research about new normal education in the philippines pdf

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

The COVID-19 Pandemic through the Lens of Education in the Philippines: The New Normal

2020, International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning

The present COVID-19 pandemic has brought extraordinary challenges and has affected the educational sectors, and no one knows when it will end. Every country is presently implementing plans and procedures on how to contain the virus, and the infections are still continually rising. In the educational context, to sustain and provide quality education despite lockdown and community quarantine, the new normal should be taken into consideration in the planning and implementation of the "new normal educational policy". This article presents opportunities for responding issues, problems and trends that are currently arising and will arise in the future due to COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of education in the Philippines-the new educational norm.

Related Papers

Universal Journal of Educational Research

As the whole world is facing the Pandemic COVID-19 crisis, where the conventional way of teaching-learning process, face-to-face interaction between students and teachers has suspended due to modified/general enhanced community quarantine, the action of the government to control and mitigate the spread of the disease, the educational landscapes of higher education institutions have been changed. This descriptive correlational research using the predictive method assessed teachers' knowledge, self-efficacy, practices, and perceived effectiveness in adopting flexible learning. The instruments used in this study were validated by experts in the fields of educational management, curriculum and instruction, quality assurance, research, and statistics. It obtained a reliability coefficient of Cronbach α = 0.955 which indicated an excellent reliability index. The responses from 531 faculties at the Laguna State Polytechnic University were generated through online survey. The results we...

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ) , ROCKY NIÑO L. MANIRE

Since the outbreak of the virus, several countries including the Philippines was greatly affected, forcing the national government to implement various categories of quarantine protocols and drastic measures to ensure the containment of the disease. Among the greatly affected sectors of industry, educational system grieved immensely because of the suspension of classes and forcing several basic education schools as well as several colleges and universities to terminate the semester. As this global pandemic continue to threaten the basic education system in the Philippines, and with the unsecured and unsafe environment due to this health crisis, the possibility of resuming physical classes is very unlikely. Hence, the implementation of Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) plays a crucial role in the Philippine educational context during this crisis. As a supervisory intervention, ERT is a temporary solution of reinforcing the lack of face-to-face interaction of learning through various platforms – digital media, radio, television learning and the likes. This paper adapts literature-based methodology using literature review as its method of presenting the nature and characteristics of ERT and its implications to Philippine educational system through various literatures found in the digital. More so, it presents an overview of the challenges the Philippine education system faced upon its implementation. Further empirical researches on the impact of implementing ERT among Philippine public and private educational institutions in the basic and higher education program is recommended. Keywords: Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT), COVID-19, Pandemic, Online Education, Online Learning, Philippine Educational System

Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology

John Mark R . Asio , Shallimar A . Bayucca

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic changed the course of delivering quality education to learners. This study analyzed the level of digital competence of school administrators, the readiness of schools, and perceived challenges on the delivery of distance learning. Using a descriptive research design, the researchers used an online survey to gather pertinent data for the study. Thirty-six (36) administrators took part in the online survey using universal sampling from a school division in the province of Bulacan, Philippines. The researchers created an online research instrument and subjected it to validation before the actual administration. After data gathering, the researchers encoded and tabulated the data. This study used the following statistical tools to analyze the data: frequency, percentage, and rank. The study found that the administrators have varied results on the aspect of digital competence based on the statistical analysis. In terms of school readiness on distance learning, the schools were not yet ready to implement a distance learning scheme. For the perceived challenges, internet connection/ connectivity is the primary concern. Other challenges involve preparation, competencies, funding, and devices for distance learning. Based on the result of the study, the researchers provided some essential recommendations for the administrators, teachers, and other stakeholders.

Sapienza: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies

Jimmy Rey Cabardo

COVID-19 pandemic brought so many changes in the state of education after school’s temporary closure. Educational institutions transitioned to modular distance learning from the usual face-to-face teaching which put both teachers and students less prepared, if not totally unprepared. This qualitative phenomenological study explored the challenges and mechanisms of teachers in the implementation of modular distance learning in the Philippines amidst COVID-19 pandemic. Data were gathered through in-depth interview to twelve (12) teachers, six (6) were teaching in the elementary, and the other six (6) teaching in the secondary level. Recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the following steps: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. Ethical issues were considered in the conduct of the study. Results revealed that the challenges of teachers in modular distance learning includes time-consuming, incomplete and unanswered modules, inadequate p...

Jurnal Penjaminan Mutu

Gilbert S. Arrieta

Education is a physical and interactive human activity. Primarily, teachers and students meet and take part in various learning activities in school. Other educational activities are held outside the school to augment what is learned inside the school campus. When technology developed and made online education possible, it was not fully embraced because education is also a social activity. However, the Covid-19 pandemic forced everyone to do things online including education. Unprepared and untrained for this new learning modality, educators had to prepare for a short period of time. Teachers underwent training through online webinars and conferences, and learning continuity plan was developed. Online classes for academic year 2020-2021 started six months ago which revealed the strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and issues in online teaching and learning. This study aims to find out the challenges encountered by the school leaders, teachers, and academic in the implementation of the...

Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun

Louie Giray , Karl Villacorta

This study was endeavored to understand the online learning experience of Filipino college students enrolled in the academic year 2020-2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were obtained through an open-ended qualitative survey. The responses were analyzed and interpreted using thematic analysis. A total of 71 Filipino college students from state and local universities in the Philippines participated in this study. Four themes were classified from the collected data: (1) negative views toward online schooling, (2) positive views toward online schooling, (3) difficulties encountered in online schooling, and (4) motivation to continue studying. The results showed that although many Filipino college students find online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic to be a positive experience such as it provides various conveniences, eliminates the necessity of public transportation amid the COVID-19 pandemic, among others, a more significant number of respondents believe otherwise. The ma...

