78. Melegrito M, Callao R. The challenges and opportunities of flexible learning in the Philippines: A case study of a Philippine university. J Educ Technol Dev Exch. 2021;14(1):1-15.

79. Lee J, Choi M. Online learning in South Korea during the pandemic: Challenges and opportunities. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2020;21(3):233-45.

80. Al-Emran M, Elsherif HM, Shaalan K. Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes using an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): Saudi Arabian universities case study. Educ Inf Technol. 2020;25(6):5263-84.

81. Khechine H, Guitouni H, Mellouli S. Challenges and opportunities of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Algerian higher education. J Educ Technol Dev Exch. 2021;14(1):17-30.

82. Wong LH, Looi CK, Shang F. Digital technology and education in the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study of Singapore. J Educ Technol Dev Exch. 2020;13(2):1-14.

83. Adesoji FA, Olatunbosun TH. Flexible learning in Nigeria during COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and prospects. J Educ Technol Dev Exch. 2021;14(1):31-44.

84. Sajid AR, Ali MA, Khan MA. Challenges and opportunities of online learning; 2021.

85. during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan: A case study of a Pakistani university. J Educ Technol Dev Exch;14(1):16-30.

86. Khurana P, Arora S, Kakkar K. Flexible learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A study of challenges and opportunities in Indian higher education. J Educ Technol Dev Exch. 2021;14(1):45-57.

87. Tomaevi I. COVID-19 and the move to online teaching: What happened and what's next? Int J Educ Technol Higher Educ. 2020;17(1):1-14.

88. Aguiling-Dalisay G. Assessment in Philippine colleges and universities: Status, challenges, and future directions. Philipp J Educ. 2016;95(2):23-47.

89. Bakkenes I. Assessment literacy and teacher education: A review of research and practice. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2018;25(5):503-18.

90. Carless D. Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge; 2015.

91. Hargreaves A, Fullan M. Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teacher's College Press; 2012.

92. Zhu C, Wong AFL. Enhancing higher education teaching and learning with feedback. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2018; 43(8):1259-71.

93. Gravett S, Kinchin IM, Wills S. Aligning assessment tasks with learning outcomes: The effect on the validity and reliability of assessment. Higher Educ. 2020;79(2):331-49.

94. Hodge ER, Becker KA. Exam wrappers as a tool to improve metacognition and performance in a large introductory biology course. CBE—Life. Sci Educ. 2020; 19(2):ar20.

95. Leung SS, Chu SKW. The role of formative assessment in promoting self-regulated learning: A case study of a Hong Kong school. Educ Assess Eval Acc. 2021;33:1-7.

96. Williams EA, Imig SR. Raising student engagement in online courses with proctoring and formative feedback. J Educ Bus. 2021;96(1):7-13.

97. Javier RB, delos Reyes LV, Reyes PD. Teachers' perception of the use of rubrics as an assessment tool in selected courses in a state university in the Philippines. J Educ Sci Pract. 2019;2(2):84-99.

98. Mateo MJ, Alfonso LR, Querijero RB. Understanding assessment literacy of teachers in the K to 12 curriculum: A case study. Asia Pac J Multidiscip Res. 2018;6(4):51-60.

99. Kaur S, Sidhu GK. Challenges in creating authentic assessment: A case study of EFL teachers in Malaysia. Int J Asian Soc Sci. 2019;9(7):346-55.

100. Khan AM, Ahmad R. Challenges faced by teachers in the assessment of students' learning in Pakistan. Int J Learn Teach Educ Res. 2019;18(9):75-90.

101. Adoniou M, Zbaracki M. Criteria for success: the use of assessment criteria to improve the quality of assessment and student learning outcomes. Aust J Teach Educ. 2019;44(7):23-40.

102. Ren L, Ma J. Chinese EFL teachers' difficulties in assessment: A case study of a senior high school in Beijing. Indonesian J Appl Linguist. 2019;9(3):746-55.

103. Prabawa RS, Habibie I. Teachers' competence in developing authentic
assessment in Indonesian primary schools.
J Educ Learn. 2019;8(3):178-85.

104. Wiggins G, McTighe J. Understanding by design framework. expanded 2nd ed. ASCD; 2018.

105. Black P, William D. Developing and using assessment rubrics. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2018;37(4):3-4.

