education

sciences
Article
Lessons in the Use of Technology for Science Education during
COVID-19 Age under a Teachers’ Collaboration Cluster
Francisco Delgado 1, *,† , Marco Enríquez-Flores 2,† and Alfonso Jaimes-Nájera 3,†

1 School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Estado de México,

Atizapán 52926, Mexico
2 School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Santa Fe, Santa Fe 01389, Mexico;
[email protected]
3 School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +52-55-5864-5670
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: The COVID-19 confinement has represented both opportunities and losses for education.
Rarely before has any other period moved the human spirit into such discipline or submission—
depending on one’s personal and emotional points of view. Both extremes have been widely
influenced by external factors on each individual’s life path. Education in the sciences and engineering



has encountered more issues than other disciplines due to specialized mathematical handwriting,


experimental demonstrations, abstract complexity, and lab practices. This work analyses three
Citation: Delgado, F.; aspects of science education courses taught by university professors in a collaborative teacher cluster,
Enríquez-Flores, M.; Jaimes-Nájera, A. sharing technology applications and education methodologies in science over three semesters when
Lessons in the Use of Technology for
the COVID-19 lockdown was in effect. The first aspect was a didactic design coming from several
Science Education during COVID-19
educational frameworks through adoption or sharing. The second one was an analysis by discipline
Age under a Teachers’ Collaboration
of multiple factors affecting student engagement during the health contingency. The third analysis
Cluster. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543.
examined the gains and losses in our students caused by the university closure and the pandemic’s
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci
11090543
intrusions. The report explores the correlations of the exiting student perceptions with their academic
performance in the courses and survey results about the impact of decisions or happenings during
Academic Editors: Konstantinos the crisis. This work’s value lies in the lessons for the future of education concerning the teacher
Katzis, Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris, dominions of didactic design, support, and collaboration in a broader sense than only for teaching.
Angelos Sofianidis, Nayia Stylianidou
and Panagiota Konstantinou-Katzi Keywords: scientific education; COVID-19; educative innovation; technologies; methodologies;
higher education
Received: 7 July 2021
Accepted: 7 September 2021
Published: 15 September 2021

1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Global education has never been tested on the scale of the current COVID-19 pandemic.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
The health emergency forced massive confinements; overnight, it necessitated technological
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
support to deliver education [1]. This complex experience has been lived differently in
Mexico depending on the level and type of education, and was more benign in higher and
private education. Even with ten years of development of mobile educational technologies,
the diverse mastery of technology among teachers and students resulted in uneven and
uncertain outcomes.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
In addition, numerous concerns have arisen in the aftermath regarding behavioural
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
issues, orderliness, and cognitive effects [2] resulting from the online educational support
This article is an open access article
imposed by the most viable model to solve the crisis [3]. Other issues, yet unknown,
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
undoubtedly will appear in the upcoming New Normal.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
During the COVID-19 lockdown, our knowledge of online technologies and disruptive
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
methodologies increased significantly through experimentation, offering better learning to
4.0/). students in the various educational levels [4]. However, many initiatives were first applied

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090543 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 2 of 28

empirically, instead of from a well-planned theoretical framework. Still, not all was lost. In
most cases, teachers increased their efforts to measure, assess, and improve their didactic
designs to deliver the best possible learning experience. Teachers needed to draw up and
devise a proper teaching plan considering the contents and the elements necessary for their
students to attain learning.
In addition, in the online versions [5], new creative and flexible methods were devel-
oped to supersede the pressure and tedium of single, direct transitions from the face-to-face
courses, empirically rediscovering many of the leading contemporary Learning Theories
(LT). Thus, new tools and techniques had to be combined to offer more effective learning
experiences in the lockdown period to solve urgent learning necessities and deficiencies.
Lessons from this experience indicate that education in the New Normal will require a
universal learning theory to the cover different needs and interests of learners.
This paper quantitatively analyses the diverse perceptions and learning impacts on
science education due to the confinement at a higher education institution in Mexico. The
task was afforded through methodological and technological strategies introduced in new
didactic designs. The Section 2 briefly reviews LT to understand the reasons for the various
implementations in the research. These are then linked to generic considerations of the
design. Finally, this section provides a short contextual description of education in Mexico
and the authors’ institution during the outbreak period.
The general decisions relating to education during the COVID-19 confinement are
discussed. Section 3 presents the research questions and objectives, design, data collection,
and data analysis methods. An analysis of the participants, their demography, and the
courses involved are also included. In Section 4, an analysis of the didactic design criteria
for the implementations is introduced, along with their chronology. We also discuss the
interdisciplinary decisions for the courses during the one-and-a-half years of emergency
education sustained primarily online.
We compare the students’ global perception about the implementations with the
learning performance obtained in the same section with statistical correlations and mean-
ingful dependence to arrive at lessons learned during the educational lockdown period.
A representative compilation of the students’ academic opportunities and losses during
the confinement period is analysed. Section 5 discusses the findings, particularly some
transversal behaviours and impact, success, and opportunities revealed. Section 6 sets out
the conclusions of the report concerning the research objectives.

2. Theoretical Framework, Context, and Research Orientation

2.1. Theoretical Approaches to Learning
Everything we know about education has been tested during the COVID-19 confine-
ment. Still, in the New Normal, education will undergo a deep analysis of its conceptualiza-
tion and operability to foresee its future and evaluate its past losses. During the pandemic,
academicians have had a prime time window to experiment and understand the future of
education and their moral duty during this challenging period for humankind [6].
The teaching and learning process is commonly constructed by teachers and students
from experience; there are guidelines supported by learning programs, teacher training,
and strategies and trends settled through proposals in textbooks. However, all of these are
generic. Most students and teachers are not exposed to education theories that consider
how students learn [7]. Currently, it is almost universally recognized that the five main
education theories cover most practical education scenarios.
Still, during the confinement, the various educational areas were guided by relevant
education theories developed in recent decades by disciplinary academicians and theorists
and supported by the most affordable learning methodologies commonly used in each
one [8]. Nevertheless, in most cases, a guide was not first planned; instead, educators
assumed that the inherited daily practices could be simply adapted from traditional face-to-
face teaching to the online modality. From our viewpoint, understanding the distinction of
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 3 of 28

planning the guidance was one of the critical factors of the success or failure of education
during the COVID-19 confinement.
Possibly, most teaching practices are influenced by the traditional Cognitive Learning
Theory (CGLT), which succinctly states that learning practices should be designed accord-
ing to the learner’s style of thinking, which is still influenced by internal and external
factors [9,10]. Thus, for cognitive learning theorists and practitioners, the various stimuli
and learning spaces occurring in the classrooms are essential for diverse audience learning.
Such catalysts in the form of activities and contents based on diverse learning styles flood
the teaching-learning operative scenario in most contemporary classrooms worldwide.
Another trend with a more critical eye is Behavioural Learning Theory (BLT), which
suggests that learners act based on their interactions with their environment and commu-
nity; thus, if the contents do not reflect a practical immediate utility in their daily lives, it
is meaningless [11,12]. Constructivist Learning Theory (CNLT) assumes that knowledge
is constructed through steps combining previous knowledge and additional experiences;
thus, each learner has a unique reality based on their prior learning experiences to support
their attainment of new knowledge [13].
In this practice, activities are thoughtfully designed based on previous assumed knowl-
edge to create new learning experiences. Then, Humanistic Learning Theory (HLT) follows
and modifies the last two approaches, stating that, although knowledge is constructed
from previous experience, it responds to the environment; the learner prioritizes specific
learning according to their interests and needs [14–16].
Finally, Connective Learning Theory (CCLT), the newest theory, attempts to reshape
the previous inputs, stating that learners are moved to learn by the overall connections
in their lives, linking the past, needs, people, hobbies, and duties, among others [17].
Thus, motivation is an essential element in this approach, and is derived from several
diversified inputs. Those inputs in this contemporary learning theory, not always explicitly
and exclusively indicated, refer to the internet connections pervasively surrounding and
immersing the learner in the 21st century. This approach naturally introduces technology
in education as a necessity in most aspects of our modern life.

2.2. Didactic Design in Hybrid Online Approaches

Teaching techniques and practices are elements of LT that provide instructional struc-
ture; the learning elements or objects improve learning. Unfortunately, mainly in the upper
levels of education where teachers have an informal teacher training, these are often seen
as unrelated to the theoretical approaches. However, it is important to remember the
background in which they were applied [18].
During the COVID-19 confinement, such techniques were moved from the classroom
to the videoconferencing sessions without clearly understanding their utility and pur-
pose in a different learning environment having other characteristics. Thus, technologies,
methodologies, collaboration, and social learning were not sufficiently attended to or
included in the transition as elements of a broader view of education.
Thus far, the design and organization of the school and classroom environment
attend to deep learning motivations, many of them markedly altered by the pandemic [19].
Education during the COVID-19 confinement has been directed by new rules. In an
uncertain environment, students have strived to learn while immersed in a diversity of
places, spaces, and times that boost distractions. They have to share additional family
routines or work activities that work against their learning activities. Since the beginning,
diverse personal scenarios have disadvantaged certain students [20], leading to poor
learning performances.
Additionally, the didactic designs have not included optimal adaptations of the crucial
elements in learning activities stated in the education theories previously discussed [21].
Such real learning situations have promoted the opportunity to retake education using
BLT and HLT approaches [6]. The didactic designs for distance learning must employ
methodologies that include relevant technologies and organization. They are part of a
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 4 of 28

