Peer Reviewed Journal

SMCC Teacher Education Journal

ISSN Print: 2008- 0598 • ISSN Online: 2008-0601
Volume 2 • June 2020
https://dx.doi.org/10.18868/cte.02.060120.01

Readiness for Flexible Learning

amidst COVID-19 Pandemic of Saint Michael
College of Caraga, Philippines
KENNETH IAN B. BARRERA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7678-9410
Kenneth.barrera22@gmail.com
Saint Michael College of Caraga, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

BEVERLY D. JAMINAL
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5534-3754
bevjaminal@gmail.com
Saint Michael College of Caraga, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

FELIX E. ARCILLA JR.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2669-2979
felixarcilla2@gmail.com
Saint Michael College of Caraga, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

Gunning Fog Index: 13.67 • Originality 99% • Grammar Check: 99%

Flesch Reading Ease: 40.61 • Plagiarism: 1%

ABSTRACT

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

1
SMCC Teacher Education Journal

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

KEYWORDS

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

INTRODUCTION

The dawn of the 21st century and the development of technology have brought
different challenges to society’s various sectors, especially to the educational system.
Schools were challenged to produce globally competitive graduates who are equipped
with 21st-century skills.
With the advent of technology and the internet wherein almost six in ten of the
nearly 8 billion people in the world are connected to the internet (Aazam et al., 2014),
makes e-learning a vital part of the educational system since technology plays a big part
in the 21st-century learning. The integration of computers, smartphones, and other
devices in the teaching and learning process is a move that every school must embrace
to become relevant in the present time.
The need to include e-learning to the curriculum has been made more prominent
with the onslaught of the COVID 2019 (Sahi, Mishra, & Singh, 2020). Government
agencies, such as the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED), advocate online classes or flexible learning to address pandemic
issues and the constraints imposed on schools to observe health protocols and practice
social distancing. Thus, schools are now looking into the viability of implementing
online classes or flexible learning, including online and offline courses (Narmada &
Somasundaram, 2020).
In addition, distance education is a concept that covers the teaching-learning
activities in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains of learners. It features
non-contiguous communication and can be executed anywhere, anytime, making it
attractive to both teachers and students with professional and social commitments
(Saykili, 2018).
Sandars (2020) includes essential criteria for the formulation of distance education,
such as the elements of non-contiguous communication, two-way interactive
communication, and technology to mediate the necessary two-way communication.

2
 Peer Reviewed Journal

Marshall & Kostka (2020) argued that meaningful learning, which anchors new
learning subjects in cognitive structures, not rote learning, is the center of interest.
Teaching is taken as making learning easier. This view of teaching and learning is
integrated with its individualization.
Given the current situation in the education system amid the coronavirus pandemic
and the need for flexible learning, Saint Michael College Caraga has found it beneficial
to survey its stakeholders, particularly teachers and students’ readiness to embark on this
learning platform.

FRAMEWORK

The study is anchored on the Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning

by Gordon (2014) and Hart (2000).
Demographic shifts have led to a shift in university student bodies: more mature,
full-time, and international students. Both students’ expectations for their education
have shifted, with a greater focus on job preparedness and flexible or self-directed
activities, and employer expectations for their workforce, pushing for greater “flexibility
and transferable skills” which will provide them with “more dynamic working lives”
(Gordon, 2014).
He said that Flexible learning is one way for such changes to be tackled. It lets
students choose when, where, and how to learn. This is referred to as the learning pace,
place, and mode.
1. Pace. This refers to encompasses accelerated and decelerated programs, part-
time learning, prior learning recognition, and associated credit framework. 
2. Place. This refers to the actual location of learning, whether it takes place in
a classroom, or at home, in the middle of a trip or as part of a work-based
experience.
3. Mode. This refers to how innovations can be used to deliver learning in fully
enhanced environments online, blended, or technology.