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Aaron A . Funa

Modes of teaching and learning have had to rapidly shift amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As an emergency response, students from Philippine public schools were provided learning modules based on a minimized list of essential learning competencies in Biology. Using a cross-sectional survey method, we investigated students' perceptions of the Biology self-learning modules (BSLM) that were designed in print and digitized formats according to a constructivist learning approach. Senior high school STEM students from grades 11 (n = 117) and 12 (n = 104) participated in a survey using a 3-point Likert-scale questionnaire uploaded online through Google Forms. The survey results indicate that majority of the students perceived the modules positively, suggesting that aspects of the modules that were salient to students corresponded to essential elements of constructivist pedagogies. However, during interviews, students reported several difficulties in learning with BSLM as it was constrained by, to name a few, the use of unfamiliar words, lack of access to supporting resources, slow internet connection, and time constraints. To address these problems, teachers reported that they gave deadline extensions, complemented modules with other channels of support, and used online and offline platforms for reaching out to students to answer their queries and plan out their schedule for the week. The findings across the data sources point to the complex demands of emergency distance education that teachers, as curriculum designers and enactors, need to bear in mind in order to craft productive pedagogies, constructivist or otherwise, during this unprecedented time.

Danilo V . Rogayan Jr. , marshall dantic

COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the global environment. It has affected almost all aspects of society from cultural, economic, educational, to social factors. This narrative inquiry explored science educators' perspectives on the vital roles they would play in the post-COVID setting. Sixteen teachers from different educational institutions were purposively selected to take part in this qualitative investigation. The participants wrote their short narratives on their significant role as science teachers after the COVID-19 pandemic. Six themes emerged as roles of the science teachers in the post-COVID era; these include (1) science communicator; (2) critical thinker; (3) knowledge creator; (4) disruptive innovator; (5) advocate against misinformation; and (6) futureready educator. A conceptual paradigm is designed to describe the vital roles of science teachers in the postpandemic era in the context of the VUCAD 2 (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous, diverse, and disruptive) world. Implications of the findings to science education in the post-pandemic setting are discussed in the paper.

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ)

Formative assessment provides ongoing feedback to monitor student learning and improve teachers' instruction. But the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the mode of learning delivery and has affected formative assessment. Hence, the researchers explored the practices, challenges, and adaptive strategies of Mathematics and Science Senior High school teachers on formative assessment of students' learning in an online distance learning modality. Narrative inquiry research design was used in which eight teachers and six students who were chosen through convenience sampling were subjected to in-depth interview. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and underwent coding, categorizing, and thematizing. Results revealed that teachers employ practices that allow them to provide immediate feedback, utilize online assessment tools, probe questions, encourage students' active participation, and align learning competencies with formative assessment. However, they encounter challenges that affect students' learning such as lack of motivation, unavailability of internet/data connection and gadgets, low digital literacy skills, minimal peer assistance, and authenticity of formative assessment results. But they adapt strategies to address these challenges through designing differentiated assessment, showing empathy, reinventing pedagogical goals through meaningful online tools, promoting student-centered learning, and providing consistent means of communication. Findings implied that teachers use various online formative assessment practices similar to what they do in face-to-face classes. Challenges are evident in the entirety of instruction. However, teachers are dynamic in improving their practices. An action plan consisting of activities, objectives, and description is hereby proposed to improve the online formative assessment practices of mathematics and science teachers to enhance students' learning.

Contemporary Educational Technology

Dominic Samaila

RELATED PAPERS

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics

Christopher Ryan Maboloc

Studies in Humanities and Education

John Mark R . Asio

Sukran Sevimli

AJHSSR Journal

Jonnedel Baquiran

International Journal of Information and Education Technology

Niel Francis Casillano

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ) , Vladimir Reyes

Philippine Social Science Journal

Alvin Kris Alic

International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning

Edgar John Sintema

Fernan Tupas

Zeba F Alam

International journal of home science

Mary Janet Arnado

Journal of Education in Black Sea Region

Abel V . Alvarez, Jr.

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ) , Dhon Cerbz

UIJRT | United International Journal for Research & Technology , Michael L . Bordeos

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ) , DOLORA MARISTELA

Najeb Masoud

Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review

Anum Hanif , Dr. Tahira Asgher

Tzinti Ramirez Reyes

Aris Ignacio

Basic and Applied Education Research Journal

International Journal of Learning and Development

Kostis Tsioumis

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics EJAIBVol. 30 (8) October 2020

Dr jahid S I R A Z Chowdhury , haris abd wahab

IOER Inernational Multidisciplinary Research Journal

British Journal of Teacher Education and Pedagogy

cailvin reyes

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, Eubios Ethics Institute

Dr jahid S I R A Z Chowdhury

Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal

Sheena Jane Reotutar

International Journal of Quality in Education

EduLine: Journal of Education and Learning Innovation

Analyn Clarin

International Journal of Research Studies in Education

Joefrey R . Chan , Neil Santander

Jem Cloyd Tanucan

United International Journal for Research & Technology

UIJRT | United International Journal for Research & Technology , MELANIE FAJARDO

International Journal of Scholars in Education

RELATED TOPICS

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

Advertisement

The “new normal” in education

• Viewpoints/ Controversies
• Published: 24 November 2020
• Volume 51 , pages 3–14, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• José Augusto Pacheco   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4623-6898 1  

345k Accesses

47 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Effects rippling from the Covid 19 emergency include changes in the personal, social, and economic spheres. Are there continuities as well? Based on a literature review (primarily of UNESCO and OECD publications and their critics), the following question is posed: How can one resist the slide into passive technologization and seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane, and international-transformational approach to education? Technologization, while an ongoing and evidently ever-intensifying tendency, is not without its critics, especially those associated with the humanistic tradition in education. This is more apparent now that curriculum is being conceived as a complicated conversation. In a complex and unequal world, the well-being of students requires diverse and even conflicting visions of the world, its problems, and the forms of knowledge we study to address them.

Similar content being viewed by others

Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges

21st Century Skills

Mediated learning leading development—the social development theory of lev vygotsky.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

From the past, we might find our way to a future unforeclosed by the present (Pinar 2019 , p. 12)

Texts regarding this pandemic’s consequences are appearing at an accelerating pace, with constant coverage by news outlets, as well as philosophical, historical, and sociological reflections by public intellectuals worldwide. Ripples from the current emergency have spread into the personal, social, and economic spheres. But are there continuities as well? Is the pandemic creating a “new normal” in education or simply accenting what has already become normal—an accelerating tendency toward technologization? This tendency presents an important challenge for education, requiring a critical vision of post-Covid-19 curriculum. One must pose an additional question: How can one resist the slide into passive technologization and seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane, and international-transformational approach to education?