106. Adawiyah WR. Obstacles in adopting performance-based evaluation: EFL teachers' perspectives. Indonesian J Appl Linguist. 2019;8(2):424-31.

107. Agawa AA, Singh P. Implementation of performance-based assessment in Malaysian schools: an exploratory case study. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2017;26(5): 277-86.

108. Akpovire EO. An evaluation of the implementation of performance assessment in English language classroom in Nigerian secondary schools. J Lang Teach Res. 2018;9(3):594-603.

109. Bautista MG. Challenges of using performance tasks in the Philippines. J Lang Teach Res. 2019;10(6):1196-202.

110. Chan KKH, So WMW. Measuring and giving feedback on students' learning outcomes through performance-based assessment in Hong Kong primary schools. In: Assessment practices in science education. Singapore: Springer. 2018;163-83.

111. Flores CR, Padilla RM. The use of performance tasks in Mexican classrooms: Teachers' perspectives. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev. 2018;20(1):69-84.

112. Gao J, Chen C. Teacher perspectives on performance-based assessment in Chinese classrooms. Educ Assess Eval Acc. 2020;32(3):325-41.

113. Hsu CC, Lin SW. The implementation of performance-based assessment in Taiwanese classrooms: challenges and implications. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2019;28(2):123-32.

114. Lee SY, Yoo HJ. The challenges of adopting performance-based assessment in South Korean classrooms. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2017;26(1-2):79-87.

115. Nsengiyumva B. Teachers' perspectives on performance-based assessment in Rwanda classrooms. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol. 2018;14(2):47-57.

116. Suhartini T, Fitriyani NL. Challenges in assessing performance tasks: teacher

perspectives. J Phys Conf S. 2021;1781(1): 012087.

117. Oyekanmi BA, Yusuf HO, Oyekanmi MO. Teachers' challenges in assessing performance tasks in vocational and technical education. Int J Tech Vocat Educ. 2021;3(2):36-45.

118. Cizek GJ, Bunch MB. Performance assessment: current challenges and future directions. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2021;40(1):5-14.

119. Hlalele D, Ntshangase SN, Ndebele C. Assessment practices among technical and vocational education and training college lecturers in South Africa: challenges and possible solutions. S Afr J Educ. 2021;41(3):1-10.

120. Hirabayashi Y, Kikuchi K, Yokoyama S. Japanese teachers' understanding of performance assessments and their challenges. J Educ Res. 2021;114(1):71-80.

121. Pew Research Center. Social media usage: 2005-2014; 2014. Available:https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/01/09/social-media-usage-2005-2014/

122. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging. 2013;28(2):333-52.
DOI: 10.1037/a0030891

123. Mitzner, Fausset CB, Adams AE, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit JTL. Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(6):1710-21.
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.009

124. Morris ME. Technology access and use among older adults with health conditions: Implications for health management. In: Spooren PR, Lapsley DK, editors. Advancements in the philosophy of design. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 2019;87-101.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5854-6.ch005

125. Beijaard D. Digital competence and professional development: Editorial introduction to the special issue. J Comput Assist Learn. 2015;31(5):427-30.
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12118

126. Oplatka I, Arviv-Elyashiv R. Time management and work-family balance among academic faculty: The case of
assessment in Indonesian primary schools.
J Educ Learn. 2019;8(3):178-85.

104. Wiggins G, McTighe J. Understanding by design framework. expanded 2nd ed. ASCD; 2018.

105. Black P, William D. Developing and using assessment rubrics. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2018;37(4):3-4.

106. Adawiyah WR. Obstacles in adopting performance-based evaluation: EFL teachers' perspectives. Indonesian J Appl Linguist. 2019;8(2):424-31.

107. Agawa AA, Singh P. Implementation of performance-based assessment in Malaysian schools: an exploratory case study. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2017;26(5): 277-86.

108. Akpovire EO. An evaluation of the implementation of performance assessment in English language classroom in Nigerian secondary schools. J Lang Teach Res. 2018;9(3):594-603.

109. Bautista MG. Challenges of using performance tasks in the Philippines. J Lang Teach Res. 2019;10(6):1196-202.

110. Chan KKH, So WMW. Measuring and giving feedback on students' learning outcomes through performance-based assessment in Hong Kong primary schools. In: Assessment practices in science education. Singapore: Springer. 2018;163-83.