broader global educational strategy pursuing specific long-term objectives aligned with
interests particular to different learning scenarios.
CGLT has historically settled the traditional, modern education practices, thus, trans-
lating theory into action [22]. It involves instructional design and learning designs. In
recent decades, the rise of emerging technologies and their educational applications have
led to alternative approaches that immerse learners in a world of information. Thus, the
transition from CGLT to CCLT has been happening in recent years [23].
The COVID19 confinements accelerated emerging Information and Communication
Technologies to overcome the possibility of education closures forced by the pandemic. The
hybrid approaches became entirely online with videoconferencing. Before the pandemic,
CCLT was broadly contrasted as a learning theory against approaches, such as CNLT,
BLT, and HLT [24]. In any case, all learning theories previously mentioned are active,
and all of them have provided valuable contributions to education during the COVID-19
confinement through teaching methodology proposals.
Whether based on CCLT or not, technologies have been necessary to support stu-
dent learning in various ways. The methodologies must be scaffolded using adequate
technological tools to reproduce or improve the face-to-face experience. The technologies
and methods became inseparable during the online approach. Worldwide, teachers and
learners who were not provided with technological skills and clear guidelines for working
in online environments in different learning scenarios were isolated [25]. Nevertheless, the
changes presented opportunities and dictated social duties for the present and the future
of education.
The rapid transition soon hit another critical element, the social impact of sustaining
such demanding changes [26]. The low support to teachers from educational institutions
quickly left them feeling alone with different teaching tasks and unable to meet the chal-
lenge [27]. Students, suddenly separated from their peers, had similar perceptions of
isolation and unfamiliar educational modalities.
Despite frameworks for online learning including social constructivism [28], their
pre-pandemic considerations became ineffective. Thus, deliberate social learning and
collaboration become essential design elements in the teaching models for distance or
inclusively online learning that are unique and urgent for education during the pandemic.
At least three components should be considered in the emergency didactic designs during
the COVID-19 confinement: methodology, technology, and social collaboration. Despite
this, many teachers’ lesson plans lacked these due to the hurry and lack of support and
training as the crisis unfolded [29].

2.3. Academic Context Involving the Research Experience

The temporary suspension of classes in the authors’ institution was announced on 16
March 2020, and became extended for one year and a half. The institution has more than
thirty campuses throughout Mexico. The initial class suspension only allowed one week
to prepare for the transition, which was, at first, expected to last only a couple of months.
The institution’s faculty was able to prepare in such a short time due to their regular use
of Learning Management Systems (LMS) for more than two decades and a permanent
training program in educational technologies for teachers [30].
Thus, the institution rapidly set up a plan to deliver all courses. The classes resumed
through Zoom videoconferencing almost immediately, aiming for a hybrid experience
to replace the face-to-face one. Thus, the transition proceeded less drastically than in
many places. This strategy was shared with other higher education institutions during the
contingency [31], helping them maintain their educational continuity during the lockdown.
Videoconferencing and Online Learning were the most universal methods adopted by the
international academic communities to replace face-to-face education [3,32].
Such sudden transition still put many students at a disadvantage if they had problems
with internet accessibility, personal computer affordability, and the discipline to follow the
online activities, among other things [33].
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 5 of 28

The Zoom videoconferencing tool and the existing institutional LMS tool (CANVAS)
helped teachers in the transition to prepare suitable materials for the online approach,
including the technological tools and the appropriate teaching methodology [34], and the
teaching design outline [35] under the framework of Online Learning [28].
The lockdown led to strengthened, evolved designs with considerable improvements
for the future of education [36]. All should be documented as a learning experience in
global education [37]. Each local effort in this global challenge should be considered in
education paradigms, not only as a response to the pandemic [38]. Thus, they should be
considered, analysed, and assessed under the eye of formal learning approaches. This
aspect is discussed below in the presentation of the didactic designs.
The period of confinement has reconfigured all the educational approaches, expanding
our knowledge about tools and methodologies, allowing us to test their weaknesses, and
discovering creative ways to deliver them [4]. However, during the implementation process,
many undocumented and unexpected aspects of Blended Learning (BL) and the remote use
of complementary technologies and methodologies became evident in student behaviour,
mainly due to the extended periods of exposure [2,39].
Such discoveries promoted the modification of educational policies [40]. This aspect
should be considered in more detail: the closure of schools followed by sudden and
changed academic continuity was based on a series of assumptions not always fulfilled [21].
Observations and opportunities became evident not only in the current emerging model
but also in reconsidering the face-to-face model and its gaps and deficiencies [41]. The
response to these has been limited [42] to not disrupt education.
In the following sections, we highlight designs and considerations for science edu-
cation arising in the light of learning approaches during the COVID-19 confinement and
outcomes in performance, opinions, and student behaviour noted in the great diversity of
courses and practices included in the report.
Finally, we declare certain research limitations. Our study was limited to a segment of
science and engineering program students mostly living in urban areas and mainly devoted
to study (some needed to work or help with family issues). For the most part, these students
had easy internet access without connectivity and resource problems. Our discussion
centers on the transition to learning practices inheriting characteristics from cognitive and
connectivist blended approaches, the most common situation in our university community,
without diminishing the casual presence of other LT contributions.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Interests, Questions, and Objectives
In this report, we inquire about the chronological evolution of BL approaches in uni-
versity science courses during the COVID-19 lockdown, asking their impact, particularly as
perceived by the students collaborating with a group of teachers. The general objective of
this report is to analyse the development of innovations and the technological and method-
ological implementations from March 2020 to June 2021 within a collaborative teaching
cluster in a higher education Institution in three of our largest campuses, particularly as
the efforts were perceived by the students.
Mainly, we focus on: (a) analysing the evolution of the designs and implementations
of the emergency didactics; (b) identifying lessons derived from the growing distinctions
among the didactic designs and their possible extension to behavioural considerations
of the students; (c) conducting an analytical and weighted comparison of the courses’
implementations through the students’ feedback in terms of parameters, such as related
areas, class sizes, periods, semesters, general grades, and performance dispersion; and (d)
summarizing pending tasks for the education of our students, considering their gains and
losses during the closure and confinement.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 6 of 28

3.2. Research Design

A collaborative teachers’ group was formed to partner in scientific research to share
and improve their academic duties during the COVID-19 lockdown, considering their
teaching experiences and innovations since the pandemic’s beginning. All the teachers
involved teach science courses (math, statistics, physics, and some engineering science
courses) in the same institutional programs but in three different campuses with similar
urban characteristics.
Despite courses being assigned by the department chairmen on each campus through
the three semesters of extended confinement, classes were taught following common
directives developed from shared recommendations about methodologies and technology.
The teachers’ collaboration brought to light the emotional status of the students and the
impact on their academic performance.
With three semesters of academic work under confinement, the collaboration group
decided to analyse the data to account for (in the sense of [6]) the learning performance
resulting from the instructional actions, particularly from the students’ perspective. The
latter was interesting and always correlated with the hard outcome data derived from
the course evaluations. The courses were quite diverse in contents, period, area, type of
innovation, and extension. Thus, the analysis began to arrive at standard characteristic
parameters.
The group noticed that collaboration resulted in consensual decisions and didactic
designs, first in terms of three main, flexible innovation streams of LT (particularly CCTL):
Methodology, Technology, and Evaluation [40]), as appeared in many other international
designs [3,4,43]. Soon, flexible assessment became common in our courses; therefore, such
an approach does not particularly highlight innovative designs [34]. Those elements were
evident to transit from a CGLT style (where the social learning component is barely but
naturally present in face-to-face instruction) to a CCLT style [44]. In the first academic
semester, it became evident that social learning and collaboration in the online designs
were missing.
This needed to be modified considering not only the methods and technology but
also explicit learning spaces to sustain learning input more oriented to HLT and BLT
statements [15]. Then, highlighted elements inherited from CCLT approaches (method-
ologies and technology) became complemented by deliberated techniques to introduce
collaborative and social learning continuously, in terms of CCLT directives [17,44] and,
particularly, the Online Learning framework [28].
Thus, the collaborative cluster decided on a research design through comparative
common theoretical design elements [15,28,40,43] in their overall experiences, highlighting
didactics that considered methodology, technology, collaborative networks, and flexible
assessment. These primary components were then tracked during implementation and
analysed for concrete methodological, technical, procedural, and technological elements.
The research was set from the beginning to be quantitative and consider the primary
elements useful for an analytical comparison with student perception: the general final
grades, descriptors, and the registers of students’ opinions.
As final grades alone do not describe the overall impact of a strategy, we decided to
include the student perception of the teaching process. Thus, despite being limited, it was
an interesting analytical input regarding the teaching performance in each course because
it looks at academic achievement with a vital strength [45]. Student input is meaningful
and essential to improve courses by evaluating the teacher’s delivery and the educational
methods employed in each. This indicator has been used in similar analyses to quantify
the courses’ impact on academic implementations during the COVID-19 outbreak [46,47].
For our institution, despite several questions included in the exit survey, we decided to
consider only the final question, accounting and summarizing the previous ones in terms of
the overall recommendation about the learning performance in the teacher’s course. Such
a final question is only established after a series of reflections on course quality, mastery,
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 7 of 28

accompaniment, support, continuous evaluation, and methodology, to improve the final

assessment.
As we were interested in the overall emotional aspects affecting students’ academic
lives [29] during the three semesters included in this report, we applied an additional final
survey to a subset of randomly selected students (5% from one of the classes in the third
period of the confinement). This subset included students previously enrolled in at least
one more course within the teachers’ cluster. This survey only enquired about the academic
opportunities and losses each felt due to the confinement. Table 1 summarizes the research
design in terms of the inputs to be analysed.

Table 1. Research designs in terms of demography, indicators, and data subsets classification.

Demography Course Final Grade Recommendation Final Survey

Group size Area Average Average Main opportunity
Campus Course Std. Dev. Std. Dev. Main loss
Period
Innovation
Semester

3.3. Courses Involved, Participants, and Their Demography

The first input was the register of the courses involved in the analysis. We considered
66 courses in three semesters or academic periods: February–June 2020 (FJ20), August–
December 2020 (AD20), and February–June 2021 (FJ21). Due to the diversity of the courses,
we grouped them in three natural content areas: Math and Statistics (MS), Numerical Meth-
ods and Simulation (NM), and Physics and Engineering Sciences (PE). That information
is summarized in Table 2. Course topics included calculus, mathematical modelling, and
differential equations in MS; numerical methods, computational physics, and simulation in
NM; and Kinematics, Mechanics, Electromagnetism, and Experimental Physics in PE.

