency in Action . Available at: https://www.resiliency.com/what-is-resiliency/ .

Hijazi, S. (2020). International Outreach for university post-crisis . Quezon City, Philippines: QS Intelligence Unit .

Huang, R., Liu, D., Tlili, A., Yang, J., and Wang, H. (n.d.). Handbook on Facilitating Flexible Learning during Educational Disruption: The Chinese Experience in Maintaining Undisrupted Learning in COVID-19 Outbreak . Beijing: Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University .

Illanes, P., Law, J., Sarakatsannis, J., Sanghvi, S., and Mendy, A. (2020). Coronavirus and the Campus: How Can US Higher Education Organize to Respond? . Chicago, Illinois: McKinsey and Company .

Imperial, J. (2020). ‘Yorme, Yorme’: Modeling Themes from COVID-19 Concerns and Public Reports Aired through Manila City Government Twitter Accounts . Retrieved from De La Salle University COVID-19 Research Portal: https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/covid-19-research-portal/ .

Internet access and education: Key considerations for policy makers (2017). Internet Society. https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2017/internet-access-and-education/ (Accessed November 20, 2017).

Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., and Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and Challenges for Teaching Successful Online Courses in Higher Education: A Literature Review. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 46 (1), 4–29. doi:10.1177/0047239516661713

Kerka, S. (2020). Distance Learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web . Retrieved from ericdigest: https://www.ericdigests.org/1997-1/distance.html .

Kishita, Y., Hara, K., Uwasu, M., and Umeda, Y. (2016). Research Needs and Challenges Faced in Supporting Scenario Design in Sustainability Science: A Literature Review. Sustainability Sci. 11 (2), 331–347. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0340-6

Mark, G., and Semaan, B. (2008). Resilience in Collaboration: Technology as a Resource for New Patterns of Action,” in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work , San Diego, CA , November 8–12, 2008 ( CSCW08: Computer Supported Cooperative Work ), pp. 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460585

Osborn, L. (2015). Performance Assessment in Online Learning. In 19th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning , Madison, Wisconsin , August 14–16, 2002 ( University of Wisconsin System ). Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471207.pdf

Polcyznski, M. (2009). Scenario Planning . Retrieved from https://www.flca.net/images/ScenarioPlanning.pdf .

Ryan, A., and Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible Pedagogies: New Pedagogical Ideas . London: Higher Education Academy .

Smalley, A. (2020). “Higher Education Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19),” in National Conference of State Legislatures . Available at: https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/higher-education-responses-to-coronavirus-covid-19.aspx .

Sweeney, N. (2020). When the Covid-19 Crisis Finally Ends, Schools Must Never Return to normal . United Kingdom: The Guardian . Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/apr/07/when-the-covid-19-crisis-finally-ends-uk-schools-must-never-return-to-normal .doi:10.1158/1557-3265.covid-19-po-009

The Higher Education Academy. (2014). Independent Learning Heslington .

UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response Beirut, Lebanon .

UNESCO Learning Portal (2020). Brief 3: Learning and Teaching Materials Paris .

Wilkinson, L. (1995). How to Build Scenarios San Francisco . Available at: http://www.wired.com/1995/11/how-to-build-scenarios/ (Retrieved from February 29, 2016).

Keywords: teaching and learning continuity, flexible learning, pandemic, higher education, scenario–analysis

Citation: Dayagbil FT, Palompon DR, Garcia LL and Olvido MMJ (2021) Teaching and Learning Continuity Amid and Beyond the Pandemic. Front. Educ. 6:678692. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.678692

Received: 10 March 2021; Accepted: 06 July 2021; Published: 23 July 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Dayagbil, Palompon, Garcia and Olvido. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Michelle Mae J. Olvido, [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Challenges and Practices of MAPEH Teachers in the New Normal Education

2022, Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Related Papers

Reem Montesur

This study entitled coping with the challenges in teaching MAPEH subjects among the non-specialized teachers of District 4 in Laguna was conducted to specifically answer the following questions; What is the demographic profile of the Teachers in MAPEH in terms of; Age; Gender; Years in Service; Educational Attainment and Specialization? What is the coping mechanism of the Teachers in MAPEH in terms of: Time Management; Academic Advice and Mentoring; Appraisal Focused; Emotional-Focused; Occupationfocused coping? Do the coping mechanism used by teachers significantly affect the performance of non-specialized teachers teaching MAPEH of District 4 in Laguna? The study utilized a descriptive design to determine the coping mechanism of the non-specialized teachers in MAPEH. The main source data of this study was the survey questionnaire which was prepared by the researcher and statistically treated by the use of simple descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage and the mean to ...