The ongoing present

Unpredicted except through science fiction, movie scripts, and novels, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed everyday life, caused wide-scale illness and death, and provoked preventive measures like social distancing, confinement, and school closures. It has struck disproportionately at those who provide essential services and those unable to work remotely; in an already precarious marketplace, unemployment is having terrible consequences. The pandemic is now the chief sign of both globalization and deglobalization, as nations close borders and airports sit empty. There are no departures, no delays. Everything has changed, and no one was prepared. The pandemic has disrupted the flow of time and unraveled what was normal. It is the emergence of an event (think of Badiou 2009 ) that restarts time, creates radical ruptures and imbalances, and brings about a contingency that becomes a new necessity (Žižek 2020 ). Such events question the ongoing present.

The pandemic has reshuffled our needs, which are now based on a new order. Whether of short or medium duration, will it end in a return to the “normal” or move us into an unknown future? Žižek contends that “there is no return to normal, the new ‘normal’ will have to be constructed on the ruins of our old lives, or we will find ourselves in a new barbarism whose signs are already clearly discernible” (Žižek 2020 , p. 3).

Despite public health measures, Gil ( 2020 ) observes that the pandemic has so far generated no physical or spiritual upheaval and no universal awareness of the need to change how we live. Techno-capitalism continues to work, though perhaps not as before. Online sales increase and professionals work from home, thereby creating new digital subjectivities and economies. We will not escape the pull of self-preservation, self-regeneration, and the metamorphosis of capitalism, which will continue its permanent revolution (Wells 2020 ). In adapting subjectivities to the recent demands of digital capitalism, the pandemic can catapult us into an even more thoroughly digitalized space, a trend that artificial intelligence will accelerate. These new subjectivities will exhibit increased capacities for voluntary obedience and programmable functioning abilities, leading to a “new normal” benefiting those who are savvy in software-structured social relationships.

The Covid-19 pandemic has submerged us all in the tsunami-like economies of the Cloud. There is an intensification of the allegro rhythm of adaptation to the Internet of Things (Davies, Beauchamp, Davies, and Price 2019 ). For Latour ( 2020 ), the pandemic has become internalized as an ongoing state of emergency preparing us for the next crisis—climate change—for which we will see just how (un)prepared we are. Along with inequality, climate is one of the most pressing issues of our time (OECD 2019a , 2019b ) and therefore its representation in the curriculum is of public, not just private, interest.

Education both reflects what is now and anticipates what is next, recoding private and public responses to crises. Žižek ( 2020 , p. 117) suggests in this regard that “values and beliefs should not be simply ignored: they play an important role and should be treated as a specific mode of assemblage”. As such, education is (post)human and has its (over)determination by beliefs and values, themselves encoded in technology.

Will the pandemic detoxify our addiction to technology, or will it cement that addiction? Pinar ( 2019 , pp. 14–15) suggests that “this idea—that technological advance can overcome cultural, economic, educational crises—has faded into the background. It is our assumption. Our faith prompts the purchase of new technology and assures we can cure climate change”. While waiting for technology to rescue us, we might also remember to look at ourselves. In this way, the pandemic could be a starting point for a more sustainable environment. An intelligent response to climate change, reactivating the humanistic tradition in education, would reaffirm the right to such an education as a global common good (UNESCO 2015a , p. 10):

This approach emphasizes the inclusion of people who are often subject to discrimination – women and girls, indigenous people, persons with disabilities, migrants, the elderly and people living in countries affected by conflict. It requires an open and flexible approach to learning that is both lifelong and life-wide: an approach that provides the opportunity for all to realize their potential for a sustainable future and a life of dignity”.

Pinar ( 2004 , 2009 , 2019 ) concevies of curriculum as a complicated conversation. Central to that complicated conversation is climate change, which drives the need for education for sustainable development and the grooming of new global citizens with sustainable lifestyles and exemplary environmental custodianship (Marope 2017 ).

The new normal

The pandemic ushers in a “new” normal, in which digitization enforces ways of working and learning. It forces education further into technologization, a development already well underway, fueled by commercialism and the reigning market ideology. Daniel ( 2020 , p. 1) notes that “many institutions had plans to make greater use of technology in teaching, but the outbreak of Covid-19 has meant that changes intended to occur over months or years had to be implemented in a few days”.

Is this “new normal” really new or is it a reiteration of the old?

Digital technologies are the visible face of the immediate changes taking place in society—the commercial society—and schools. The immediate solution to the closure of schools is distance learning, with platforms proliferating and knowledge demoted to information to be exchanged (Koopman 2019 ), like a product, a phenomenon predicted decades ago by Lyotard ( 1984 , pp. 4-5):

Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valued in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its use-value.

Digital technologies and economic rationality based on performance are significant determinants of the commercialization of learning. Moving from physical face-to-face presence to virtual contact (synchronous and asynchronous), the learning space becomes disembodied, virtual not actual, impacting both student learning and the organization of schools, which are no longer buildings but websites. Such change is not only coterminous with the pandemic, as the Education 2030 Agenda (UNESCO 2015b ) testified; preceding that was the Delors Report (Delors 1996 ), which recoded education as lifelong learning that included learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together.

Transnational organizations have specified competences for the 21st century and, in the process, have defined disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge that encourages global citizenship, through “the supra curriculum at the global, regional, or international comparative level” (Marope 2017 , p. 10). According to UNESCO ( 2017 ):

While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.

These transnational initiatives have not only acknowledged traditional school subjects but have also shifted the curriculum toward timely topics dedicated to understanding the emergencies of the day (Spiller 2017 ). However, for the OECD ( 2019a ), the “new normal” accentuates two ideas: competence-based education, which includes the knowledges identified in the Delors Report , and a new learning framework structured by digital technologies. The Covid-19 pandemic does not change this logic. Indeed, the interdisciplinary skills framework, content and standardized testing associated with the Programme for International Student Assessment of the OECD has become the most powerful tool for prescribing the curriculum. Educationally, “the universal homogenous ‘state’ exists already. Globalization of standardized testing—the most prominent instance of threatening to restructure schools into technological sites of political socialization, conditioning children for compliance to a universal homogeneous state of mind” (Pinar 2019 , p. 2).