Instructors, learners, and institutions all play a role in flexible learning. Instructors
must be able to recognize opportunities for flexible learning, “with a growing focus
in handling the learning cycle instead of being the only learning provider content.”
Learners must take responsibility for their learning and grasp opportunities presented to
them and advocate for the method of delivery that best serves their learning. Institutions
must develop flexible structures that provide learners with options in their learning and
establish mechanisms that guarantee a quality learning experience (Ryan & Tilbury,
2013).
This wide range of influences can complicate the definition of flexible learning.
Palmer (2011) points out that the variety of teaching elements that allow flexibility can
“lead to the assumption that almost any teaching and learning configuration can claim

3
SMCC Teacher Education Journal

to be flexible in some respect,” but he points out that there is a need to be more careful
in using the term flexibility. The lack of an agreed definition of flexible education or
the use of an overly broad definition has led to a confusing “conflation of educational
typologies,” such as identifying any aspect of a course delivered in a non-traditional
manner as flexible or equating distance education with flexibility. Hart (2000) further
points out that distinguishing “flexible delivery” (technology or economically-driven
strategies) from true “flexible learning” (an educational goal) is significant. He has
identified eight principles to do so, which he says are “central to enforcing a flexible
learning strategy.”
1. Flexible access. Admitting students without a typical educational experience or
credentials helps students decide when to enter or exit a course and encourage
them to work individually, attend classes, or combine the two.
2. Recognition of prior learning. Providing credit for formal or non-formal
learning, including work experience and training, and using of this individual
experience to establish an acceptable study course.
3. Flexible content.  «Problem-based, as opposed to controlled, curricula require
students to function at various levels,” requiring students to construct a study
course that involves “units from other universities, extensions of units provided,
supervised practical research or contracts for learning.”
4. Flexible participation. Communication can be “face-to-face or asynchronous,
one-on-one or mobile, scheduled or on-demand,” available to teachers and
support staff at all times that are convenient for students.
5. Flexible teaching and learning methods. The delivery mode is set by a
combination of the “subjects “requirements and the individual learner’s needs”;”
Learning is personalized, teamwork is facilitated and metacognitive goals are
followed.” There is a systematic approach to independent learning “with the
ultimate aim of creating a broad understanding and learner accountability.” 
6. Flexible resources. Access to all university resources is available on and off-
campus, “Modular self-education materials (remedy, revision, and extension) are
available if required by the students.
7. Flexible assessment. Assessment is based on competency and not time, “on
meeting goals rather than standard delivery, on getting input and evaluation as
well.” Evaluation suits the course’s aim and allows students to be responsible
for their own level of achievement. Assessment is an essential part of the course
evaluating students’ success in “declarative, operational, and contextual aspects.”
8. Ongoing evaluation. Continued formative and overview assessments of flexible
learning curricula and materials ensure the required development or revision of
modular courses and elements of the course occurs as necessary.

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

4
 Peer Reviewed Journal

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

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

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

METHODOLOGY

Research Design
The researchers of the study used descriptive research design by Creswell &
Creswell (2017) in conducting the survey.

Research Locale
The research was conducted at Saint Michael College of Caraga (SMCC), located
in Atupan Street, Nasipit Agusan del Norte, Philippines. SMCC has good qualities in
terms of education and teaching Christian values. The researchers purposefully chose
this institution so that the result of this study could be of great help on flexible learning
readiness.

Research Respondents
The researchers used the universal sampling method. The respondents of this study
were the 107 full-time teachers and the 2, 575 students who answered the online survey
using the online Google forms.

Research Instrument
The study used Google forms as a source for securing the required data. This uses a
standardized questionnaire. The online survey questionnaire incorporates the profile of
the respondents and the questions on flexible learning.