International Journal of Recent Innovations in Academic Research

This research was conducted to determine the challenges of MAPEH Program at College of Teacher Education. Specifically it aimed to assess the extent of challenges faced by teachers and students regarding MAPEH Instruction. The study used the descriptive research design employing a questionnaire to determine the challenges of MAPEH program at College of Teacher Education Batangas State University-Main Campus. Ranking and weighted mean were the statistical tools employed in this study. It was revealed that Majority of the student and teacher respondents rated the challenges regarding MAPEH instruction as to the great extent. The study recommended that The College of Teacher Education should provide the facilities and equipment for the implementation of the MAPEH program and the college administrators should encourage the MAPEH instructors to pursue advance degrees in education. A similar study may be conducted using other variables in other schools, locales, or other colleges along this line.

Educational Research and Reviews

Ali Rıza Erdem

The purpose of this research is establishing that the problems about education supervision of the class teachers working in the village and township centre in Denizli and their opinions about these problems’ effect on their performance. 321 class teachers working in official primary schools in townships of Denizli and 272 class teachers working in official primary schools in villages of Denizli are included in sampling to apply the data collecting method by choosing with proportional cluster sampling methodologyAt the degree of being confronted with problem to improved scale, Alpha consistency coefficient is 0,89 and the effect’s of problem on performance is 0,91. The most important problem of all problems about education supervision of the class teachers working in the village and township centre is ‘’ I abstain from saying the attributes to supervisors that must be improved professionally‘’.

Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal

Psychology and Education

This study investigated the challenges encountered by newly hired teachers. It sought to determine (a) the demographic profile of the respondents; (b) the level of challenges encountered by the respondents in the new normal in terms of workload, instructional management, classroom management, and school environment; (c) the teaching performance of the respondents for S.Y. 2020-2021;(d) the relationship between the respondents' level of challenges and their teaching performance; and (e) the proposed LAC session based on the results of the study. Fifty-eight (58) newly hired teachers were utilized as respondents. Results revealed that (a) most of the newly hired teachers were female belonging to the age group of 26-30 years, (b) most of the newly hired teachers found workload, classroom management, and school environment to be challenging, and the instructional management to be very challenging, (c) most of the newly hired teachers acquired a very satisfactory teaching performance rating, (d) the respondents' level of challenges and their teaching performance had no significant relationship. The study depicted that although the newly hired teachers were challenged with their workload, instructional management, classroom management, and school environment, their performances were not affected, as depicted in their IPCRF rating.

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Creativity, Innovation and Technology in Education (IC-CITE 2018)

hamsi mansur

Charif Hanane

The study aimed to identify the classroom problems that faced teachers in public schools in Tafila province, and the proposed solutions. The samples of the study were 196 teachers from the public school in Tafila province. By using questionnaire to collect the data, the results of the study show that the mean of the behavioral problems was 2.66, and the mean of the academic problems was 3.08. Also, the researcher found that statistical significant differences refer to interaction between gender, level of school, and teaching experience in the behavioral problems for male in the basic school, those with work experience less than 5 years. Also, there are no statistical significant differences between gender, level of school, education degree, and teaching experience in the academic problems. The study did give some recommendations.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Marvin Asong

nternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

Irish Dayaganon

The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges faced by senior high school teachers in Kalawit District as well as to identify the alternative methods they use to address the aforementioned challenges. The descriptive-survey type of research method is used by questionnaire as the main instrument to gather the required data from selected respondents which includes teachers, principals and students. The study shows that the most dominant challenge faced by the respondents was the lack of facility particularly the lack or absence of speech laboratory. Meanwhile, for the second challenge regarding instructional equipment, the lack of television predominates. On the other hand, the lack of relevant training and certificates prevails when it comes to teachers qualification. The challenges mentioned above are applied by alternative solutions. For the lack of facility, respondents preferred to contact DepEd and local government officials to fund and seek assistance. Regarding the lack of teaching equipment, the respondents said that they only use laptops, smartphones, tablets and projectors as a substitute for television. Meanwhile, regarding the qualification of the teacher related to the lack of training and certificate or training, accepting the applicant in SHS even without TMC and later sending them to the relevant trainings for the subject to be taught is the solution to the problem. Overall, there was no difference in the perceptions of teacher, principal and student when classifying their responses on the weight of the challenge faced in senior high school implementation as well as on the frequency of using the aforementioned alternative methods. Thus, the stated hypothesis that there is no difference in the response of the respondents regarding the problem posed is accepted