In addition to cognitive and practical skills, this “homogenous state of mind” rests on so-called social and emotional skills in the service of learning to live together, affirming global citizenship, and presumably returning agency to students and teachers (OECD 2019a ). According to Marope ( 2017 , p. 22), “this calls for higher flexibility in curriculum development, and for the need to leave space for curricula interpretation, contextualization, and creativity at the micro level of teachers and classrooms”. Heterogeneity is thus enlisted in the service of both economic homogeneity and disciplinary knowledge. Disciplinary knowledge is presented as universal and endowed with social, moral, and cognitive authority. Operational and effective knowledge becomes central, due to the influence of financial lobbies, thereby ensuring that the logic of the market is brought into the practices of schools. As Pestre ( 2013 , p. 21) observed, “the nature of this knowledge is new: what matters is that it makes hic et nunc the action, its effect and not its understanding”. Its functionality follows (presumably) data and evidence-based management.

A new language is thus imposed on education and the curriculum. Such enforced installation of performative language and Big Data lead to effective and profitable operations in a vast market concerned with competence in operational skills (Lyotard 1984 ). This “new normal” curriculum is said to be more horizontal and less hierarchical and radically polycentric with problem-solving produced through social networks, NGOs, transnational organizations, and think tanks (Pestre 2013 ; Williamson 2013 , 2017 ). Untouched by the pandemic, the “new (old) normal” remains based on disciplinary knowledge and enmeshed in the discourse of standards and accountability in education.

Such enforced commercialism reflects and reinforces economic globalization. Pinar ( 2011 , p. 30) worries that “the globalization of instrumental rationality in education threatens the very existence of education itself”. In his theory, commercialism and the technical instrumentality by which homogenization advances erase education as an embodied experience and the curriculum as a humanistic project. It is a time in which the humanities are devalued as well, as acknowledged by Pinar ( 2019 , p. 19): “In the United States [and in the world] not only does economics replace education—STEM replace the liberal arts as central to the curriculum—there are even politicians who attack the liberal arts as subversive and irrelevant…it can be more precisely characterized as reckless rhetoric of a know-nothing populism”. Replacing in-person dialogical encounters and the educational cultivation of the person (via Bildung and currere ), digital technologies are creating uniformity of learning spaces, in spite of their individualistic tendencies. Of course, education occurs outside schools—and on occasion in schools—but this causal displacement of the centrality of the school implies a devaluation of academic knowledge in the name of diversification of learning spaces.

In society, education, and specifically in the curriculum, the pandemic has brought nothing new but rather has accelerated already existing trends that can be summarized as technologization. Those who can work “remotely” exercise their privilege, since they can exploit an increasingly digital society. They themselves are changed in the process, as their own subjectivities are digitalized, thus predisposing them to a “curriculum of things” (a term coined by Laist ( 2016 ) to describe an object-oriented pedagogical approach), which is organized not around knowledge but information (Koopman 2019 ; Couldry and Mejias 2019 ). This (old) “new normal” was advanced by the OECD, among other international organizations, thus precipitating what some see as “a dynamic and transformative articulation of collective expectations of the purpose, quality, and relevance of education and learning to holistic, inclusive, just, peaceful, and sustainable development, and to the well-being and fulfilment of current and future generations” (Marope 2017 , p. 13). Covid-19, illiberal democracy, economic nationalism, and inaction on climate change, all upend this promise.

Understanding the psychological and cultural complexity of the curriculum is crucial. Without appreciating the infinity of responses students have to what they study, one cannot engage in the complicated conversation that is the curriculum. There must be an affirmation of “not only the individualism of a person’s experience but [of what is] underlining the significance of a person’s response to a course of study that has been designed to ignore individuality in order to buttress nation, religion, ethnicity, family, and gender” (Grumet 2017 , p. 77). Rather than promoting neuroscience as the answer to the problems of curriculum and pedagogy, it is long-past time for rethinking curriculum development and addressing the canonical curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth from a humanistic perspective that is structured by complicated conversation (UNESCO 2015a ; Pinar 2004 , 2019 )? It promotes respect for diversity and rejection of all forms of (cultural) hegemony, stereotypes, and biases (Pacheco 2009 , 2017 ).

Revisiting the curriculum in the Covid-19 era then expresses the fallacy of the “new normal” but also represents a particular opportunity to promote a different path forward.

Looking to the post-Covid-19 curriculum

Based on the notion of curriculum as a complicated conversation, as proposed by Pinar ( 2004 ), the post-Covid-19 curriculum can seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane education, one which requires a humanistic and internationally aware reconceptualization of curriculum.

While beliefs and values are anchored in social and individual practices (Pinar 2019 , p. 15), education extracts them for critique and reconsideration. For example, freedom and tolerance are not neutral but normative practices, however ideology-free policymakers imagine them to be.

That same sleight-of-hand—value neutrality in the service of a certain normativity—is evident in a digital concept of society as a relationship between humans and non-humans (or posthumans), a relationship not only mediated by but encapsulated within technology: machines interfacing with other machines. This is not merely a technological change, as if it were a quarantined domain severed from society. Technologization is a totalizing digitalization of human experience that includes the structures of society. It is less social than economic, with social bonds now recoded as financial transactions sutured by software. Now that subjectivity is digitalized, the human face has become an exclusively economic one that fabricates the fantasy of rational and free agents—always self-interested—operating in supposedly free markets. Oddly enough, there is no place for a vision of humanistic and internationally aware change. The technological dimension of curriculum is assumed to be the primary area of change, which has been deeply and totally imposed by global standards. The worldwide pandemic supports arguments for imposing forms of control (Žižek 2020 ), including the geolocation of infected people and the suspension—in a state of exception—of civil liberties.

By destroying democracy, the technology of control leads to totalitarianism and barbarism, ending tolerance, difference, and diversity. Remembrance and memory are needed so that historical fascisms (Eley 2020 ) are not repeated, albeit in new disguises (Adorno 2011 ). Technologized education enhances efficiency and ensures uniformity, while presuming objectivity to the detriment of human reflection and singularity. It imposes the running data of the Curriculum of Things and eschews intellectual endeavor, critical attitude, and self-reflexivity.

For those who advocate the primacy of technology and the so-called “free market”, the pandemic represents opportunities not only for profit but also for confirmation of the pervasiveness of human error and proof of the efficiency of the non-human, i.e., the inhuman technology. What may possibly protect children from this inhumanity and their commodification, as human capital, is a humane or humanistic education that contradicts their commodification.

The decontextualized technical vocabulary in use in a market society produces an undifferentiated image in which people are blinded to nuance, distinction, and subtlety. For Pestre, concepts associated with efficiency convey the primacy of economic activity to the exclusion, for instance, of ethics, since those concepts devalue historic (if unrealized) commitments to equality and fraternity by instead emphasizing economic freedom and the autonomy of self-interested individuals. Constructing education as solely economic and technological constitutes a movement toward total efficiency through the installation of uniformity of behavior, devaluing diversity and human creativity.