Table 2. Demography in terms of groups and students classified by semester and academic area.

Demography FJ20 AD20 FJ21 Total

Area/Size Grps. Stud. Grps. Stud. Grps. Stud. Grps. Stud.
MS 0 0 5 144 0 0 5 144
NM 7 196 4 122 6 195 17 513
PE 0 0 23 644 21 590 44 1234
Total 7 196 32 910 27 785 66 1891

The data show few students and a poor representation during the first and third
periods for Math and Statistics; most of the students were concentrated in the two other
areas considered in the report. This could be a study limitation. The courses were taught by
teachers in a collaborative learning cluster to implement new technologies and methodolo-
gies. Each student in each class was considered a student-course, meaning that each could
count several times if in several of their courses they were involved in specific learning
activities or cluster courses.
Additionally, most of the classes depicted here were operating under the Tec 21
Educational Model [48], with courses lasting one, two, or three five-week periods within
the semester. The students attended three different campuses, one in the country’s north
(MTY, Monterrey) and the others in the Mexico City area (CEM, Estado de Mexico, and
CSF, Santa Fe).
Most of the students in the study were in the first two semesters of engineering
programs, which was significant in the conclusions because those students have taken
their university studies entirely online (see Table 3). The analysis could be meaningfully
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 8 of 28

extended from the third to fourth semester. Students from the first and second semesters
covered shared curricula and those from the third to fourth semesters.

Table 3. Demography in terms of campus and program semester.

Campus/Semester 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th Total
MTY 246 462 20 70 0 0 4 4 806
CEM 115 115 0 50 0 0 0 0 280
CSF 280 322 118 85 0 0 0 0 805
Total 641 899 138 205 0 0 4 4 1891

3.4. Data Collection Methods

Each course design required a specific teaching plan involving tools and method-
ologies despite certain similitudes in the same academic field. A detailed registration of
technologies, methods, and motivations was established to account for each intervention’s
additional under a chronological and methodological comparison. To measure a compar-
ative learning impact, we considered the final grades for each student together with a
synthetic quantitative evaluation of the teacher’s work as opined by each student, using a
standardized institutional exit survey applied in each course.
This allowed us to assess the students’ engaged learning impact compared with their
final grades in the study population classes, a terminal measure of their performance. The
raw data used for the central part of the analysis are reported in Appendix A.
The information in Appendix A was grouped into categories and compared to fulfil
some research objectives; the primary variable was the student’s opinion of the designs,
teacher effort, and educational elements. Some differences among the three campus
populations are noteworthy. CSF historically has had a more demanding student perception
concerning the course quality compared with MTY and CEM, even though the contents of
each course are the same on the different campuses of our university system.
Most of the classes have the same pre-built structure of CANVAS courses, which are
cloned and delivered to each teacher to personalize them. The COVID-19 lockdown has led
to a closer teacher collaboration among the faraway campuses more than any previous time
as the authors sustained permanent communication, collaboration, and outcome sharing.
The resulting product is this study, reporting the main findings from the common sharing
of diverse courses. The collaborations demonstrated practical and fast dissemination of
teaching practices [49].
The data was gathered during the three semesters encompassing the implementation
of specific guidelines of the Hyperflex distance learning model [34], which covered the
technologies, methodologies, policies, and protocols across our institution during those
three semesters of confinement. In addition, the teachers’ close cluster membership led to
faster implementations as the recommendations and experiences from each member could
be adopted. Demography, course, final grade, and recommendation data were provided
by each teacher without more details than the entries mentioned in Table 1, except for the
statistical distribution of the teacher’s assessment in each class, which was also provided
by each teacher (by design, it does not contain a reference to the students).
Additionally, to obtain information about the behavioural aspects of our students dur-
ing the outbreak, we analysed the outcomes of an additional survey applied randomly only
to the 5% of students during the last period, as explained previously. We summarized their
perceptions of the most significant academic or personal gains and losses during the three
semesters involving the COVID-19 lockdown. Each student had to have taken a previous
course from at least one teacher of the cluster. This final survey was coordinated by the
research group; it never asked the participant’s name despite requiring the authentication
of the student responding. Written opinions were grouped by affinity in no more than
twelve similar issues.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 9 of 28

In terms of the ethical issues, all the analysis information does not include personal
data. All teacher and student information was anonymous and represented under central
tendency or dispersion measures (as in Appendix A).

3.5. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using techniques aligned with underlying interests. For
the overall analysis of the global implementation, we classified the courses by areas and
identified the date each methodological or technological implementation introduced for
the first time through the three periods (such elements remained in subsequent associated
courses). Thus, we softened the implementation data using mathematical modelling for
the continuous growth of the teachers’ mastery of the innovations (instead of attempting a
complete and efficient implementation in only one step).
The final grades were analysed with the recommendation outcomes by course (for
statistical measures, average, and standard deviation), combining and including the meta-
data for a factorial analysis afterwards to validate statistical tests, as required. Despite an
overall model of significance first obtained with the most correlated variables or factors, we
carried out a single correlation model to reveal direct and more comprehensible one-to-one
correlations [50]. The student perception was analysed as a final measure of positiveness
or negativity, and the possible causal factors were always considered.
Finally, to complement the accounting for the student’s academic performance, we
examined the data about the more significant educational goals or losses during the three
semesters of the confinement. Interestingly, in most cases, those facts are related to the
course implementation and contact with the teachers and peers, surely promoted by the
teachers’ deliberate collaboration in the didactic designs. Note that the students were
freshmen and sophomores, and the courses analysed were the main ones in their academic
programs in those periods.

4. Results and Analysis

In this section, we first depict the generic course design for the comprehensive set of
courses and areas and then account for the chronological development of the innovations.
Such analysis evaluates the collaborative performance of the teachers in the cluster; further
analysis could provide complementary information about each of the three semesters in the
study period. Next, we report the outcomes and immediate analysis and cover the research
questions and objectives established beforehand. Finally, a more profound discussion in
the next section mainly attends to certain factors and specific considerations related to each
objective.

4.1. Course Design and the Implementation Enrichment Imposed by the COVID-19 Confinement
Every course in March 2020 went through a transition—a redesign process imposing
the video class as the primary resource of contact and the institutional CANVAS learn-
ing management system for plan adaptations. Each course was unique per the content
requirements.
The designs implemented by each teacher included a teaching lab that was continu-
ously modified [36] and followed the CCLT and Online Learning framework as previously
established [17,28] but considered some design elements from BLT and HLT [14,15]. To
prepare for our first research objective, we classified design decisions, particularly compar-
ing the disruptive features under the hybrid version during the COVID-19 confinement
versus traditional face-to-face teaching.
The first transition at the beginning of confinement in March 2020 showed that design
categories to be considered should be extended in comparison with the corresponding
traditional face-to-face course. Still, it already had some BL elements. Thus, during the
suspension week, all the classes became hybrid to a lesser or greater degree depending on
the available electronic resources and activities considered [51] and the videoconferencing
presence to which the face-to-face component shifted.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 10 of 28

Figure 1 shows graphs exhibiting the transition (left to right), crossing from few
elements (red lines) in each category (green lines) for most of the courses in the traditional
face-to-face design (left graph) to the more complex design (right side). The transition
included additional constructions, including evaluation, mandatory technologies, video
classes, and other critical course elements. Methodologies explicitly had to have stimulating
variations during the class sessions [17,28] in agreement with CCLT.
Finally, designs needed to incorporate contact among the teachers and students to
facilitate collaboration and social learning [15,28]. Thus, new focuses were on teaching, stim-
ulus, presence, accompaniment, and assessment compared with face-to-face versions [8] or
still hybrid versions with that component (instead of the hybrid approach conducted by
videoconferencing).

Figure 1. Graphs showing the transition of main design categories (blue) and elements (black) between face-to-face courses
(red) and their hybrid versions during the lockdown. Labels are aligned to the left of each vertex.

Face-to-face designs should consider additional constructions (Figure 1 on the right).

For instance, for evaluation, with some of them as a part of playful evaluations as part
of the teaching plan. Question banks should be prepared to avoid fraud despite some
required flexibility instead of the direct transition on a face-to-face evaluation sustained
through videoconference. Particularly in Math and Physics, the necessity of fluid mathe-
matical writing in technologies involving tablets and electronic pencils substituted for the
blackboard.
Some easy tools, such as Excel, Mathematica, and Matlab, supplied the possibility to
construct demonstrations and visualizations, or still simulations in the more specialized
cases. After the first week of videoconferences, most of the teachers learned that flat classes
based on writing as in the face-to-face approach were not very convenient. Thus, they
introduced learning methodologies, some of them supported by technology.
Another important aspect was the necessity to promote interactions not only among
teacher and student but also among students as partners. Social learning was probably
one of the most endangered elements during the pandemic [39], and thus additional effort
should be provided to avoid such loss, particularly in some courses where complexity and
diversity became extreme [52].
Thus, despite a well-prepared faculty in online technologies [30], a sustained video-
conference online class required new distinctions in the design. First, as was previously
mentioned, for further analysis, courses were conveniently grouped by affinity in the
three academic areas previously mentioned. A design in layers in agreement with the
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 11 of 28

outstanding dimensions in CCLT let to classify most of the elements involved. Such layers
are considered in the first level the learning networks in each course.
This included contact as well as activities considering the social learning among
partners. The second level considered some adequate learning methodologies fulfiling the
necessities of the first layer and concrete course requirements. Such methodologies then
implemented social learning but directed to the necessities of each course.
Finally, the third level took account of the technologies and tools required to scaffold
the other two first layers as well as the course orientation and specific technologies re-
quired by the professional practice. That structure is shown in Figure 2 where each main
technology appoints to elements considered in the design, each one allocated in transverse
layers. In addition, each academic area had differentiated elements according to their own
necessities [35].