SHS web of conferences

Firdaus Suhaeb

The study aimed to determine and recognize the correlation of comprehensive examination and licensure examination among MAPEH graduates. Specifically, it sought to find out MAPEH graduates' performance in the comprehensive exam and LET in terms of the professional education, general and major subjects and correlation between the students' comprehensive exam result and their LET performance. The study used the descriptive research method in determining the correlation between the comprehensive exam results and respondents' LET rating. It also utilized a survey questionnaire as the main gathering instrument in order to obtain the necessary information. The respondents were the 44 MAPEH graduates who completed their degree in education within the last three years in the College of Teacher Education, Batangas State University Main Campus. It was revealed that majority of the MAPEH graduates excelled better in the general subject components for both the comprehensive exam and LET rather than in the professional and major subjects. Part also of the findings was that CE results were not significantly related to the respondents' LET rating. The study recommended that the construction and administration of the comprehensive exam should be modified so as to make it a better indicator of the MAPEH graduates' performance in LET. Items for both the professional and major subject areas must be given much attention and that the MAPEH graduates must be provided with regular review sessions for CE and LET. Teachers should also be updated with the curriculum standards prescribed by CHED and PRC as well as the guidelines in constructing pre-board examination.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

IOE - Faculty of Education and Society

• Departments and centres
• Innovation and Enterprise
• Teacher Education College

Broaden and balance the primary curriculum to foster children’s creativity and love of learning

4 June 2024

To guarantee the future of primary education, a new government should prioritise children and teacher agency, widen the curriculum, and promote hands-on, experiential learning, recommends a new briefing paper from IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society.

The briefing paper provides recommendations for a new government to consider and recognise the importance of primary education in children’s development. It was written by Professors Dominic Wyse and Alice Bradbury, Dr Yana Manyukhina and Emily Ranken (Helen Hamlyn Centre for Pedagogy). 

The briefing recommends putting children and teachers at the heart of primary education. This involves listening to and respecting the voices of children, with the research evidence linking children’s agency in education to increased motivation and enjoyment of learning. 

Similarly, it suggests teachers be given more autonomy over their work; teacher recruitment and retention efforts should consider, for example, workload intensity and pressure related to assessments and Ofsted inspections. 

The authors also advise that reforms be made to England’s high stakes assessment system, underpinned by research evidence that indicates formative assessments lead to enhanced learning. They note that change is particularly necessary amidst teacher and parent dissatisfaction with these types of tests. 

The curriculum should also be widened, and England must move away from restrictive pedagogy, the paper recommends. This includes broadening the teaching of language, writing, and reading – beyond synthetic phonics and formal grammar teaching – to ensure that a greater variety of learning occurs. 

The briefing paper also highlights the necessity of supporting multiple languages alongside English. The research evidence indicates that fostering language diversity can lead to improved outcomes for children. 

The authors also note the importance of promoting hands-on learning and creativity, with learning set in meaningful, real-world contexts. The research evidence suggests that creative forms of teaching can create positive effects on children’s confidence, empathy and wellbeing, as well as improvement in vocabulary development and skills like memory and critical thinking.

Blog series

To elucidate the discussion, a four-part blog series is being released daily here:

• In the hands of a new government: the future of primary education in England
• Children, choice and the curriculum
• Hands on learning: a progressive pedagogy
• Assessment in primary schools: reducing the ‘Sats effect’
• Read the briefing paper: The future of primary education in England - In the hands of a new government
• Professor Dominic Wyse's UCL profile
• Professor Alice Bradbury's UCL profile
• Dr Yana Manyukhina's UCL profile
• Emily Ranken's UCL profile
• Helen Hamlyn Centre for Pedagogy (0 - 11 years)
• Department of Learning and Leadership

Seventyfour via Adobe Stock.