Erased from the screen is any image of public education as a space of freedom, or as Macdonald ( 1995 , p. 38) holds, any image or concept of “the dignity and integrity of each human”. Instead, what we face is the post-human and the undisputed reign of instrumental reality, where the ends justify the means and human realization is reduced to the consumption of goods and experiences. As Pinar ( 2019 , p. 7) observes: “In the private sphere…. freedom is recast as a choice of consumer goods; in the public sphere, it converts to control and the demand that freedom flourish, so that whatever is profitable can be pursued”. Such “negative” freedom—freedom from constraint—ignores “positive” freedom, which requires us to contemplate—in ethical and spiritual terms—what that freedom is for. To contemplate what freedom is for requires “critical and comprehensive knowledge” (Pestre 2013 , p. 39) not only instrumental and technical knowledge. The humanities and the arts would reoccupy the center of such a curriculum and not be related to its margins (Westbury 2008 ), acknowledging that what is studied within schools is a complicated conversation among those present—including oneself, one’s ancestors, and those yet to be born (Pinar 2004 ).

In an era of unconstrained technologization, the challenge facing the curriculum is coding and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), with technology dislodging those subjects related to the human. This is not a classical curriculum (although it could be) but one focused on the emergencies of the moment–namely, climate change, the pandemic, mass migration, right-wing populism, and economic inequality. These timely topics, which in secondary school could be taught as short courses and at the elementary level as thematic units, would be informed by the traditional school subjects (yes, including STEM). Such a reorganization of the curriculum would allow students to see how academic knowledge enables them to understand what is happening to them and their parents in their own regions and globally. Such a cosmopolitan curriculum would prepare children to become citizens not only of their own nations but of the world. This citizenship would simultaneously be subjective and social, singular and universal (Marope 2020 ). Pinar ( 2019 , p. 5) reminds us that “the division between private and public was first blurred then erased by technology”:

No longer public, let alone sacred, morality becomes a matter of privately held values, sometimes monetized as commodities, statements of personal preference, often ornamental, sometimes self-servingly instrumental. Whatever their function, values were to be confined to the private sphere. The public sphere was no longer the civic square but rather, the marketplace, the site where one purchased whatever one valued.

New technological spaces are the universal center for (in)human values. The civic square is now Amazon, Alibaba, Twitter, WeChat, and other global online corporations. The facts of our human condition—a century-old phrase uncanny in its echoes today—can be studied in schools as an interdisciplinary complicated conversation about public issues that eclipse private ones (Pinar 2019 ), including social injustice, inequality, democracy, climate change, refugees, immigrants, and minority groups. Understood as a responsive, ethical, humane and transformational international educational approach, such a post-Covid-19 curriculum could be a “force for social equity, justice, cohesion, stability, and peace” (Marope 2017 , p. 32). “Unchosen” is certainly the adjective describing our obligations now, as we are surrounded by death and dying and threatened by privation or even starvation, as economies collapse and food-supply chains are broken. The pandemic may not mean deglobalization, but it surely accentuates it, as national borders are closed, international travel is suspended, and international trade is impacted by the accompanying economic crisis. On the other hand, economic globalization could return even stronger, as could the globalization of education systems. The “new normal” in education is the technological order—a passive technologization—and its expansion continues uncontested and even accelerated by the pandemic.

Two Greek concepts, kronos and kairos , allow a discussion of contrasts between the quantitative and the qualitative in education. Echoing the ancient notion of kronos are the technologically structured curriculum values of quantity and performance, which are always assessed by a standardized accountability system enforcing an “ideology of achievement”. “While kronos refers to chronological or sequential time, kairos refers to time that might require waiting patiently for a long time or immediate and rapid action; which course of action one chooses will depend on the particular situation” (Lahtinen 2009 , p. 252).

For Macdonald ( 1995 , p. 51), “the central ideology of the schools is the ideology of achievement …[It] is a quantitative ideology, for even to attempt to assess quality must be quantified under this ideology, and the educational process is perceived as a technically monitored quality control process”.

Self-evaluation subjectively internalizes what is useful and in conformity with the techno-economy and its so-called standards, increasingly enforcing technical (software) forms. If recoded as the Internet of Things, this remains a curriculum in allegiance with “order and control” (Doll 2013 , p. 314) School knowledge is reduced to an instrument for economic success, employing compulsory collaboration to ensure group think and conformity. Intertwined with the Internet of Things, technological subjectivity becomes embedded in software, redesigned for effectiveness, i.e., or use-value (as Lyotard predicted).

The Curriculum of Things dominates the Internet, which is simultaneously an object and a thing (see Heidegger 1967 , 1971 , 1977 ), a powerful “technological tool for the process of knowledge building” (Means 2008 , p. 137). Online learning occupies the subjective zone between the “curriculum-as-planned” and the “curriculum-as-lived” (Pinar 2019 , p. 23). The world of the curriculum-as-lived fades, as the screen shifts and children are enmeshed in an ocularcentric system of accountability and instrumentality.

In contrast to kronos , the Greek concept of kairos implies lived time or even slow time (Koepnick 2014 ), time that is “self-reflective” (Macdonald 1995 , p. 103) and autobiographical (Pinar 2009 , 2004), thus inspiring “curriculum improvisation” (Aoki 2011 , p. 375), while emphasizing “the plurality of subjectivities” (Grumet 2017 , p. 80). Kairos emphasizes singularity and acknowledges particularities; it is skeptical of similarities. For Shew ( 2013 , p. 48), “ kairos is that which opens an originary experience—of the divine, perhaps, but also of life or being. Thought as such, kairos as a formative happening—an opportune moment, crisis, circumstance, event—imposes its own sense of measure on time”. So conceived, curriculum can become a complicated conversation that occurs not in chronological time but in its own time. Such dialogue is not neutral, apolitical, or timeless. It focuses on the present and is intrinsically subjective, even in public space, as Pinar ( 2019 , p. 12) writes: “its site is subjectivity as one attunes oneself to what one is experiencing, yes to its immediacy and specificity but also to its situatedness, relatedness, including to what lies beyond it and not only spatially but temporally”.