111. Flores CR, Padilla RM. The use of performance tasks in Mexican classrooms: Teachers' perspectives. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev. 2018;20(1):69-84.

112. Gao J, Chen C. Teacher perspectives on performance-based assessment in Chinese classrooms. Educ Assess Eval Acc. 2020;32(3):325-41.

113. Hsu CC, Lin SW. The implementation of performance-based assessment in Taiwanese classrooms: challenges and implications. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2019;28(2):123-32.

114. Lee SY, Yoo HJ. The challenges of adopting performance-based assessment in South Korean classrooms. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2017;26(1-2):79-87.

115. Nsengiyumva B. Teachers' perspectives on performance-based assessment in Rwanda classrooms. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol. 2018;14(2):47-57.

116. Suhartini T, Fitriyani NL. Challenges in assessing performance tasks: teacher

perspectives. J Phys Conf S. 2021;1781(1): 012087.

117. Oyekanmi BA, Yusuf HO, Oyekanmi MO. Teachers' challenges in assessing performance tasks in vocational and technical education. Int J Tech Vocat Educ. 2021;3(2):36-45.

118. Cizek GJ, Bunch MB. Performance assessment: current challenges and future directions. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2021;40(1):5-14.

119. Hlalele D, Ntshangase SN, Ndebele C. Assessment practices among technical and vocational education and training college lecturers in South Africa: challenges and possible solutions. S Afr J Educ. 2021;41(3):1-10.

120. Hirabayashi Y, Kikuchi K, Yokoyama S. Japanese teachers' understanding of performance assessments and their challenges. J Educ Res. 2021;114(1):71-80.

121. Pew Research Center. Social media usage: 2005-2014; 2014. Available:https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/01/09/social-media-usage-2005-2014/

122. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging. 2013;28(2):333-52.
DOI: 10.1037/a0030891

123. Mitzner, Fausset CB, Adams AE, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit JTL. Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(6):1710-21.
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.009

124. Morris ME. Technology access and use among older adults with health conditions: Implications for health management. In: Spooren PR, Lapsley DK, editors. Advancements in the philosophy of design. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 2019;87-101.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5854-6.ch005

125. Beijaard D. Digital competence and professional development: Editorial introduction to the special issue. J Comput Assist Learn. 2015;31(5):427-30.
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12118

126. Oplatka I, Arviv-Elyashiv R. Time management and work-family balance among academic faculty: The case of
Israeli institutions of higher
education. J Educ Work. 2017;30(7):694-
706.

DOI: 10.1080/13639080.2017.1343483

127. Van den Berg E, Hofman WHA. Innovation in teaching: exploring the knowledge bases of senior university lecturers. Higher Educ Res Dev. 2017;36(4):678-91.

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1258776

128. Kim M, Lee E. Work satisfaction and motivation of older workers in the United States: A comparative analysis. J Employ Couns. 2018;55(3):119-33.

DOI: 10.1002/joec.12085

129. Oztok M, Brett C. Social presence and participation in asynchronous online courses: How gender and personality matter. J Educ Comput Res. 2011;44(2): 167-92.

130. Foulger TS. Gender and digital divides in teacher self-efficacy and their relationship to technology integration. J Educ Comput Res. 2016;54(4):525-44.

131. Al-Fudail M, Mellar H. Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Comput Educ. 2008;51(3):1103-10.

DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.004

132. Ertmer PA. Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. J Res Technol Educ. 2012;44(1):1-23.

133. Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT. Teacher technology change: Moving beyond "death by PowerPoint". Educ Technol Res Dev. 2010;58(2):229-43.

134. Zhao Y, Frank KA. Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. Am Educ Res J. 2003; 40(4):807-40.

DOI: 10.3102/00028312040004807

135. Guglielmino LM, Guglielmino PJ, Long TD. Identifying the factors that predict difficulties with time management among higher education instructors. J Coll Teach Learn. 2013;10(2):117-26.

136. Beijaard D, Meijer PC, Verloop N. Reconsidering research on teachers' professional identity. Teach Teach Educ. 2004;20(2):107-28.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001

137. Lim CP, Hang D. Digital game-based learning (DGBL) in primary and secondary education: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educ Res Rev. 2016;18: 133-51.

138. Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec. 2006;108(6):1017-54.