Related News

Related events, related case studies, related research projects, press and media enquiries.

UCL Media Relations +44 (0)7747 565 056

Research and Professional Ethics in Education

This course provides an introduction to research and professional ethics in educational studies.

Additional information

Subject regulations

• Paper details current as of 31 May 2024 18:34pm
• Indicative fees current as of 2 Jun 2024 01:20am

You’re viewing this website as a domestic student

You’re currently viewing the website as a domestic student, you might want to change to international.

You're a domestic student if you are:

• A citizen of New Zealand or Australia
• A New Zealand permanent resident

You're an International student if you are:

• Intending to study on a student visa
• Not a citizen of New Zealand or Australia

• From the Directors
• Mission & History
• Advisory Council
• Corporate Responsibility Initiative
• Corporations, Government and Public Policy
• Digital Assets Policy Project
• Education Policy Program
• Financial Sector Program
• GrowthPolicy
• Corporate Responsibility and Citizenship Hub
• Harvard Electricity Policy Group
• Harvard Environmental Economics Program
• Harvard Kennedy School Healthcare Policy Program
• Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
• Kansai Keizai Doyukai Program
• Regulatory Policy Program
• Rising Chinese Economic Power
• Sustainability Science Program
• Annual Robert Glauber Lecture
• Working Papers and Reports
• Funding & Prizes
• Other Opportunities

Educating Students for Climate Action: Distraction or Higher-Education Capital?

In this section.

• Fernando Reimers

Spring 2024, Paper: "This essay examines how universities are responding to demands to educate students for climate action. I argue for a whole-of-university approach, in which sustainability becomes part of the mission of the university, and translates into reimagined forms of education, research, outreach, and management of the university operations. This approach runs counter to the most common response of universities, incremental to new demands, and is likely to take place only in institutions with greater capacity for innovation. Strategy and knowledge are key resources to support such innovation, drawing on the comparative analysis of the global experience of higher education, as there are already high rates of institutional innovation globally in educating for climate action." 

Related Publications

Transforming the insurance industry to combat climate change-induced poverty and accelerate implementation of the 2030 agenda, an assessment of the infrastructural and temporal barriers constraining a near-term implementation of a global stratospheric aerosol injection program, energy transition needs new materials.

Publications — Over 100 years of publishing excellence

• Book Author Resources
• Submit a Book Proposal
• AMS Rights, Licensing, and Permissions
• Open Math Notes
• Frequently asked questions
• Member Journals
• Research Journals
• Translation Journals
• Distributed Journals
• Open Access Journals
• Guidelines and Policies
• Journal Author Resources

Librarian Resources

• eBook Collections
• COUNTER Usage Statistics
• My Subscriptions
• Subscription Information
• Licensing Information

Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet®

• MathSciNet ®
• Reviewer Home
• MathSciNet ® Subscriptions

Membership — Welcome to your membership center

Join the ams, renew your membership, give a membership, individual membership.

• Member Benefits
• Member Directory
• Reciprocating Societies
• Members in Developing Countries

Institutional Membership

• Domestic Institutions
• International Institutions
• Two-Year Institutions
• Graduate Student Chapter Program

Other Member Types

• Corporate Memberships
• Associate Memberships

Meetings & Conferences — Engage with colleagues and the latest research

National meetings.

• Joint Mathematics Meetings
• Upcoming JMMs
• Previous JMMs
• Special Lectures
• Professional Enhancement Programs (PEPs)

Sectional Meetings

• Upcoming Sectionals
• Previous Sectionals
• Presenting Papers
• Hosting Sectionals

Other Meetings, Conferences & Workshops

• Mathematics Research Communities
• Education Mini-conference
• International Meetings
• Mathematics Calendar
• Short Courses
• Workshop for Department Chairs and Leaders

Meetings Resources

• Suggest a Speaker
• AMS Meetings Grants
• Submitting Abstracts
• Welcoming Environment Policy
• MathSafe – supporting safe meetings

News & Outreach — Explore news, images, posters, and mathematical essays

News from the ams.

• AMS News Releases
• Feature Stories
• Information for Journalists
• In Memory Of

Math Voices

• Feature Column
• Math in the Media
• Column on Teaching and Learning

Explorations

• Recognizing Diverse Mathematicians
• AMS Posters
• Mathematics & Music
• Mathematical Imagery
• Mathematical Moments

Professional Programs — Resources and opportunities to further your mathematical pursuits

Professional development.