Figure 2. Courses areas in the Sciences department with teaching-learning elements allocated on three layers denot-
ing the necessary tools, methodologies, and collaborative student’s networks. Each element points to the technologies
supporting them.

At the end of the first semester, the cluster noticed that additional complexity elements
should appear. In a first approximation based on an Online Learning framework [28], poor
considerations about the extended and sustained videoconferencing learning were made.
Behavioural issues were not originally considered or assumed in the didactic design.
Soon, collateral relations among some elements (not shown in the graphs on Figure 1)
became evident. Some of them are now shown in the graphs depicted in Figure 3 (gray
edges). Thus, for instance, Zoom videoconference system could promote teamwork and
participation considering some of its functionalities. A virtual classroom construction was
convenient in each course to gather in a single document of the LMS the mobility among
activities, class, plans, homework, and supporting resources.
However, this was not only convenient, this also allowed the flexibility and affordabil-
ity of the entire course to support each student. As well, some other tools or technologies
could play multiple roles in the course: visualization, Active Learning, etc. [36,53].
With those distinctions on the design, which were common elements of classification
inside the cluster, no matter if courses belong to any of each one of the academic areas, each
course was evolving through the three periods, considering a growing or a better group of
methodologies and technologies [53]. In the following section, a quantitative analysis of the
general implementations is given. Implementations were recovered from the daily course’
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 12 of 28

documentation. This was followed by an analysis of the students’ outcomes compared

with their perceptions about the teaching-learning plan.

Figure 3. Evolved graphs shown the transition of main design categories (blue), elements (black), and inner associations
(gray edges) between face-to-face courses (red) towards their hybrid versions during the lockdown. Labels are aligned on
the left on each vertex.

4.2. Implementation Chronology, Development, and Categorization by Academic Area and

Didactic Group
To fulfil the first objective of the research, we begin our analysis depicting the global
process of inclusion of methodologies and technologies in the current subsection. At the
beginning of lockdown, some methodologies and technologies were suggested by the
training program in technologies approximately in terms of Figure 1 in agreement with
the activity records in CANVAS. In general terms, apart from Zoom and CANVAS, other
technologies were suggested for sciences and engineering: Remind as contact media and
software like Mathematica, Matlab, and Geogebra for visualization.
While the semester advanced, some other technologies and methodologies were
shared and introduced by teachers. In the teachers’ cluster being depicted here, a near
collaboration in terms of procedures, outcomes, necessities, and implementation recom-
mendations was permanently sustained, thus, conforming to a learning community. Thus,
through the three semesters, different methodologies appeared in the different courses to
fulfil certain requirements or necessities demanded by each one in the different academic
areas to provide increased opportunities for success in learning.
Figure 4 shows a detailed analysis and depiction of those methodologies and tech-
nologies as they were introduced for the first time in each area. Then, each technology
permeated in other curses and inclusively areas, through the dissemination in the teachers’
cluster. The plot depicts the months from February 2020 (the month when the first period
of lockdown began) to June 2021 (the end of the third period, before the writing of the
current report and the advent of New Normal for education in Mexico).
Orange lines state the end of each semester while black lines state the beginnings. Each
academic area is depicted with different colours: MD in blue, NM in red, and PE in green.
There, technologies implemented for the first time are remarked above and methodologies
below. Each group of methodologies and technologies are grouped by affinity and they
appoint to each academic area when they were first introduced.
The numbers in circles report the total number of estimated students in each group of
methodologies and technologies impacted using them (such estimation was consistently
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 13 of 28

obtained from the posterior register of such methodology or technology in CANVAS).

The lower plot summarizes the softened continuous implementation process by a grad-
ual model of increasing by monthly periods, which provides a perspective of the real
progressive impact.

Figure 4. Chronology of the technologies and methodologies implementation in each area. Each arrow sets the beginning
with each technology or methodology in some course, and thus transferred into others in the same period of another
after. Numbers depict the total number of students/course impacted. The plot in the bottom reflects a softened curve of
estimation for the entire technologies and methodologies during the lockdown period covered by this report.

ME required a fluent way to present and share mathematical writing and diagrams,
which were neither easy nor convenient to present on pre-built slides. Thus, tools, such
as Padlet or i-Pencil, were gradually integrated; however, they did not arrive before go-
ing through more traditional experiences of physical writing on traditional whiteboards,
handwriting, or inverted writing in transparent crystals during the first weeks of videocon-
ferencing (some of them affordable in Zoom).
Otherwise, the Screencasting resources also allowed to extend the number of exercises
seen in class. Additionally, tools such Excel, R, Mathematica, and Geogebra were included
to support visualization in Math. Individual and continuous practices were given through
tools, such as Kahoot and Socrative additionally promoting social learning as well as
motivation. Those tools supported mainly the Flipping classroom methodology, a technique
to allow a more recurrent social practice of learning during the class.
For MN, although there were courses that, by their nature, previously had a greater
digital development (due to their BL focus) before the existence of the Hyperflex model
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 14 of 28

versions, the concept of the virtual classroom was still implemented as in other areas (the
concentrator map of activities guiding the entire course activities and their navigation).
The students appreciated this type of space as easier to understand those procedural and
methodological aspects expected in the transition.
There, tools, such as Phyton, Mathematica, and Matlab, settled the basic support,
and the slideshow facilitated the concentration of the specific theoretical developments
before each numerical or technical method was reviewed in the courses. Support for the
programming component continued being delivered through Screencasting in addition to
the videoclass, which already existed in many of the previous courses.
FE represents most of the courses that were analysed in the current report. They faced
two aspects: experimentation and complexity. For the first aspect, some experiments with
homemade materials and directions given through Screencasting were implemented. Addi-
tionally, different simulation tools ranging from Geogebra, Physics Studio, Tinkercad, and
Verve were used, and even programming to connect the real experience of the phenomena
with the theoretical components of the courses [54].
Tools, such as the Physics Toolbox Suite allowed experimental measurements of
motion, acceleration, magnetic field, etc., by using the mobiles of students [55]. This app
supplied some measuring devices or provided alternatives for measurement. The aspects
of complexity were partly addressed first with a planned visualization using Mathematica
and Matlab, and then with the realization of a simulation project. The use of Mathlab
calculator, a useful app for mobiles, made it possible to effectively resume the use of the
scientific calculator with editing, thus supporting students in its use with a minimum of
mistakes and waste of time during the videoclass.
Methodologies, such as Flipping classroom, Active learning, and Exercise solving,
were implemented through tools, such as Socrative to generate playful spaces of collabora-
tion on which social learning was reached. This practice became useful to bring closer to
the students into the formal summative evaluations. As in MS, Screencasting also allowed
to extend the number of exercises seen in class, this practice was inherited from experiences
in NM. The use of Storytelling and its combination with animated slideshows or including
demonstrative videos were useful to capture the attention in those courses.
As a general practice, in some courses, the advisory was recorded to increase the
flexibility and the broadcasting to other students. A large bank of questions, to sustain
remote evaluation letting several attempts, was implemented in tools, such as ClassMarker
and Canvas. This allowed students complete their learning while obtaining improved
grades. To summarize specific technologies and methodologies used in each academic area
in terms of the main use, Table 4 presents that information.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 15 of 28

Table 4. Technologies and methodologies compilation with their main use.

Videoconferencing

Experimentation
Demonstration
Social learning
Visualization

Calculation
Evaluation

Practicing
Advisory

Contact

Writing
Resources

Methodologies
Flipping classroom × ×
Active learning × × ×
Exercise solving × × × ×
Research based learning × ×
Storytelling × × × ×
Simulation based learning × × × × × ×
Screencasting × × × × ×
Technologies
Zoom × × × ×
Remind × × ×
CANVAS × × × × ×
Mathematica × × × × × × × × ×
Excel × × × × × × × × ×
Matlab × × × × × × ×
Geogebra × × × × × × × ×
R × × × × × ×
Python × × × × × ×
Kahoot × × × × × ×
Padlet × × × × × ×
i-Pencil/Notability × × × × × × × ×
Classmarker × × × ×
Mathlab calculator × × × × × × ×
Web assign ×
Tinkercad × × × × ×
PHET × × × × × ×
Physics studio × × × × × ×
Verbe × × × × × ×
Physics toolbox suite × × × × ×

4.3. Impact Learning Measured through Final Grades as Compared with the Student
Opinion Recommendation
The second research objective deals with the impact of resources and methodologies
under the Hyperflex model. Despite this, as was previously stated, such impacts should
be measured not only through the summarized final grade but also in terms of engaging
learning to students, so a contrasting perspective is considered. Due to the diversity and
foci of the set of courses analysed, we should reach such analysis with the more comparable
indicators available. Thus, one of those was the opinion of students, which strongly
measures engagement.
In our institution, at each end of the semester, a uniform exit survey is applied to each
student to evaluate the services and particularly the performance of each course design and
teacher. For each course, a set of questions is applied as a function of their characteristics
(theoretical, experimental, entrepreneurship, etc.). However, in any case, a global final
question is considered, the recommendation of the teacher, considering there the dominion,
accompaniment, support, design, and methodology applied in the course delivered.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 16 of 28