139. Chen SW, Kao CP. A study on the technology competence and the levels of information literacy for the teacher. J Educ Learn. 2012;1(2):23-34.

140. Wu CC, Huang YM. Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Teach Teach Educ. 2010;26(4): 964-70.

141. Borman GD, Dowling NM. Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(3):367-409.

DOI: 10.3102/0034654308321455.

142. Kyriacou C. Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educ Rev. 2001;53(1):27-35.

DOI: 10.1080/00131910120033628

143. Darling-Hammond L. Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2000;8(1):1-44.

144. Hanushek EA, Kain JF, Rivkin SG. Quality in the classroom. Handb Econ Educ. 2015;5:89-200.

145. Muijs D, Reynolds D. Effective teaching: evidence and practice. Sage Publications; 2011.

146. Magno C. Measuring teaching effectiveness in the Philippine tertiary education using the students' evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Asian Soc Sci. 2014;10(8):124-33.

147. Flores MA, Jacinto H. Teachers' assessment practices: The case of primary education in Portugal. Educ Assess Eval Acc. 2018;30(2):145-69.

148. Hattie J. The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Sch Teach Learn Psychol. 2015;1(1):79-91.

DOI: 10.1037/stl00000021

149. Dee TS. Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. J Hum Resour. 2004;39(3):1-24.

150. Sass TR, Dickson LL, Hannaway J. The effects of teacher gender on student achievement in elementary and high school: evidence from a randomized experiment. J Hum Resour. 2016;51(4): 1010-37.

151. Lieberman A, Miller L. Teacher leadership as a catalyst for educational change. In: Murphy J, Louis KS, editors. Handbook of
Israeli institutions of higher
education. J Educ Work. 2017;30(7):694-
706.

DOI: 10.1080/13639080.2017.1343483

127. Van den Berg E, Hofman WHA. Innovation in teaching: exploring the knowledge bases of senior university lecturers. Higher Educ Res Dev. 2017;36(4):678-91.

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1258776

128. Kim M, Lee E. Work satisfaction and motivation of older workers in the United States: A comparative analysis. J Employ Couns. 2018;55(3):119-33.

DOI: 10.1002/joec.12085

129. Oztok M, Brett C. Social presence and participation in asynchronous online courses: How gender and personality matter. J Educ Comput Res. 2011;44(2): 167-92.

130. Foulger TS. Gender and digital divides in teacher self-efficacy and their relationship to technology integration. J Educ Comput Res. 2016;54(4):525-44.

131. Al-Fudail M, Mellar H. Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Comput Educ. 2008;51(3):1103-10.

DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.004

132. Ertmer PA. Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. J Res Technol Educ. 2012;44(1):1-23.

133. Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT. Teacher technology change: Moving beyond "death by PowerPoint". Educ Technol Res Dev. 2010;58(2):229-43.

134. Zhao Y, Frank KA. Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. Am Educ Res J. 2003; 40(4):807-40.

DOI: 10.3102/00028312040004807

135. Guglielmino LM, Guglielmino PJ, Long TD. Identifying the factors that predict difficulties with time management among higher education instructors. J Coll Teach Learn. 2013;10(2):117-26.

136. Beijaard D, Meijer PC, Verloop N. Reconsidering research on teachers' professional identity. Teach Teach Educ. 2004;20(2):107-28.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001

137. Lim CP, Hang D. Digital game-based learning (DGBL) in primary and secondary education: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educ Res Rev. 2016;18: 133-51.

138. Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec. 2006;108(6):1017-54.

139. Chen SW, Kao CP. A study on the technology competence and the levels of information literacy for the teacher. J Educ Learn. 2012;1(2):23-34.

140. Wu CC, Huang YM. Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Teach Teach Educ. 2010;26(4): 964-70.

141. Borman GD, Dowling NM. Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(3):367-409.

DOI: 10.3102/0034654308321455.

142. Kyriacou C. Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educ Rev. 2001;53(1):27-35.

DOI: 10.1080/00131910120033628

143. Darling-Hammond L. Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2000;8(1):1-44.

144. Hanushek EA, Kain JF, Rivkin SG. Quality in the classroom. Handb Econ Educ. 2015;5:89-200.

145. Muijs D, Reynolds D. Effective teaching: evidence and practice. Sage Publications; 2011.

146. Magno C. Measuring teaching effectiveness in the Philippine tertiary education using the students' evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Asian Soc Sci. 2014;10(8):124-33.