Kairos is, then, the uniqueness of time that converts curriculum into a complicated conversation, one that includes the subjective reconstruction of learning as a consciousness of everyday life, encouraging the inner activism of quietude and disquietude. Writing about eternity, as an orientation towards the future, Pinar ( 2019 , p. 2) argues that “the second side [the first is contemplation] of such consciousness is immersion in daily life, the activism of quietude – for example, ethical engagement with others”. We add disquietude now, following the work of the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa. Disquietude is a moment of eternity: “Sometimes I think I’ll never leave ‘Douradores’ Street. And having written this, it seems to me eternity. Neither pleasure, nor glory, nor power. Freedom, only freedom” (Pesssoa 1991 ).

The disquietude conversation is simultaneously individual and public. It establishes an international space both deglobalized and autonomous, a source of responsive, ethical, and humane encounter. No longer entranced by the distracting dynamic stasis of image-after-image on the screen, the student can face what is his or her emplacement in the physical and natural world, as well as the technological world. The student can become present as a person, here and now, simultaneously historical and timeless.

Conclusions

Slow down and linger should be our motto now. A slogan yes, but it also represents a political, as well as a psychological resistance to the acceleration of time (Berg and Seeber 2016 )—an acceleration that the pandemic has intensified. Covid-19 has moved curriculum online, forcing children physically apart from each other and from their teachers and especially from the in-person dialogical encounters that classrooms can provide. The public space disappears into the pre-designed screen space that software allows, and the machine now becomes the material basis for a curriculum of things, not persons. Like the virus, the pandemic curriculum becomes embedded in devices that technologize our children.

Although one hundred years old, the images created in Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin return, less humorous this time than emblematic of our intensifying subjection to technological necessity. It “would seem to leave us as cogs in the machine, ourselves like moving parts, we keep functioning efficiently, increasing productivity calculating the creative destruction of what is, the human now materialized (de)vices ensnaring us in convenience, connectivity, calculation” (Pinar 2019 , p. 9). Post-human, as many would say.

Technology supports standardized testing and enforces software-designed conformity and never-ending self-evaluation, while all the time erasing lived, embodied experience and intellectual independence. Ignoring the evidence, others are sure that technology can function differently: “Given the potential of information and communication technologies, the teacher should now be a guide who enables learners, from early childhood throughout their learning trajectories, to develop and advance through the constantly expanding maze of knowledge” (UNESCO 2015a , p. 51). Would that it were so.

The canonical question—What knowledge is of most worth?—is open-ended and contentious. In a technologized world, providing for the well-being of children is not obvious, as well-being is embedded in ancient, non-neoliberal visions of the world. “Education is everybody’s business”, Pinar ( 2019 , p. 2) points out, as it fosters “responsible citizenship and solidarity in a global world” (UNESCO 2015a , p. 66), resisting inequality and the exclusion, for example, of migrant groups, refugees, and even those who live below or on the edge of poverty.

In this fast-moving digital world, education needs to be inclusive but not conformist. As the United Nations ( 2015 ) declares, education should ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. “The coming years will be a vital period to save the planet and to achieve sustainable, inclusive human development” (United Nations 2019 , p. 64). Is such sustainable, inclusive human development achievable through technologization? Can technology succeed where religion has failed?

Despite its contradictions and economic emphases, public education has one clear obligation—to create embodied encounters of learning through curriculum conceived as a complicated conversation. Such a conception acknowledges the worldliness of a cosmopolitan curriculum as it affirms the personification of the individual (Pinar 2011 ). As noted by Grumet ( 2017 , p. 89), “as a form of ethics, there is a responsibility to participate in conversation”. Certainly, it is necessary to ask over and over again the canonical curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth?

If time, technology and teaching are moving images of eternity, curriculum and pedagogy are also, both ‘moving’ and ‘images’ but not an explicit, empirical, or exact representation of eternity…if reality is an endless series of ‘moving images’, the canonical curriculum question—What knowledge is of most worth?—cannot be settled for all time by declaring one set of subjects eternally important” (Pinar 2019 , p. 12).

In a complicated conversation, the curriculum is not a fixed image sliding into a passive technologization. As a “moving image”, the curriculum constitutes a politics of presence, an ongoing expression of subjectivity (Grumet 2017 ) that affirms the infinity of reality: “Shifting one’s attitude from ‘reducing’ complexity to ‘embracing’ what is always already present in relations and interactions may lead to thinking complexly, abiding happily with mystery” (Doll 2012 , p. 172). Describing the dialogical encounter characterizing conceived curriculum, as a complicated conversation, Pinar explains that this moment of dialogue “is not only place-sensitive (perhaps classroom centered) but also within oneself”, because “the educational significance of subject matter is that it enables the student to learn from actual embodied experience, an outcome that cannot always be engineered” (Pinar 2019 , pp. 12–13). Lived experience is not technological. So, “the curriculum of the future is not just a matter of defining content and official knowledge. It is about creating, sculpting, and finessing minds, mentalities, and identities, promoting style of thought about humans, or ‘mashing up’ and ‘making up’ the future of people” (Williamson 2013 , p. 113).

Yes, we need to linger and take time to contemplate the curriculum question. Only in this way will we share what is common and distinctive in our experience of the current pandemic by changing our time and our learning to foreclose on our future. Curriculum conceived as a complicated conversation restarts historical not screen time; it enacts the private and public as distinguishable, not fused in a computer screen. That is the “new normal”.

Adorno, T. W. (2011). Educação e emancipação [Education and emancipation]. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.

Aoki, T. T. (2011). Sonare and videre: A story, three echoes and a lingering note. In W. F. W. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key. The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 368–376). New York, NY: Routledge.

Badiou, A. (2009). Theory of the subject . London: Continuum.

Book   Google Scholar  

Berg, M., & Seeber, B. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the Covid-19 pandemic. Prospects . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Davies, D., Beauchamp, G., Davies, J., & Price, R. (2019). The potential of the ‘Internet of Things’ to enhance inquiry in Singapore schools. Research in Science & Technological Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1629896 .

Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within . Paris: UNESCO.

Doll, W. E. (2012). Thinking complexly. In D. Trueit (Ed.), Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. (pp. 172–187). New York, NY: Routledge.

Doll, W. E. (2013). Curriculum and concepts of control. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Toward new identities (pp. 295–324). New York, NY: Routledge.