That question is common for all courses and teachers, and it is expected to be answered
as a recapitulation of the different components assumed for each one. Despite this, the
survey is criticized because it is supposed to be related to the ease and flexibility of the
course. However, in the implementations being analysed, flexibility was one of the aspects
that could be exhibited as something positive. In addition, it was expected that survey
reflected the utility and value of the course delivered. In addition, previous analysis of
institutional exit surveys has shown that the outcomes mainly appoint to the must be of
education, thus, ease is punished as well as unnecessary complexity [56,57].
With this purpose, we propose to contrast the outcome in the final common question
in the survey mainly with the average of final grades, but still together with its standard
deviation and other parameters. Other factors could be important in distinguishing the set
of data, as for instance academic area, period, as well as the main innovation considered in
the course revealing hidden behaviours during the lockdown.
The last aspect has been classified in three tracks as the teacher considered the main
aspect innovated in the course: (a) Introduction of supporting technology, (b) Introduction
of disruptive methodology, and (c) Design based on the constructive and flexible evaluation.
Corresponding data for the 66 groups being considered in the study are synthetically
represented in Figure 5 in agreement with the data shown in the Tables A2–A4.
The plot exhibits each group considered in a dispersion plot between the average of
final grade on the horizontal axis (the common scale is 0–100, but here it has been modified
to easily to compare data on a 0–10 scale) and the average of student’s recommendation for
the course (in a scale 0–10, where 10 is the best recommendation). Each dot representing a
group surrounded by a circle whose radius reflects the corresponding standard deviation
of final grades in each course.
Each dot is represented in a colour corresponding with their academic area: black
(MS), yellow (NM), and orange (PE). In addition, circles were coloured in agreement with
their type of innovation: red (Technology), green (Methodology), and blue (Evaluation):
together, the edge of circles are dotted, dashed, or solid respectively in agreement with the
period each one corresponds. All corresponding scale legends are included on the left as
a visual reference. The diagonal line in brown remarks the identity between both main
indicators on the axes.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 17 of 28

Figure 5. Final grade versus Student’s recommendation evaluation to each teacher (scale 0–10) for
the classes under analysis. Variables as Innovation type, Course group, Standard deviation of Final
grade, and Course period are also represented in agreement with the scales on the left.

The dispersion plot in Figure 5 indicates some possible trends of analysis on the
data [58]. At first glance, several aspects become evident. First, the distribution shows
an apparent higher average recommendation than the average final grade value for at
least one point more. In general, recommendations became higher during the lockdown
period than before for around one half-point at least than the historic registers (the average
recommendation for the courses in the Science department was 8.89 during 2019, while the
recommendation average for the groups reported between 2020–2021 became 9.32).
Most of the courses are outstanding due to their Methodology (85%, green) rather
than other innovations, with Technology (15%, red) as the second innovation in recurrence.
In addition, courses proposing Methodology as innovation appear better recommended
than those centering on Technology or Evaluation (despite the few data for these last).
Differences among periods are not evident or they are few clear due to the meaningfulness
(as for those of MS).
A particular behaviour for those courses was the extended dispersion in the final
grades, which appeared apparently with the largest values of recommendation (despite,
other courses with a larger dispersion still did not exhibit such behaviour). We will analyse
those aspects more deeply below. Those aspects related to the meaningful dependence of
the student’s recommendation are analysed in Figure 6.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 18 of 28

Figure 6. (a) Radar plot of p−values for one factor ANOVA tests between Student’s recommendation
values (SR) and Period, Number of students (S), Final grade (FG), Standard deviation of FG (SD),
Type of innovation, and Academic area. (b–d) The dispersion plots for the meaningful explanation
variables found in (a) including the single linear correlation models. Despite that the analysis does
not distinguish the Academic area, dots are coloured in agreement with colours in Figure 5.

We are now interested in the meaningful explanation of the student’s recommendation

concerning the variables: Period (the semester when the class was delivered), Number
of students (S), Final grade average (FG), and Standard deviation of FG (SD), Type of
innovation (Technology, Methodology, or Evaluation), and Academic area. Then, one-factor
ANOVA tests were performed in each case, obtaining their corresponding p-values, which
were synthetically plotted on Figure 6a presented in a radar plot (note that zero value
for p is not in the origin for better reading), remarking with the blue dashed circle the
significance of the tests, which was 0.05.
If p < 0.05 denotes a sensible correlation [59], we noticed that only the S, the FG, and
the SD were meaningful for the variation explanation of the student’s recommendation.
For some outliers will be interesting to know specific situations that occurred there. Such
cases will be discussed concretely in the next section. Figure 6a–c shows the corresponding
dispersion plots between those meaningful variables with the student’s recommendation
values. Plots include red lines for the linear correlation dependence under a single linear
explanation model to reveal the kind of the dependence (positive or negative).
This analysis is useful to understand the main trend behind the functional behaviour
on each independent aspect. Despite that the Academic area is not meaningful and
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 19 of 28

its values are not discriminated in the analysis, we coloured the dots as a reference in
agreement with their colours in Figure 5.
Some immediate outcomes show that Student recommendation depended positively
on the final grade of each course and negatively on the standard deviation, despite an
expected outcome, note that not the highest grades were expected by the students to assign
the best evaluation to the teacher. However, dispersion could be expected to be narrower,
probably because the effort among partners could seem relatively similar to others in the
current circumstances.
Another interesting, but not so strange outcome, is that larger groups tended to
decrease the recommendation value to teachers. Obtaining the correlation with a linear
model between the student’s recommendation (SR) and the meaningful variables obtained,
we obtain the Pearson correlation coefficient [59] r = 0.28 (while taking all variables
involved it barely raise to r = 0.30 confirming the low meaningfulness of the remaining
variables). Nevertheless, a more optimal second-order model gives:

SR = −13.322 − 1.386 · S + 0.130 · SD + 0.907 · FG + 0.003 · S2 + (1)

2 2
0.013 · S · FG + 0.011 · S · SD − 0.007 · FG − 0.006 · FG · SD + 0.002 · SD

with the three meaningful variables (number of students S, final grades average FG, and
standard deviation in the final grades SD) giving r = 0.57, a notably improved value at
double (a similar second-order model with all variables simply raises it to r = 0.66).
In this analysis, we have considered only academic or demography factors as causal
factors on the student’s recommendation evaluations for the courses as an indicator of effec-
tiveness. Despite this, several external elements in the emotional scope were identified as
important factors in the academic success of the student. Those factors are diverse, but they
affected the students in different strengths, thus stating lots of long-term consequences [60].
We discuss some findings in our student community related to those aspects in the follow-
ing subsection.

4.4. New Opportunities and Main Losses around Academic Life during the COVID-19 Lockdown
As part of our research, our third objective was boosted because the emotional compo-
nent was diverse among the student community, thus changing, improving, conditioning,
or altering his academic life. Despite that certain analyses during the period have ap-
pointed digital competencies as the key factor of successful learning, which is true as well
for teachers as for students [61], secondary factors arose in communities with a sufficient
dominion of educational techniques and technologies, and also students could still benefit
from other opportunities opened by the different conditions.
Then, at the end of the three semester period, a part of our students between the
first and fourth semester within the courses of the teachers’ cluster was randomly asked
about the new opportunities about the changes boosted by the COVID-19 lockdown had
produced on them. On the other hand, they also were asked about those incidents mainly
affecting negatively their academic life. Note that the two answers were mandatory for each
student to evaluate both positive and negative facts. The outcomes were then classified,
and thus proportionally reported synthetically on Figure 7a,b, respectively.
For the positive aspects, students recognized mainly the inclusion of more meaningful
challenges or projects involved in their courses, an augmented deepness in their learning
due to the time-released by the confinement, and the increased sense of effort and discipline
to fulfil their academic duties. Those aspects represented the 70% of responses. The
negative aspects were more diversified including mainly the failed courses, the low grades,
difficulties in adaptation to teaching styles, and the complexity present in the course
challenges or projects.
Those aspects represented almost 60% of the responses, while the remaining appeared
equally distributed between academic, technology, and family issues. Note how some
of these appear as opposite facts—clearly as responses of different parts of the group of
students surveyed.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 20 of 28

Figure 7. (a) The best opportunities open during lockdown, and (b) Situations affecting academic
life during lockdown. The survey was applied randomly to 10% of students involved in the current
study at the end of third semester of lockdown. Percentages were floor rounded to the closest integer.

In the following section, we will discuss the last findings by objective. We will relate
and extend some facts presented here, thus, giving a closer and concise interpretation of
the outcomes and quantitative analysis developed in the straight analysis.

5. Discussion
5.1. Evolution and Stability of Didactic Designs
The most traditional models of education required mainly a syllabus to be delivered,
together with few tasks to be developed in class or extra-class. As LT evolved, the intro-
duction of specific stimulus in the form of learning activities began to introduce more
detailed caring of didactic designs [35]. As we are shown in the reflexive task of design in
the Figures 1 and 3, didactic elements introduced certain specialized activities in terms of
differentiated learning in terms of skills, deep learning, engagement, professional practice,
or still diversified learning styles [28]. Such increased effort by itself is an input gain in
education due to the COVID-19 confinement [36].
Implementation of technologies and alternative methodologies during the COVID19
lockdown began to be implemented progressively as normally occurred in other experi-
ences [62] and expected in terms of CCLT approaches [8]. The original concern was to
offer an alternative channel to replace the face-to-face class, thus introducing video classes
through a proper tool.
Teachers additionally sought tools to stay in contact with and among students in a
nearer way than the already implemented courses on LMS [63]. However, it soon became
clear that those emergent elements were insufficient when only combined with the same
elements previously present in the face-to-face version. Thus, alternative and diversified
methodologies were emerging to cover specific necessities in each course.
During the beginning of lockdown, despite the institutional efforts and previous
knowledge provided by pre-pandemic teacher training in educational technologies [30],
each teacher has the perception of starting an uncertain adventure in education with
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 21 of 28

difficulties to have a big picture of the situation more than replicate their face-to-face
practice still in a proven BL approach [27].
Many academics still took the challenge without realizing the necessary effort to
provide an effective learning experience for their students [26] in terms of design, tech-
nological dominion, continuous assessment, and diversified input channels. As part of
our first research objective, we learned from the low plot in Figure 4, that such increasing
diversification and dominion was settled through time and experience, being additionally
transferred to similar areas by recommendation due to the collaboration cluster. Partic-
ularly, it is noticeable that certain stabilization was reached after only three semesters of
practice despite the changes in the courses taught.