• Employment Services
• Mathjobs.org
• BEGIN Career Initiative
• Mathprograms.org
• Mathematical Opportunities Database
• Research Seminars

Institutional Information and Data

• Annual Survey of the Mathematical and Statistical Sciences
• CBMS Survey
• Other Sources of Data
• Directory of Institutions in the Mathematical Sciences
• Professional Directory

Grants & Support

• AMS-Simons Grants for PUI Faculty
• Travel Grants
• Fellowships & Scholarships
• Epsilon Fund
• Child Care Grants

Awards & Recognition

• AMS Prizes & Awards
• Fellows of the AMS

Education — Resources to support advanced mathematics teaching and learning

For students.

• Information for Undergraduate and High School Students
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs)
• Considering Grad School
• Find Grad Programs
• Applying to Grad School
• What do Mathematicians Do?

For Teachers

• Teaching Online
• Teaching Resources
• Inclusive Classrooms
• Assessing Student Learning
• Education Webinars

For Department Leaders & Mentors

• Information for Department Leaders
• paraDIGMS (Diversity in Graduate Mathematical Sciences)

Government Relations — Advocating for the mathematical sciences

Elevating mathematics in congress.

• Our Mission
• Letters, Statements, & Legislation
• Congressional Briefings

Legislative Priorities

• Federal Issues of Concern
• Federal Budget Process

Get Involved

• Advocacy Resources
• Take Action

DC-Based Fellowships

• Congressional Fellowship
• Mass Media Fellowship
• Catalyzing Advocacy in Science & Engineering (CASE) Fellowship

Giving to the AMS — Your gifts make great things happen for mathematics   Make a Gift

What you can support.

• The 2020 Fund
• Next Generation Fund
• Birman Fellowship for Women Scholars
• JMM Child Care Grants
• MathSciNet for Developing Countries

Create a Legacy

• Make a Tribute Gift
• Create a Permanent Fund
• Establish a Prize, Award or Fellowship
• Bequests and Charitable Estate Planning

Honoring Your Gift

• Donor Stories
• Donor Wall of Honor
• Thomas S. Fiske Society
• AMS Contributors Society
• AMS Gardens

Giving Resources

• AMS Development Committee
• AMS Gift Acceptance Policy

About the AMS — Advancing research. Connecting the mathematics community.

Our organization.

• Executive Staff
• Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion
• Jobs at AMS
• Customer Service

Our Governance

• Board of Trustees
• Executive Committee

Governance Operations

• Calendar of Meetings
• Policy Statements & Guidelines

Transactions of the American Mathematical Society

Published by the American Mathematical Society since 1900, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society is devoted to longer research articles in all areas of pure and applied mathematics.

ISSN 1088-6850 (online) ISSN 0002-9947 (print)

The 2020 MCQ for Transactions of the American Mathematical Society is 1.48 . What is MCQ? The Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) measures journal impact by looking at citations over a five-year period. Subscribers to MathSciNet may click through for more detailed information.

• Articles in press
• Recently published
• All issues : 1900 – Present

Contents of Volume 377, Number 6 HTML articles powered by AMS MathViewer View front and back matter from the print issue

Stellantis Says No Further Recalls Planned Over Airbag Issues After Paper Reports Carmaker Widens Campaign

FILE PHOTO: The logo of Stellantis is seen on the company's building in Velizy-Villacoublay near Paris, France, March 19, 2024. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes/File Photo

PARIS (Reuters) - Stellantis on Wednesday said no additional recalls were planned over faulty airbags from a supplier after newspaper Le Parisien reported the carmaker was set to widen recalls for some Citroen models produced between 2009 and 2019.

There is no further upcoming recall action planned at the moment, a company spokesperson said.

Le Parisien reported Stellantis was set to recall cars of its C4, DS4 and DS5 series, in addition to the CS3 and DS3 models already concerned for cars used in the southern part of France, as the airbag issues were linked to hot weather.

Stellantis said "We cannot rule out further precautionary recalls in the future."