147. Flores MA, Jacinto H. Teachers' assessment practices: The case of primary education in Portugal. Educ Assess Eval Acc. 2018;30(2):145-69.

148. Hattie J. The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Sch Teach Learn Psychol. 2015;1(1):79-91.

DOI: 10.1037/stl00000021

149. Dee TS. Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. J Hum Resour. 2004;39(3):1-24.

150. Sass TR, Dickson LL, Hannaway J. The effects of teacher gender on student achievement in elementary and high school: evidence from a randomized experiment. J Hum Resour. 2016;51(4): 1010-37.

151. Lieberman A, Miller L. Teacher leadership as a catalyst for educational change. In: Murphy J, Louis KS, editors. Handbook of
research on educational. Administration.
Routledge. 2011;399-413.

152. Cruz JD. Instructional challenges encountered by social science teachers in the Cordillera Administrative Region, Philippines. Int J Soc Sci Bus. 2020; 4(2):15-24.

153. Lim CP, Chai CS. Teachers' pedagogical reasoning and ICT use: A review. Educ Technol Soc. 2017;20(2):74-84.

154. Wang X, Chen Y, Liang J. The effects of teacher professional development on technology integration: A meta-analysis. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2021;69(1):1-5.

155. Graham S, Perin D. Writing next: effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education; 2007.

156. Oyserman D, Destin M. Identity-based motivation: implications for intervention. Couns Psychol. 2010;38(7):1001-43.
DOI: 10.1177/0011000010374775, PMID
21516204

157. Kong Q, Song Y. Development of an adaptive learning system for learners with different learning styles. Interact Learn Environ. 2019;27(6):793-807.

158. Zhang H, Shi X, Xue Z, Wang X. Teaching and learning in the era of Industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities. Educ Sci Theor Pract. 2021;21(2):72-92.

159. Black P, William D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 1998;5(1):7-74.
DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102

160. Brookhart SM. How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD; 2013.

161. Andrade H. Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educ Leadersh. 2000;57(5):13-8.

162. Reddy YM, Andrade H. A review of rubric use in higher education. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2010;35(4):435-48.
DOI: 10.1080/02602930902862859

163. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon. 2001;9(5):1-6.

164. Warschauer M, Matuchniak T. New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ. 2010;34(1):179-225.
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X09349791

165. Roig M. Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria for the differentiation of questionable versus unacceptable paraphrasing. Teach Psychol. 2001;28(2):108-10.

166. Vaknin S. The plagiarist's worst nightmare. Psychol Today. 2003;36(3):60-1.

167. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112.
DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487

168. Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud Higher Educ. 2006;31(2):199-218.
DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090

169. Hsin YC, Cigas J. Exploring teachers' perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instr Sci. 2013;41(5):1091-115.

170. Meyer KA, Rose DH. Universal design for learning: applying principles to technology. J Spec Educ Technol. 2011;26(4):1-14.

171. Barron AE, Orwig CJ. Exploring online mentoring experiences: types of mentoring support and ICT use by novice teachers. J Educ Res. 2015;108(2):111-21.

172. Cohen LE, Felson M. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev. 1979;44(4):588-608.
DOI: 10.2307/2094589

173. Kang M. Job stress and work engagement among teachers in the Philippines. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2016;17(3):447-58.

174. Carless D, Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2018;43(8):1315-25.
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

175. Warschauer M, Matuchniak T. New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ. 2010;34(1):179-225.
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X09349791

176. Baker JW. The network society: social aspects of new media. Routledge; 2015.

177. Halverson R, Smith A. How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. J Comput Teach Educ. 2009;26(2):49-54.
research on educational. Administration. Routledge. 2011;399-413.

152. Cruz JD. Instructional challenges encountered by social science teachers in the Cordillera Administrative Region, Philippines. Int J Soc Sci Bus. 2020; 4(2):15-24.

153. Lim CP, Chai CS. Teachers' pedagogical reasoning and ICT use: A review. Educ Technol Soc. 2017;20(2):74-84.

154. Wang X, Chen Y, Liang J. The effects of teacher professional development on technology integration: A meta-analysis. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2021;69(1):1-5.