5.2. Didactic Designs Dimensions Improved: Superseding the Traditional Teacher’ Knowledge
and Perceptions
Since blackboard substitutes, which gradually were adapted to better solutions, until
methodologies emphasizing certain aspects of learning -individual or social-, together with
diverse learning stimulus, teachers were gaining a wider dominion about their new instruc-
tional practice. Students should also adopt such specialized technologies progressively
as soon as it has been advised in the knowledge areas [64]. Such aspects were registered
through the practice as Table 2 summarizes for our first research objective together with
the behaviour noticed in their implementation (Figure 4).
Thus, after such an unclear beginning, other elements were configuring improved ver-
sions for the courses depending on the area, emphasis, contents, and semesters where they
were allocated. In addition, evaluation was a permanent concern, as well to avoid frauds
as to be a purposeful instrument extending the learning during such activity, despite the
compromised learning due to the continuous and permanent online sessions, particularly
in areas requiring experimentation and practice [65].

5.3. Students’ Recognition on the Course Effectiveness and Its Close Relation with the
Learning Performance
Some lessons were learned as a result of our second research objective remarked by the
analysis of the progressive implementation in a segment science courses. Recommendation
inside of a teachers’ cluster by sharing and testing technology and methodologies in their
courses made clear that implementations were not ready since the beginning, instead, they
were a continuous and adaptive improving to an ideal instruction assessed by the students’
responses. In any case, outcomes exhibited a good response of students expressed in the
exit opinion survey of each one. Some remarks and exceptions should be commented on in
terms of the rare outliers shown in Figure 5.
By analysing the data in Tables A2–A4, we found that a meaningful correlation
between the student’s recommendation and the final grade was present but to the right
extent. This is natural because students expect the grade to reflect their effort in each course.
We note that correlation is not functioning as an identity, which means that students give
the maximum recommendation without expecting the highest final grade. Other behaviour
is noticed with the dispersion of grades; nevertheless, running a one-factor ANOVA test
between the number of students and the standard deviation of final grade, we found
p = 0.22 > 0.5.
This indicates that there are almost null correlations between those variables, and
thus larger groups do not necessarily imply more dispersion in the final grades. If this fact
is solely attained to the students (otherwise there is not also a correlation between such
dispersion and the type of course in any sense), then this possibly uncontrollable factor
affects the final perception of the students on the course, not the group size necessarily.
Certain outliers appearing in Figure 5 should be commented. For the outliers with SR
equal to 7.69 and 7.71 for F1006B and F1007B respectively (Kinematics and Mechanics for
Mechanical, Industrial and Mechatronics engineering programs) in Table A1, this course
had an asymmetry between professor and student evaluations. This is likely due to the
fact such a course was the first of this kind in a digital model for most of the students (both
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 22 of 28

courses were consecutive during the semester, five weeks each one and with the same
students).
In addition, the group composition in dominion was uneven, and thus the styles
and rhythms made an important gap in the learning process. In addition, bad students’
attitudes were also observed there: from lack of interest to participate until inclusively
inappropriate behaviour behind the camera. On the other hand, the same methodology
and technology were employed in another group with better results for the professor’s
evaluation.
In the other extreme, classes F3026 and F3029 (Physics engineering project I and II)
obtained 10 in SR. With only four students, they have the freedom to select their projects
in agreement with their interests. It was a small experimental class that stated a closer
contact among students and teacher boosting compromise. Thus, commonly good didactic
management gives a higher SR as was the case here.
In an aftermath exercise of reflection about the findings for the second research
objective, despite the extended effort devoted to design and with an uncertain outcome in
the engaging and learning of students, the teachers’ group consensus met the following
key points: (a) students had a responsible act of learning, (b) they responded to the effort
of teacher, (c) they were respectful about the teacher’s time by using effectively the flexible
learning spaces when those were effectively open, and (d) despite the possible limited
adaptations to the teaching styles and designs, students appreciated them as a genuine
effort to deliver valuable teaching.
Despite this, it was also believed by our cluster that all those recognized behaviours
were only reached after a thoughtful design and self-assessment teaching work by each
teacher and then for the cluster effort. Particularly, we agree that CCLT provided an
effective mirroring of the students’ expectations to learn.

5.4. Biased Perceptions about the Academic Life during the Outbreak
As many other factors were observed conditioning the perception of the course,
which ranges from little adaptability to the didactic strategy selected by the teacher until
domestic facts affecting the courses (electricity and internet services, family issues, study
environment, etc.) [66], our third research objective was to account for the happenings of
our students.
One of the most affecting issues in Science and Engineering is the absence of labora-
tories. This practice was supplied by homemade practices and technologies when they
were possible and available, otherwise by simulation labs, or with challenges in the form
of simulation projects replacing it, an old innovation that works [22]. For the first four
semesters of science and engineering programs, it was not a student complaint except for
the last semesters with more specialized labs (which are not the main part of this analysis).
We state that many other such found happenings were not cared about because they
were not deliberate or otherwise; we did not provide adequate spaces to support the
students in such issues. One of the opportunities from staying in the university facilities is
the closer contact with teachers and partners, the accessibility to academic opportunities as
conferences, contests, the related program works, and so on. Notably, for part of students,
the access to those activities disappeared when they disconnected from the face-to-face
contact.
Despite this, the recounting was done about students’ opportunities and losses, still
limited, which shows that differential events but also attitudes have settled opposite life
paths during the lockdown, particularly for academic life. While several activities were
maintained in the courses in the form of challenges (projects, experimental or simulation
constructions, etc.), they were meaningful learning opportunities for the great part of
students (30%), but for another minor part (11% + 5% ≈ 16% possibly) were not. Similarly,
11% + 5% ≈ 16% expressed difficulties for the adaptation and necessary effort in the
Hyperflex model.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 23 of 28

Notably, around 20% of the population surveyed expressed the search and participa-
tion in external and specialized academic conferences and contests, but until 21% + 16% +
5% ≈ 42% expressed in contrast difficulties with low grades, or still failed or dropped
courses. Behavioural well-being affected different people and particularly students in their
academic life around the world [63], becoming concomitant with limited courses designs
and accompaniment in the academic life.
Thus, in terms of the third research objective, the COVID-19 lockdown has shown us
absent complementary elements of design and following for our students under BL (from
each course but not only since them). It has also shown that many other factors of success
are present in distance learning than in face-to-face learning, despite this time COVID-19
scenario added special and critical elements than an ideal scenario for BL. Here, the more
noticeable aspect is that some new opportunities or losses were generated externally to the
educational spaces.
Teachers were normally worried about punctual aspects by covering their courses, but
the common academic life extends much further than that, with the common interaction,
opening, and academic offerings coming from the same teachers. Despite this, it was
limited and often unplanned, being accessible only to those students exhibiting a more
self-generated academic strength. Future designs coming from teachers should extend
those wider opportunities and support, thus recovering the university spirit.

6. Conclusions
We presented and analysed the progressive implementation of technological and
methodological resources to improve the effective delivery of a sample of science courses
in three different campuses of a Mexican university system. This sample was characterized
because it was taught by a cluster of teachers sharing the new implementation of methods
and technologies with specific goals in the teaching of math, statistics, numerical methods,
simulation, and physics courses, mainly ranging from the first to fourth semesters of several
programs of science and engineering. All innovations were open to new perspectives in
education, mainly in terms of CCLT.
The research objectives covered the analysis of gradual appropriation of those re-
sources, thus, finding new opportunities in didactic design, past than the COVID-19 pan-
demic itself. Teacher collaboration exhibited a fast implementation and stability through
the three semesters of the strict COVID-19 lockdown. Students’ engagement and effort
recognition were contrasted with several other academic parameters showing interesting
outcomes in terms of discipline, respect, and resilience. Despite some gaps to the ideal
outcomes, students showed an effort to follow the instructional design established, thus,
exhibiting a generally good response to the cluster response.
The innovations considered improved the exiting student’s recommendation given to
each course, improving its historical value by around 5%, despite the complex, new, and
partially improvised scenarios compromising the optimal delivery. The recommendation
partially depended positively on the final grade average assigned to the group together
with a negative dependence on the standard deviation of the final grade in the group, thus,
exhibiting a faithful recognition of the didactic design under the Online Learning model
proposed and the diverse variation of the learning stimulus introduced.
Teachers within the collaboration cluster evaluated such perception and interpretation
positively. Still, despite the apparent similar conditions, outliers showed that, if some
negative factors are combined, the student perception could become drastically affected.
A closing term survey applied at the end of the three semesters of the lockdown (before
the New Normal opening of educative activities, in the confinement period) suggests that
students focused on the positive and negative incidents during the pandemic as a function
of their personal experiences and their attitude concerning the restrictive and confinement
period. Those facts and position affect the course’s recommendation because some of them
advise opportunities and others advise losses derived from their academic conditions.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 24 of 28