(Reporting by Tassilo Hummel and Giulio Piavaccari; Editing by Chris Reese; Editing by Chris Reese)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Tags: Europe , Netherlands

The Best Financial Tools for You

Credit Cards

Personal Loans

Comparative assessments and other editorial opinions are those of U.S. News and have not been previously reviewed, approved or endorsed by any other entities, such as banks, credit card issuers or travel companies. The content on this page is accurate as of the posting date; however, some of our partner offers may have expired.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter to get investing advice, rankings and stock market news.

See a newsletter example .

You May Also Like

7 best etfs to buy now.

Jeff Reeves June 5, 2024

Investments by Elon Musk and Tesla

Brian O'Connell June 5, 2024

9 of the Best REITs to Buy for 2024

Wayne Duggan June 5, 2024

9 of the Best Bond ETFs to Buy Now

Tony Dong June 5, 2024

8 Best Defense Stocks to Buy Now

Wayne Duggan June 4, 2024

7 Best Vanguard Funds to Buy and Hold

Tony Dong June 4, 2024

Can AI Pick Stocks?

Marc Guberti June 4, 2024

How Inflation Affects Investments

Rachel McVearry June 4, 2024

6 Best Cryptocurrencies to Buy

John Divine June 4, 2024

7 High-Yield Covered Call ETFs

Tony Dong June 3, 2024

Is Gold a Good Investment Right Now?

Rachel McVearry and Matt Whittaker June 3, 2024

6 of the Best AI ETFs to Buy Now

2024's 10 Best-Performing Stocks

Wayne Duggan June 3, 2024

Fidelity vs. Charles Schwab

Marc Guberti May 31, 2024

7 Best Oil and Gas Stocks to Buy in 2024

Matt Whittaker May 31, 2024

Testing Dave Ramsey's Investing Advice

Wayne Duggan May 31, 2024

7 of the Best Ways to Invest $5,000

Tony Dong May 31, 2024

9 Best Growth Stocks to Buy for 2024

Wayne Duggan May 30, 2024

5 of the Best Stocks to Buy Now

Ian Bezek May 30, 2024

Recovering From a Stock Market Loss

Tony Dong May 30, 2024

47 seniors to miss graduation ceremony after prank damages high school

WASHINGTON, N.C. (WKRC) - Forty-seven high school seniors will miss their graduation ceremony after a senior prank caused significant damage to their high school.

According to WCTI, 47 seniors at Washington High School in North Carolina will miss their graduation ceremony after significant damage was caused to their school due to a prank.

The station reported that the damage to the school included the following:

• Toilet paper thrown throughout the cafeteria
• Overturned tables in the cafeteria
• Windows and hallways that had been written on
• A trophy case that was damaged by eggs

Officials confirmed to WCTI that the students got into the school using a key, adding that the school's normal entry alarm had not been properly set. School officials told the station that authorities are not investigating the incident at this time.

The students involved in the prank have been identified, per WCTI.

Adult Learning and Education in the Mediterranean

• In Publications
• 11:31, 04 Jun 2024

Prof. Peter Mayo has had his paper on Adult Education in the Mediterranean published in the latest edition of the UNESCO refereed journal, International Review of Education.

This is a special issue celebrating adult learning and education. Prof. Mayo's paper is one of the rare published papers in English giving a panoramic view of Adult Learning and Education in this region.

It, together with one or two papers in this issue, is open access. Faculty members can enjoy this and other freely accessed articles in this issue. He plans to develop this into a book monograph for which a contract has been signed with Brill.

More information can be found online . 

Maritime research article on Taylor & Francis penned by UM academic

• PUBLICATIONS
• 11:25, 04 Jun 2024

Collection of writings in honour of Prof. Joseph M. Brincat

• 09:26, 29 May 2024

It is NOT abracadabra: A new children's book by the Faculty for Social Wellbeing

• 11:02, 24 May 2024
• ARTS & CULTURE
• CONFERENCES
• EXHIBITIONS
• RESEARCH & PROJECTS
• SCHOLARSHIPS
• TALKS & SEMINARS

Information about

• L-Università ta' Malta (UM)
• Academic entities

Information for

• Prospective students
• Current students
• Campuses and maps
• Courses at UM
• Search for staff
• Statutes, regulations and bye-laws

University of Malta Msida, MSD 2080 Malta

Phone: +356 2340 2340 UM website Contact details

• Accessibility
• Freedom of information

© L-Università ta' Malta