Data Gathering
The researchers sent a transmittal letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs of
Saint Michael College of Caraga to conduct the study. Then, the researchers conducted
pre-orientation relating to the purpose, process, and benefits of the study. Further, the
researchers post the link to the personnel’s group chat and sent the link to the Deans,

5
SMCC Teacher Education Journal

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

Statistical Treatment
The data collected were entered into the data matrix using the Software of Microsoft
Excel with the statistical procedure in a frequency distribution, weighted mean, and
percentage of the mean score.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Devices used for Internet connection

Devices College SHS JHS Teachers Total

  f % f % f % f % f %

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

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

Laptop 192 17.50% 188 28.40% 233 25.60% 98 70.50% 711 35.5
Personal
41 3.70% 55 8.30% 96 10.60% 15 10.80% 207 8.35
computer
Smart tv 24 2.20% 44 6.70% 73 8% 27 19.40% 168 9.08

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

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

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

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

I do not have any
of the devices 58 5.30% 53 8% 63 6.90% 3 2.20% 177 0.55
mentioned

Table 1 shows the respondents’ devices that can be used for internet connection.
It further shows that students’ and teachers’ common devices for internet connection
are smartphones and laptops. Almost eighty-seven percent of the respondents have
smartphones, while 35.50% have laptops, while only 0.35% of the respondents have
Smart Boards.
With this, it can be deduced that most of the respondents can connect to the
internet through their smartphones (Sendelbah, Vehovar, Slavec, & Petrovčič, 2016).
Also, Watkins & Cho (2018) said that this transition was made possible by an expanding
range of high-powered digital devices capable of connecting from the teaching space to
the internet and by a new generation of students for whom constant connectivity is the
norm.

6
 Peer Reviewed Journal

Table 2. Phone/Computer Applications for Communications

Phone/Computer
College SHS JHS Teachers Total
Applications
  f % f % f % f % f %

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

Google Hangouts/
100 9.10% 75 11.30% 85 9.40% 31 22.30% 291 13.03
Meet
Facebook Mes-
1,045 95.40% 618 93.50% 831 91.40% 134 96.40% 2628 94.18
senger
Viber 107 9.80% 74 11.20% 69 7.60% 44 31.70% 294 15.08

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

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

Table 2 shows the Phone/Computer Applications used by the respondents

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

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

Phone/Computer
College SHS JHS Teachers Total
Applications
  f % f % F % f % f %
Microsoft Office
723 66% 478 72.30% 522 57.40% 115 82.70% 1838 69.6
Applications
Google Docs,
365 33.30% 269 40.70% 292 32.10% 74 53.20% 1000 31.5
Sheets, Slides
Open Office 69 6.30% 48 7.30% 43 4.70% 20 14.40% 180 41.05

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

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

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

7
SMCC Teacher Education Journal

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

Table 4. Phone/Computer Applications for Learning Management System used by the
Respondents
Phone/computer
College SHS JHS Teachers Total
applications
  f % F % f % f % f %
Edmodo 277 25.30% 234 35.40% 137 15.10% 58 41.70% 706 29.38
Google
656 59.90% 426 64.40% 253 27.80% 69 49.60% 1404 50.43
Classroom
Blackboard 157 14.30% 118 17.90% 201 22.10% 18 12.90% 494 16.80

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

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

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

Table 4 shows the Phone/Computer Applications for Learning Management

System frequently used by the respondents. Further, it shows that  Google Classroom,
with 50.43%, ranks first among the respondents’ applications, followed by  Edmodo,
and the least is  Lark. Islam (2019) said that Google Classroom helps students to
communicate more effectively. Perhaps more important than being user-friendly and
accessible, the communication tools are also very effective. Since it’s all cloud-based,
students no longer “lose” the tasks.
It is noted that there are 28.23% of the respondents who are not familiar with any
of the given applications. 
Furthermore, for JHS respondents, most of them are not familiar. They have not
used the given applications for the Learning Management system; only 27.8% of the
JHS respondents are familiar with Google Classroom. According to Alharbi & Drew
(2014), teaching and learning through learning management systems (LMS) seems to
be initially intended for distant education which is reasonable that is why students are
not familiar because the traditional approach of teaching is face to face modalities before
the onset of technologies and online platforms.