Eley, G. (2020). Conclusion. In J. A. Thomas & G. Eley (Eds.), Visualizing fascism: The twentieth-century rise of the global Right (pp. 284–292). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gil, J. (2020). A pandemia e o capitalismo numérico [The pandemic and numerical capitalism]. Público . https://www.publico.pt/2020/04/12/sociedade/ensaio/pandemia-capitalismo-numerico-1911986 .

Grumet, M.G. (2017). The politics of presence. In M. A. Doll (Ed.), The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. A Festschrift in honor of William F. Pinar (pp. 76–83). New York, NY: Routledge.

Heidegger, M. (1967). What is a thing? South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought . New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays . New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Koepnick, L. (2014). On slowness: Toward an aesthetic of the contemporary . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Koopman, C. (2019). How we became our data: A genealogy of the informational person . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lahtinen, M. (2009). Politics and curriculum . Leiden: Brill.

Laist, R. (2016). A curriculum of things: Exploring an object-oriented pedagogy. The National Teaching & Learning, 25 (3), 1–4.

Latour, B. (2020). Is this a dress rehearsal? Critical Inquiry . https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/is-this-a-dress-rehearsal

Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge . Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Macdonald, B. J. (1995). Theory as a prayerful act . New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Marope, P. T. M. (2017). Reconceptualizing and repositioning curriculum in the 21st century: A global paradigm shift . Geneva: UNESCO IBE.

Marope, P. T. M. (2020). Preventing violent extremism through universal values in curriculum. Prospects, 48 (1), 1–5.

Means, B. (2008). Technology’s role in curriculum and instruction. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 123–144). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

OECD (2019a). OECD learning compass 2030 . Paris: OECD.

OECD (2019b). Trends shaping education 2019 . Paris: OECD.

Pacheco, J. A. (2009). Whole, bright, deep with understanding: Life story and politics of curriculum studies. In-between William Pinar and Ivor Goodson . Roterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.

Pacheco, J. A. (2017). Pinar’s influence on the consolidation of Portuguese curriculum studies. In M. A. Doll (Ed.), The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. A Festschrift in honor of William F. Pinar (pp. 130–136). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pestre, D. (2013). Science, technologie et société. La politique des savoirs aujourd’hui [Science, technology, and society: Politics of knowledge today]. Paris: Foundation Calouste Gulbenkian.

Pesssoa, F. (1991). The book of disquietude . Manchester: Carcanet Press.

Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pinar, W. F. (2009). The worldliness of a cosmopolitan education: Passionate lives in public service . New York, NY: Routledge.

Pinar, W. F. (2011). “A lingering note”: An introduction to the collected work of Ted T. Aoki. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key. The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 1–85). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pinar, W. F. (2019). Moving images of eternity: George Grant’s critique of time, teaching, and technology . Ottawa: The University of Ottawa Press.

Shew, M. (2013). The Kairos philosophy. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 27 (1), 47–66.

Spiller, P. (2017). Could subjects soon be a thing of the past in Finland? BBC News . https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39889523 .

UNESCO (2015a). Rethinking education. Towards a global common global? Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2015b). Education 2030. Framework for action . Paris: UNESCO. https://www.sdg4education2030.org/sdg-education-2030-steering-committee-resources .

UNESCO (2017). Global citizenship education . Paris: UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced .

United Nations (2015). The sustainable development goals . New York, NY: United Nations.

United Nations (2019). The sustainable development goals report . New York, NY: United Nations.

Wells, W. (2020). Permanent revolution: Reflections on capitalism . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula. Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Williamson, B. (2013). The future of the curriculum. School knowledge in the digital age . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education. The digital future of learning, policy and practice . London: Sage.

Žižek, S. (2020). PANDEMIC! Covid-19 shakes the world . New York, NY: Or Books.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Centre on Education (CIEd), Institute of Education, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

José Augusto Pacheco

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Augusto Pacheco .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

My thanks to William F. Pinar. Friendship is another moving image of eternity. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer. This work is financed by national funds through the FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project PTDC / CED-EDG / 30410/2017, Centre for Research in Education, Institute of Education, University of Minho.

About this article

Pacheco, J.A. The “new normal” in education. Prospects 51 , 3–14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09521-x

Download citation

Accepted : 23 September 2020

Published : 24 November 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09521-x

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

• Humanistic tradition
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• 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]

• The Publisher

Conferences

International Journal of Educational Management & Development Studies

ISSN 2719-0633 (Print) 2719-0641 (Online)

The New Normal in Education: A Challenge to the Private Basic Education Institutions in the Philippines?

Ruel f. ancheta & helen b. ancheta, volume 1, issue 1, september 2020.

• IJEMDS Home
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Awarded Authors
• Awarded Reviewers
• Guidelines for Authors
• Business Model
• Article Processing Charges
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Post-publication Guidelines
• Current Issue
• Online First Articles

This article aims to examine and discuss the challenges faced by the private basic education institutions in the Philippines as an effect of the Covid-19 pandemic. This pandemic has brought a dilemma to educational institutions especially when the government announced and ordered not to open face to face classes for Academic Year 2020 – 2021 until the Covid-19 vaccine. In response to this order, the Department of Education (DepEd) released department order nos. 007, 12, 13, and 14 series of 2020 instructing all basic education institutions to come up with their learning continuity plan (LCP) and health and safety protocols in the new normal in education during the pandemic. The bigger challenge is now passed on to the private basic education schools. Literature cited herein develop a framework as to the necessary measures every private basic education institutions must do in the re-opening of the schools. As there are limited studies written on the same nature, the author suggests a thorough study on the various facets of the online learning involving the children of the private basic education institutions.

Keywords: challenges, private education institutions, learning continuity plan, new normal

Acidre, J. (2019). Private Education, Available online at www.manilastandard.net, Date Accessed, 14 August 2020.

Bender, L. (2020). Key Messages and Actions for Covid-19 Prevention and Control in School, Unicef and World Health Organization, March 2020.

Bower, M., Dalgarno, M.J. & Kennedy, G.E. (2013). Blended Synchronous Learning: Patterns And Principles For Simultaneously Engaging Co-Located And Distributed Learners. 30th ascilite Conference 2013 Proceedings, pp 92 – 102

Briones, L. (2020). Education in the Philippines, Available online at www.rappler.com, Date Accessed 18 August 2020.

Carcamo, D. (2014). Creation of Bureau of Private Schools. Available online at www.philstar.com, Date Accessed, 14 August 2020.