155. Graham S, Perin D. Writing next: effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education; 2007.

156. Oyserman D, Destin M. Identity-based motivation: implications for intervention. Couns Psychol. 2010;38(7):1001-43.
DOI: 10.1177/0011000010374775, PMID: 21516204

157. Kong Q, Song Y. Development of an adaptive learning system for learners with different learning styles. Interact Learn Environ. 2019;27(6):793-807.

158. Zhang H, Shi X, Xue Z, Wang X. Teaching and learning in the era of Industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities. Educ Sci Theor Pract. 2021;21(2):72-92.

159. Black P, William D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 1998;5(1):7-74.
DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102

160. Brookhart SM. How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD; 2013.

161. Andrade H. Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educ Leadersh. 2000;57(5):13-8.

162. Reddy YM, Andrade H. A review of rubric use in higher education. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2010;35(4):435-48.
DOI: 10.1080/02602930902862859

163. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon. 2001;9(5):1-6.

164. Warschauer M, Matuchniak T. New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ. 2010;34(1):179-225.
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X09349791

165. Roig M. Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria for the differentiation of questionable versus unacceptable paraphrasing. Teach Psychol. 2001;28(2):108-10.

166. Vaknin S. The plagiarist's worst nightmare. Psychol Today. 2003;36(3):60-1.

167. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112.
DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487

168. Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud Higher Educ. 2006;31(2):199-218.
DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090

169. Hsin YC, Cigas J. Exploring teachers' perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instr Sci. 2013;41(5):1091-115.

170. Meyer KA, Rose DH. Universal design for learning: applying principles to technology. J Spec Educ Technol. 2011;26(4):1-14.

171. Barron AE, Orwig CJ. Exploring online mentoring experiences: types of mentoring support and ICT use by novice teachers. J Educ Res. 2015;108(2):111-21.

172. Cohen LE, Felson M. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev. 1979;44(4):588-608.
DOI: 10.2307/2094589

173. Kang M. Job stress and work engagement among teachers in the Philippines. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2016;17(3):447-58.

174. Carless D, Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2018;43(8):1315-25.
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

175. Warschauer M, Matuchniak T. New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ. 2010;34(1):179-225.
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X09349791

176. Baker JW. The network society: social aspects of new media. Routledge; 2015.

177. Halverson R, Smith A. How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. J Comput Teach Educ. 2009;26(2):49-54.
178. Pugach MC. The education of students with disabilities: where do we stand? Future Child. 2005;15(1):13-42.

179. Warger CL, Ross J. Preparing special education teachers for inclusive classrooms: A synthesis of the research. Teach Educ Spec Educ. 2018;41(1): 26-39.

180. Margolis J, Fisher A. Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. MIT press; 2002.

181. Salinas J, Li Y. Gender differences in the use of technology in higher education. J Educ Comput Res. 2018;56(2):299-318.

182. Hamid S, Abdullah MC. Teachers' attitudes and levels of technology use in classrooms: The case of Jordan schools. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol. 2013;9(2):4-18.

183. Choi J. The effect of feedback types on Korean EFL learners' motivation, self-efficacy, and task performance. Lang Teach Res. 2021; 25(1):57-77.

184. Yun H, Hwang M. A Study on the teacher's beliefs and instructional strategies about student's creativity. J Educ Technol. 2019;35(3):365-86.

© 2023 Mabborang et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:

The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:

https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/98989
178. Pugach MC. The education of students with disabilities: where do we stand? Future Child. 2005;15(1):13-42.

179. Warger CL, Ross J. Preparing special education teachers for inclusive classrooms: A synthesis of the research. Teach Educ Spec Educ. 2018;41(1): 26-39.

180. Margolis J, Fisher A. Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. MIT press; 2002.

181. Salinas J, Li Y. Gender differences in the use of technology in higher education. J Educ Comput Res. 2018;56(2):299-318.

182. Hamid S, Abdullah MC. Teachers' attitudes and levels of technology use in classrooms: The case of Jordan schools. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol. 2013;9(2):4-18.

183. Choi J. The effect of feedback types on Korean EFL learners' motivation, self-efficacy, and task performance. Lang Teach Res. 2021; 25(1):57-77.

184. Yun H, Hwang M. A Study on the teacher's beliefs and instructional strategies about student's creativity. J Educ Technol. 2019;35(3):365-86.

© 2023 Mabborang et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/98989