8
 Peer Reviewed Journal

Table 5. Word Processing, Spread Sheet and Presentations used by the Respondents
Word Processing Spreadsheet Presentation
Weighed  Verbal Weighed  Verbal Weighed  Verbal
Department
Mean description Mean description Mean description
College 3.63 very good 3.22 good 3.56 very good

SHS 3.54 very good 3.26 good 3.56 very good

JHS 3.36 good 3.10 good 3.32 good

Teachers 4.04 very good 3.60 very good 3.86 very good

  3.64  Very good 3.29 good 3.58 very good

Table 5 shows the level of literacy Basic Computer Task particularly on Word
Processing, Spreadsheets, and Presentations. The data indicate that only the Junior
High School respondents are good level at literacy in basic computer tasks. In contrast,
the other respondents, the College, SHS, and teachers have a very good literacy level in
basic computer tasks, particularly in Word Processing, Spreadsheet, and Presentations.
Blignaut & Els (2010) claimed that due to the use of computers in our everyday
communication and work, computer systems skills and the ability to work with word
processing, data management, and data sheeting and data analysis programs had become
important requirements for students
Therefore, the JHS respondents, including grade 7 and grade 8, whose curriculum
still does not include the given basic computer tasks, explain the low literacy level.

Table 6. Internet Skills, Audio & Video Editing, Image/Photo Editing and Programming
Literacy
Audio & Video
Internet Skills Image/Photo Editing Programming
Editing
Weighed  Verbal Weighed  Verbal Weighed  Verbal Weighed  Verbal
Department
Mean description Mean description Mean description Mean description
College 3.58 Very good 2.92 good 3.14 good 2.40 fair

SHS 3.58 Very good 3.13 good 3.33 good 2.73 Good

JHS 3.63 Very good 3.09 good 3.36 good 2.68 Good

Teachers 3.81 Very good 2.78 good 2.94 good 2.08 fair
 Ave.
Weighted 3.65 Very good 2.98 good 3.19 good 2.47 fair
Mean

Table 6 shows the level of literacy on Internet Skills, Audio & Video Editing,
Image/Photo Editing, and Programming.
Further, it shows that all of the respondents have a very good literacy level for
Internet Skills. On Audio and Video Editing and Image/Photo Editing skills, all

9
SMCC Teacher Education Journal

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

Table 7 Instructional Delivery Preferences

Value College SHS JHS Teachers Total

  f % f % f % f % f %
Traditional/
Face-face 849 77.50% 472 71.40% 548 60.30% 123 88.50% 1992 74.43%
Lecture
Self-paced
learning
Modules- 305 27.90% 252 38.10% 383 42.10% 57 41% 997 17.5%
defined
as…
Flipped
Classroom-
197 18% 131 19.80% 256 28.20% 57 41% 641 11.55%
a type
learning
Distribution
of Printed
420 38.40% 238 36% 349 38.40% 78 56.10% 1085 19.2%
Learning
Materials
Live
Lectures
Online- 193 17.60% 111 16.80% 220 24.20% 57 41% 581 10.45%
Students
and teachers

Table 7 shows that respondents prefer traditional/face-to-face lectures with 74.43%

on Instructional Delivery preference. The next preference is the Distribution of Printed
Learning materials. The least preferred instructional delivery is the Live lectures Online,
with only 10.45%.
Duncan & Fiske (2015) indicated the importance of face-to-face interaction
because it allows for a better exchange of information since both the speaker and listener
can see and interpret body language and facial expressions. In contrast, Lenkaitis (2020)
demonstrated that education quality could be achieved by incorporating computer
technology in online class interaction. In addition, given the importance of face-to-face
interaction, successful distance education programs are increasingly moving towards
distance learning education (Simonson, Zvacek & Smaldino, 2019). Moreover, online
delivery might find it challenging to support modules and printed materials distribution