Such aspects appeared as not cared about or deliberately promoted issues, thus, stating
opportunities for the teaching practice, particularly under an emergency education.
For teaching practice, as well for theories of education, the COVID-19 confinement has
been rich in lessons as a sudden ongoing learning on the more realistic and largest teaching
lab. The lockdown period has let us realize some blind aspects around the representation
of the university since the teacher individuality through his teaching delivering, thus,
effectively replacing the physical university facilities.
Under this view, teachers, as well as the students, should have a pro-positive attitude,
the best spirit to improve not only Online Learning education but also the entire teaching
practice as a thoughtful exercise of renewal in didactic design, reflection about an effective
and conscious LT implementation as an affordable via for future models of education in
general, possibly under a more benign, enduring, and planned settlement in the next term
of human history.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.D.; methodology, F.D., M.E.-F. and A.J.-N.; software,
F.D.; validation, F.D., M.E.-F. and A.J.-N.; formal analysis, F.D.; investigation, F.D., M.E.-F. and A.J.-N.;
resources, F.D., M.E.-F. and A.J.-N.; data curation, F.D.; writing—original draft preparation, F.D.;
writing—review and editing, F.D., M.E.-F. and A.J.-N.; visualization, F.D.; supervision, F.D., M.E.-F.
and A.J.-N.; project administration, F.D.; funding acquisition, F.D. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due
to any individual information or behaviour concerning to human involvement is being reported.
Informed Consent Statement: Patient consent was waived due to no individual neither identified
information or data is reported in the article.
Data Availability Statement: Data sets were obtained from sensitive individual grades of students
from institutional and author records, then processed losing their individual character for the
statistical report. They are partially available upon request to the authors.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to all students in Tecnologico de Monterrey due to their dedica-
tion from March 2020 to June 2021 during the COVID-19 lockdown. Their participation contributed
to improve the knowledge and the advancement of BL as an educative strategy useful during this
critical era for humankind. The authors also acknowledge the technical and economical support
of Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the
production of this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

BL Blended Learning
BLT Behavioural Learning Theory
CEM Campus Estado de México
CGLT Cognitive Learning Theory
CNLT Constructivist Learning Theory
CCLT Connective Learning Theory
CSF Campus Santa Fe
FG Final grade
HLT Humanistic Learning Theory
LT Learning Theories
LMS Learning Management System
MS Mathematics and Statistics
MTY Campus Monterrey
NM Numerical Methods and Simulation
PE Physics and Engineering Sciences
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 25 of 28

Appendix A. Data Collections Used in the Analysis

This section gathers the group information considered in the analysis of Section 4.
First, Table A1 collects some codification of data presented in the further tables by Period
(semester of 2020 or 2021 when course was taught), Innovation type (Inn), and the campus.
Further information is reported in Tables A2–A4.

Table A1. Data for courses of MS considered in the analysis.

Period Innovation Type Campus

1 February–June 2020 1 Technology 1 MTY
2 August–December 2020 2 Methodology 2 CEM
3 February–June 2021 3 Evaluation 3 CSF

Table A2. Data for courses of MS considered in the analysis.

Period Course Students FG SD-FG SR Inn Sem Campus

2 MA1026 26 90.92 16.36 9.28 2 3 3
2 MA1027 26 98.77 2.67 8.48 2 1 3
2 MA1035 33 92.80 7.86 9.45 3 3 3
2 MA1035 31 86.74 13.43 9.05 3 3 3
2 MA1035 28 95.92 4.14 9.69 3 3 3

Table A3. Data for courses of NM considered in the analysis.

Period Course Students FG SD-FG SR Inn Sem Campus

1 M2009 22 87.50 11.40 9.30 1 4 2
1 M2009 28 93.20 8.70 9.00 1 4 2
1 M2009 32 83.10 22.78 9.16 1 4 3
1 M2009 26 90.63 10.59 9.71 1 4 3
1 M2009 27 91.91 8.18 9.50 1 4 3
1 F1014B 30 92.30 12.60 9.53 2 2 3
1 F1006B 31 85.70 21.90 9.46 2 1 3
2 F1004B 31 94.60 5.30 9.67 2 1 3
2 F1004B 30 91.30 10.60 9.63 2 1 3
2 F1005B 31 87.70 15.30 9.57 2 1 3
2 F1005B 30 85.40 22.10 9.76 2 1 3
3 F1013B 32 89.10 17.83 9.54 2 2 1
3 F1014B 34 92.77 5.80 9.28 2 2 1
3 F1013B 35 91.10 10.50 8.79 2 2 3
3 F1013B 30 90.10 11.50 9.30 2 2 3
3 F1014B 35 88.60 19.10 9.44 2 2 3
3 F1014B 29 95.00 6.90 9.45 2 2 3

Table A4. Data for courses of PE considered in the analysis.

Period Course Students FG SD-FG SR Inn Sem Campus

2 F1004B 31 84.10 14.80 9.07 1 1 2
2 F1004B 26 89.90 7.00 9.63 1 1 2
2 F1005B 32 88.30 9.30 8.31 1 1 2
2 F1005B 26 92.30 6.00 9.65 1 1 2
2 F3026 4 100.00 2.50 10.00 2 7 1
2 F1004B 31 94.60 5.30 9.67 2 1 1
2 F1004B 30 91.30 10.60 9.63 2 1 1
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 26 of 28

Table A4. Cont.

Period Course Students FG SD-FG SR Inn Sem Campus

2 F1005B 31 87.70 15.30 9.57 2 1 1
2 F1005B 30 85.40 22.10 9.76 2 1 1
2 F1001B 31 96.00 3.40 9.65 2 1 1
2 F1001B 31 97.60 3.10 9.79 2 1 1
2 F1001B 31 95.70 3.60 9.75 2 1 1
2 F1014B 30 92.30 12.60 9.53 2 2 1
2 F1008 30 94.10 8.70 9.47 2 2 1
2 F1008 28 95.70 5.30 9.37 2 2 1
2 F1006B 31 85.70 21.90 9.46 2 1 1
2 F1013B 30 91.60 10.10 9.43 2 2 1
2 F1018B 30 96.70 4.00 9.67 2 2 1
2 F1008 30 94.90 7.30 9.35 2 2 1
2 F1008 30 96.30 4.30 9.31 2 2 1
2 F1006B 23 91.01 10.57 7.69 2 1 3
2 F1006B 26 94.77 12.86 9.18 2 1 3
2 F1007B 22 91.35 15.88 7.71 2 1 3
3 F1016B 30 80.48 7.61 8.17 1 2 3
3 F1013B 35 91.10 10.50 8.79 2 2 1
3 F1013B 30 90.10 11.50 9.30 2 2 1
3 F1014B 35 88.60 19.10 9.44 2 2 1
3 F1014B 29 95.00 6.90 9.45 2 2 1
3 F2002B 30 83.40 22.30 9.21 2 4 1
3 F2004 40 92.10 6.30 9.78 2 4 1
3 F1008 29 97.80 4.40 9.45 2 2 1
3 F1008 30 97.70 3.10 9.43 2 2 1
3 F1009 20 86.20 13.20 9.50 2 3 1
3 F3029 4 100.00 2.50 10.00 2 8 1
3 F1013B 29 91.80 7.80 9.63 2 2 2
3 F1013B 30 91.00 5.30 9.55 2 2 2
3 F1014B 28 92.60 7.50 9.72 2 2 2
3 F1014B 28 95.00 4.20 9.58 2 2 2
3 F1015B 30 93.27 5.23 9.23 2 1 3
3 F1008 30 89.79 9.05 8.87 2 2 3
3 F1008 27 94.25 8.10 8.33 2 2 3
3 F1008 28 92.32 7.06 9.11 2 2 3
3 F1008 25 91.30 6.00 9.10 2 2 3
3 F1017B 23 87.35 10.0 9.11 2 2 3

Thus, in the last tables, data are presented by including in addition the course code
as it could be consulted in our institutional repository [67] for the undergraduate science
and engineering programs. Note that some courses whose code begins with F still could
be allocated in NM courses due that courses whose codes ending with B are integrated
courses, and they have three teachers and components: Physics, Math, and Computing [48].
SD refers to the standard deviation of each group final grades, while Sem refers to the
semester that should be coursed (1 to 8) within the undergraduate program.

References
1. OECD. School Education During COVID-19: Were Teachers and Students Ready? OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020.
2. Balkhi, F.; Nasir, A.; Zehra, A. Psychological and behavioural response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Cureus 2020, 12,
e7923. [PubMed]
3. Naciri, A.; Baba, M.A.; Achbani, A.; Kharbach, A. Mobile learning in higher education: unavoidable alternative during COVID-19.
Aquademia 2020, 4, ep20016. [CrossRef]
4. Usak, M.; Masalimova, A.R.; Cherdymova, E.I.; Shaidullina, A.R. New playmaker in science education: COVID-19. J. Balt. Sci.
Educ. 2020, 19, 180–185. [CrossRef]
5. Mishra, L.; Gupta, T.; Shree, A. Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic.
Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2020, 1, 100012. [CrossRef]
6. Jandrić, P. Teaching in the Age of Covid-19. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 2020, 2, 1070–1230. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 27 of 28