DepEd Order No. 007 s. 2020. Private School Requirements for the Opening of Classes for SY 2020- 2021, Available online at www.deped.gov.ph, Date Accessed 8 August 2020.

DepeD Order No. 012 and 013 (2020). Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan for Private Schools, Available online at www.deped.gov.ph, Date Accessed, 27 July 2020.

DepEd Order No. 14 (2020). School Plans for Compliance with Minimum Health Standards, Available online at www.deped.gov.ph, Date Accessed 8 August 2020.

DepEd Order No. 8 (2015). Classroom Assessment guidelines. Available online at www.deped.gov.ph, Date Accessed, 15 August 2020.

DOH AO No. 0015 (2020). DOH Guidelines on the Risk-Based Public Health Standards for COVID-19 Mitigation, Available online at www.doh.gov.ph, Date Accessed, 10 August 2020.

Elliott, S.N. et. al., (2000) Educational Psychology: Effective teaching and learning, 3rd edition, Boston, MA: Mc-Graw-Hill College . Everitt, J (2020). How to Get Stakeholders on Your Side With Campaign Transparency, Available online at www.wrike.com, Date Access, 16 August 2020.

Felter, C. & Maizland, L. (2020). How Countries Are Reopening Schools During the Pandemic. Council of Foreign Relations. Available online at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-countries-are-reopening-schools-during-pandemic. Date Accessed, 28 July 2020.

Finol, M.O. (2020). Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Learning: A Quick Overview. Available online at: https://www.brynmawr.edu/ . Date Accessed, 28 July 2020.

Francescucci, A. & Rohani, L. (2018). Exclusively Synchronous Online (VIRI) Learning: The Impact on Student Performance and Engagement Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education. Volume: 41 issue: 1, page(s): 60-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318818864

Gardiner, E. (2020). Remote Teaching: When and How to Use Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Methods. Available online at: https://tophat.com/blog/remote-teaching-when-and-how-to-use-synchronous-vs-asynchronous-methods/. Date Accessed, 28 July 2020.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building Social Networks via Computer Networks: Creating and Sustaining Distributed Learning Communities, in Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and Wesley Schumar, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–190.

Hernando-Malipot M. (2020). DepEd Private Schools allowed to open classes ahead of October 5, Published in the Manila Bulletin, 15 August, 2020. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous & Synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly. Number 4 2008, pp 51 – 55

Kamalludeen, R. (2020). Transitioning to the new normal in education, Available online at www.thestar.com.my, Date Accessed, 16 August 2020.

Kuruvilla, A (2020). Virtual Learning: The ‘New Normal’ in Imparting Lessons to the Students, Available online at www.indianexpress.com, Date Accessed, 16 August 2020.

Lawles, C. (2019). What is Blended Learning? Available online at www.learnupon.com, Date Accessed, 15 August 2020.

Magsambol, B. (2020). No student left behind? During pandemic, education ‘only for those who can afford’. Rappler. Available online at https://rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/education-only-for-people-who-can-afford-coronavirus-pandemic. Date Accessed, 24 June 2020.

Magsambol, B. (2020). Over 200,000 students transfer from private to public schools amid pandemic. Rappler. Available online at https://rappler.com/nation/students-private-schools-transfer-to-public-coronavirus-pandemic. Date Accessed, 18 July 2020.

Naik, N. (2018). Importance of Extracurricular Activities in School Life, Available online at www.yourstory.com, Date Accessed, 17 August 2020.

Park, Y.J. & Bonk, C.J. (2007). Synchronous Learning Experiences: Distance and Residential Learners’ Perspectives in a Blended Graduate Course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. Volume 6, Number 3, pp 245 – 264

Pascua, A. (2020). K to 12 Most Essential Learning Competencies. Available online at www.deped.gov.ph, Date Accessed, 15 August 2020.

Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Language Learning: A Case Study of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Praxis, Vol. 8 issue 1, January–March 2016, pp. 21–39 Rich, M. (2020). 6 ways parents can support their kids through the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Available online at: https://www.unicef.org/coronavirus. Date Accessed, 28 July 2020.

Russell, T.L. (2001). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon, 5th ed. Montgomery, AL: International Distance Education Certification Center

Salac, R.A. & Kim, Y.S. (2016). A Study on The Internet Connectivity in The Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Business Review 1(1):67-88. DOI: 10.20522/APJBR.2016.1.1.67

Saxena R., Saxena S.K. (2020). Preparing Children for Pandemics. In: Saxena S. (eds) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Medical Virology: From Pathogenesis to Disease Control. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4814-7_15

Shank, P. (2020). (The Right) Learning Modalities to Deliver Digital Learning: Part 4. Available online at: https://elearningindustry.com/create-synchronous-learning-digital-modalities-part-4. Date Accessed, 28 July 2020.

Simon Burgess, Hans Henrick Sieversten (2020). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19 on education, Available online at www.voxeu.org, Date Accessed 24 June 2020.

Singh-Vergiere (2020). Safety Prevention Protocols Against Covid-19, Press Release, Department of Health, July 10, 2020.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature Review as Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 104, p 1.

Tanhueco-Tumapon (2020). Education and the New Normal. Available online at www.manilatimes.net, Date Accessed, 26 July 2020.

Tarek, S. (2016). Distance Learning: The Role of the Teacher, Available online at www.docuri.com, Date Accessed, 15 August 2015.

The Best School (2018). Synchronous Learning Vs. Asynchronous Learning in Online Education, Available online at www.thebestschools.org, Date Accessed, 26 July 2020.

Tuscano, F. (2020). It’s not about Online Learning: A Reflection on the “New Normal” in Education, Available online at www.francisjimtuscano.com, Date Accessed 16 August 2020.

UNESCO (2020). Education: From disruption to recovery, Available online at www.en.unesco.org, Date Accessed, 24 June 2020.

Warden, C.A., Stanworth, J.O., Ren, J.B. & Warden, A.R. (2013). Synchronous learning best practices: An action research study. Computers & Education, Volume 63, April 2013, Pages 197-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.010

Cite this article:

Ancheta, R.F. & Ancheta, H.B. (2020). The New Normal in Education: A Challenge to the Private Basic Education Institutions in the Philippines? International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies. Volume 1 Issue 1, pp. 1 - 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53378/345960

Small Research Grant

Book Project