10
 Peer Reviewed Journal

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

Table 8. Teaching and Learning process using online platforms

Indicators College SHS JHS Teachers Total

  f % f % f % f % f %
Comfortable
with online 313 28.60% 191 28.90% 417 45.20% 68 48.9 989 37.90%
Platfoms
Not
Comfortable
782 71.40% 470 71.10% 506 54.80% 71 51.1 1829 62.10%
with online
Platforms

Table 8 shows that majority of the respondents are not comfortable using online
platforms in the teaching and learning process. This can be explained that though most
of the respondents have smartphones and can connect to the internet, data show that
most of the respondents used their devices for Facebook or communication purposes
only. Only a few use their devices for the teaching and learning process (Sung, Chang,
& Liu, 2016).
In addition, Dresselhaus & Shrode (2012) stated that mobile devices and Wi-Fi
providers have become more popular; they have also improve more widely integrated
into students’ lives. Many students use smartphones or tablets as part of their life, and
it is one of the requirements in online learning. Nikolopoulou (2020) supported that
smartphone or tablet can certainly enhance a student’s online learning experience.
Moreover, Accessing course materials, creating assignments, or even simply emailing
your professor and fellow students on the go, makes online teaching and learning even
more convenient (Barkley & Major, 2020).

CONCLUSION

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

11
SMCC Teacher Education Journal

RECOMMENDATIONS

The researchers recommend that official online platforms or learning management

systems first be established by the institution wherein instructors can provide engaging
educational activities. Online platforms should be user-friendly and hold the number of
students per class and online class hours (Gacs, Goertler, & Spasova, 2020).
With the data gathered, it is further recommended to start with the flexible
learning program. Since most of the respondents use mobile data as their source of
internet connection, a flexible learning scheme that will have low usage of mobile
data to lessen the students’ expenses for their mobile data, and offline class or use of
modules or learning materials should also be an option for those students who don’t
have connectivity (Martin, Cupples, & Taherzadeh, 2020).
Thus, it follows that teachers should undergo trainings and seminars on how
to conduct online classes (Rosa, 2020), and the curriculum should be revisited to
accommodate the paradigm shift (Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur, 2020).

LITERATURE CITED

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

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

Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for

college faculty. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.
ly/2YOvEpz

Blignaut, A. S., & Els, C. J. (2010). Comperacy assessment of postgraduate students’

readiness for higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 101-107.
Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/32BX0QT

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

12
 Peer Reviewed Journal

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,

and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Retrieved on May 10, 2020
from https://bit.ly/2Ei0ejK

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

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

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

Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning.  The Higher

Education Academy, 1-24. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/2EH51vr

Hart, I. (2000). Learning and the ‘F’word. Educational Media International, 37(2), 98-

101. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3b9HoI1

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

Islam, M. S. (2019). Bangladeshi University Students’ Perception about Using Google

Classroom for Teaching English.  Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 57-65.
Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/31FryBX

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

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

Lenkaitis, C. A. (2020). Technology as a mediating tool: Videoconferencing, L2

learning, and learner autonomy.  Computer Assisted Language Learning,  33(5-6),
483-509. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3bgDcq8

13
SMCC Teacher Education Journal

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

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

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

Narmada, S., & Somasundaram, A. (2020). PREPAREDNESS FOR REOPENING

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

Nikolopoulou, K. (2020). Secondary education teachers’ perceptions of mobile

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

Rosa, A. T. R. (2020). Teacher Development Potential (Creativity and Innovation)

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

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

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

14
 Peer Reviewed Journal

Saykili, A. (2018). Distance Education: Definitions, Generations, Key Concepts and

Future Directions. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research,
5(1), 2-17. Retrieved on May 10, 2020 from https://bit.ly/3aCtEFk

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

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

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

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

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

15