7. Greve, H.R. Learning Theory: The Pandemic Research Challenge. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 57, 1759–1762. [CrossRef]
8. Rapanta, C.; Botturi, L.; Goodyear, P. Online University Teaching during and after the Covid-19 Crisis: Refocusing Teacher
Presence and Learning Activity. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 2020, 2, 923–945. [CrossRef]
9. Collins, A.; Stevens, A.L. A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of the
Current Status; Reigeluth, C.M., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NL, USA, 1983.
10. Rabinowitz, M.; Glaser, R. Cognitive structure and process in highly competent performance. In The Gifted and the Talented: A
Developmental Perspective; Horowitz, F.D., O’Brien, M., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1985;
pp. 75–98.
11. Watson, J.B. Behaviourism; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1966.
12. Peel, D. The significance of behavioural learning theory to the development of effective coaching practice. Int. J. Evid. Based Coach.
Mentor. 2005, 3, 18–28.
13. Narayan, R.; Rodriguez, C.; Araujo, J.; Shaqlaih, A.; Moss, G. Constructivism—Constructivist learning theory. In He Handbook of
Educational Theories; Irby, B.J., Brown, G., Lara-Alecio, R., Jackson, S., Eds.; Information Age Publishing: Washington, DC, USA,
2013; pp. 169–183.
14. Alonzo, T.M.; LaCagnina, G.R.; Olsen, B.G. Behaviorism vs. humanism: Two contrasting approaches to learning theory. South. J.
Educ. Res. 1977, 11, 135–151.
15. DeCarvalho, R. The humanistic paradigm in education. Humanist. Psychol. 1991, 19, 88–104. [CrossRef]
16. Rogers, C.; Freiberg, H.J. Freedom to Learn; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
17. Siemens. G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Int. J. Instr. Technol. Distance Learn. 2005, 2, 1–7.
18. Parchoma, G.; Koole, M.; Morrison, D.; Nelson, D.; Dreaver-Charles, K. Designing for learning in the yellow house: a comparison
of instructional and learning design origins and practices. High. Educ. Res. Dev., 2019, 39, 997–1012. [CrossRef]
19. Goodlad, R. A Place Called the Classroom; Freeman: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1984.
20. OECD. The Impact of COVID-19 on Student Equity and Inclusion: Supporting Vulnerable Students during School Closures and School
Re-openings; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/the-impact-of-
covid-19-on-student-equity-and-inclusion-supporting-vulnerable-students-during-school-closures-and-school-re-openings-
d593b5c8/ (accessed on 9 September 2020).
21. Bozkurt, A. A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty
and crisis. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2020, 15, 1–126.
22. Tennyson, R.; Rasch, M. Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instr. Sci. 1998 17, 369–385. [CrossRef]
23. Goldie, J.G.S. Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Med. Teach. 2016, 38, 1064–1069. [CrossRef]
24. Kop, R.; Hill, A. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2008, 9,
1–13. [CrossRef]
25. Ferri, F.; Grifoni, P.; Guzzo, T. Online Learning and Emergency Remote Teaching: Opportunities and Challenges in Emergency
Situations. Societies 2020, 10, 86. [CrossRef]
26. Kulikowski, K.; Przytuła, S.; Sułkowski, Ł. The Motivation of Academics in Remote Teaching during the Covid-19 Pandemic in
Polish Universities—Opening the Debate on a New Equilibrium in e-Learning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2752. [CrossRef]
27. Korkmaz, G.; Toraman, Ç. Are we ready for the post-COVID-19 educational practice? An investigation into what educators think
as to online learning. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Sci. 2020, 4, 293–309. [CrossRef]
28. Picciano, A.G. Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learn. 2017, 21, 166–190.
[CrossRef]
29. Alghamdi, A.A. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the social and educational aspects of Saudi university students’ lives.
PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250026. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Delgado, F.; López, C.; Gutiérrez, F. Collegiate Deployment and Assessment of a Mobile Learning Program in Higher Education; Winner
Essays of FIMPES Prize 2012; FIMPES: Mexico City, Mexico, 2012.
31. ITESM. Tec, UNAM, and Other Universities Working Together Due to COVID-19. Available online: https://tec.mx/en/news/
national/institution/tec-unam-and-other-universities-working-together-due-covid-19 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
32. Ally, M.; Prieto-Blázquez, J. What is the future of mobile learning in education? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ.2014, 11, 142–151.
33. Mpungose, C.B. Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African University in the context of the
Coronavirus pandemic. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2020, 7, 1–9. [CrossRef]
34. ITESM. Tec Digital Plus Flexible Model. Available online: https://tec.mx/en/plus-digital-flexible-model (accessed on 9
September 2020).
35. Cochrane, T.; Munn, J. Integrating Educational Design Research and Design Thinking to Enable Creative Pedagogies. Int. J.
Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2020, 2, 1–14. [CrossRef]
36. Code, J.; Ralph, R.; Forde, K. Pandemic designs for the future: Perspectives of technology education teachers during COVID-19.
Inf. Learn. Sci. 2020, 121, 419–431. [CrossRef]
37. UNICEF. Global Knowledge Report: Good Practice and Lessons Learned on Distance Education during COVID-19; UNICEF: New York,
NY, USA, 2020.
38. Bonk, R.J.; Kefalaki, M.; Fotini Diamantidaki, J.R.; Munro, C.R.; Karanicolas, S.; Kontoleon, P.; Pogner, K.-H. Pedagogy in the
Time of Pandemic: From Localisation to Glocalisation. J. Educ. Innov. Commun. 2020, 17–64.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 543 28 of 28

39. Delgado, F. Transforming a blended learning course in numerical methods into a flexible digital course during the Covid-19 crisis.
Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 2021, 15, 332–353. [CrossRef]
40. UNDP. Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and Beyond; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
41. Toquero, C.M. Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine context. Pedagog.
Res. 2020, 5, em0063. [CrossRef]
42. Huang, R.; Tlili, A.; Chang, T.W.; Zhang, X.; Nascimbeni, F.; Burgos, D. Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19
outbreak in China: Application of open educational practices and resources. Learn. Environ. 2020, 7, 1–15. [CrossRef]
43. Charania, A.; Bakshani, U.; Paltiwale, S.; Kaur, I.; Nasrin, N. Constructivist teaching and learning with technologies in the
COVID-19 lockdown in Eastern India. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1478–1493. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Azar, A.J.; Khamis, A.H.; Naidoo, N.; Lindsbro, M.; Boukhaled, J.H.; Gonuguntla, S.; Davis, D.; Banerjee, Y. Design, Imple-
mentation and Evaluation of a Distance Learning Framework to Expedite Medical Education during COVID-19 pandemic: A
Proof-of-Concept Study. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2021, 8, 1–16. [CrossRef]
45. Albo, J.P.; Hervás-Escobar, A. Exit tickets’ effect on engagement in college classrooms. In Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, 4–6 July 2016; pp. 5915–5918.
46. Abbasi, S.; Ayoob, T.; Malik, A.; Memon, A.I. Perceptions of students regarding E-learning during Covid-19 at a private medical
college. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 36, S57–S61. [CrossRef]
47. Butnaru, G.I.; Nit, ă, V.; Anichiti, A.; Brînză, G. The Effectiveness of Online Education during Covid 19 Pandemic—A Comparative
Analysis between the Perceptions of Academic Students and High School Students from Romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5311.
[CrossRef]
48. ITESM. Model Tec 21. Available online: https://tec.mx/en/model-tec21 (accessed on 30 November 2020).
49. Nordmeyer, J. Collaboration: Scaffolding student learning and teacher learning. In EARCOS Tri-Annual Journal; East Asia Council
of Overseas Schools: Winter Park, FL, USA, 2015.
50. Coombs, C. Theory and Methods of Social Measurement. In Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences; Feslinger, L., Katz, D., Eds.;
Dryden Press: New York, NY, USA, 1957.
51. Gewin, V. Five tips for moving teaching online as COVID-19 takes hold. Nature 2020, 580, 295–296. [CrossRef]
52. Delgado, F. Teaching Physics for Computer Science Students in Higher Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Fully
Internet-Supported Course. Future Internet 2021, 13, 35. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, Q.; Woo, H. Systematic Planning for ICT Integration in Topic Learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2007, 10, 148–156.
54. Tennyson, R.D.; Thurlow, R.; Breuer, K. Problem-oriented simulations to develop and improve higher-order thinking strategies.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 1987 3, 151–165. [CrossRef]
55. Countryman, C.L. Familiarizing Students with the Basics of a Smartphone’s Internal Sensors. Phys. Teach. 2014, 52, 557–559.
[CrossRef]
56. Kim, B.J.; Otani, K.; ; Cho, J.-I.L. Customer Satisfaction Theory in Public Administration Education: Revisiting Student Evaluation
of Teaching. Int. J. Public Adm. 2013, 36, 791–797. [CrossRef]
57. Calma, A.; Dickson-Deane, C. The student as customer and quality in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2020, 34, 1221–1235.
[CrossRef]
58. Friendly, M.; Denis, D. The early origins and development of the scatterplot. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 2005, 41, 103–130. [CrossRef]
59. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988. [CrossRef]
60. Green, R.; Duzor, M.; Hannas, C. Generational Catastrophe, Possible as Pandemic Creates Education Crisis: A Report for VOA
News. Available online: https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/generational-catastrophe-possible-pandemic-creates-
education-crisis (accessed on 9 September 2020). [CrossRef]
61. Alqahtani, A.; Rajkhan, A. E-Learning Critical Success Factors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comprehensive Analysis of
E-Learning Managerial Perspectives. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 216.
62. Shenoy, V.; Mahendher, S.; Vijay, N. COVID 19 Lockdown Technology Adaption, Teaching, Learning, Students Engagement and
Faculty Experience. Mukt Shabd J. 2020, 9, 698–702.
63. Nixon, E.; Trickey, A.; Christensen, H.; Finn, A.; Thomas, A.; Relton, C.; Montgomery, C.; Hemani, G.; Metz, J.; Walker, T.K.; et al.
Contacts and behaviours of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic at the start of the 2020/2021 academic year. Sci.
Rep. 2021, 11, 11728. [CrossRef]
64. Qiao, P.; Zhu, X.; Guo, Y.; Sun, Y.; Qin, C. The Development and Adoption of Online Learning in Pre- and Post-COVID-19:
Combination of Technological System Evolution Theory and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. J. Risk Financ.
Manag. 2021, 14, 16.
65. Elzainy, A.; El Sadik, A.; Al Abdulmonem, W. Experience of e-learning and online assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic at
the College of Medicine, Qassim University. J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci. 2020, 15, 456–462. [CrossRef]
66. Vázquez-Sánchez, A.; Cruz-Villar, C.A.; Delgado, F.; Chávez-Alcaraz, E.; Chong-Quero, J.E. Statistical modelling of factor analysis
to set causals of hybrid learning success during Covid-19 lockdown. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, in press.
67. ITESM. Undergraduate Programs. Available online: http://sitios.itesm.mx/va/planes_de_estudio/2_1EN.htm (accessed on 9
September 2020). [CrossRef] [PubMed]