Exploring the Effectiveness of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADMs) in Ensuring Academic Success During Disruptive Classes: Challenges, Opportunities, and Institutional Support

Exploring the Effectiveness of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADMs) in Ensuring Academic Success During Disruptive Classes: Challenges, Opportunities, and Institutional Support

Christine Mae E. Hernando., Melvine Ganal Valdez., Regie Boy Fabro., Shiella Mae G. Juan., Melchor S. Castro., Johnson Modesto A. Blanco., Alma C. Asuncion

College of Teacher Education, Mariano Marcos State University, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000455

Received: 10 August 2025; Accepted: 16 August 2025; Published: 16 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Disruptive events such as pandemics and natural disasters have necessitated the adoption of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADMs) to sustain education, particularly for college students in Teacher Education Institutions. This study investigates the preferences, challenges, and institutional support roles associated with ADM during disruptive classes. Using descriptive research methods, data were collected from teacher education students through surveys and analyzed to identify key trends and insights.

Findings reveal that students favor online synchronous and asynchronous learning sessions due to their flexibility and accessibility. However, significant challenges were identified, including unstable internet connectivity, distractions at home, lack of real-time feedback, and difficulty in maintaining motivation. The study also highlights the critical role of institutions in providing technological resources, accessible learning materials, and fostering effective student-teacher interactions to address these barriers.

The study emphasize the need for tailored ADM strategies that prioritize inclusivity, engagement, and equity. Institutions must invest in robust technological infrastructure and develop student-centered approaches to overcome challenges. Furthermore, policymakers are urged to allocate resources to bridge the digital divide and enhance ADM implementation. This study contributes valuable insights to the evolving landscape of education delivery and offers recommendations for improving ADM strategies, particularly within Teacher Education Institutions. By addressing the challenges and leveraging institutional support, stakeholders can ensure that students receive quality education despite disruptions.

Keywords: Alternative Delivery Modes, Teacher Education, Disruptive Classes, Online Learning, Educational Challenges

INTRODUCTION

“Does learning have to stop when schools close during emergencies?” This question has become increasingly relevant in recent years as global disruptions have challenged the traditional delivery of education. According to Hodges et al. [16] and UNESCO [28], ensuring educational continuity during crises often requires the adoption of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADM). ADM represents a collection of adaptive and innovative teaching strategies designed to sustain learning when face-to-face instruction is disrupted. These strategies include printed modules, e-learning materials, asynchronous and synchronous online sessions, blended learning, radio- and TV-based instruction, and other distance education methods [17]. ADM is particularly critical during times of pandemic, social unrest, natural disasters, or institutional challenges, which threaten the continuity of academic activities.

The COVID-19 pandemic, one of the most significant disruptions in recent history, led to widespread school closures and a shift toward remote learning [13]. Similarly, social unrest, such as political disputes and demonstrations, often creates unsafe environments that force institutions to suspend classes [29]. These disruptions not only limit access to structured academic instruction but also hinder face-to-face interactions with teachers, resulting in learning gaps, reduced motivation, and difficulties in meeting academic requirements [18]. For students in Teacher Education Institutions, these challenges are particularly concerning, as practical teaching experiences and fieldwork are integral components of their academic programs [34].

The adoption of ADM has become essential in maintaining educational continuity during such disruptions. As noted by Moser et al. [21], the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need to rethink instructional delivery and develop adaptable systems capable of adjusting to crises. ADM ensures that students continue their education by securing instructional delivery and minimizing learning losses [12], [28]. Moreover, ADM provides inclusive, flexible, and accessible learning opportunities, allowing students to work through lessons at their own pace [11]. This flexibility is critical in addressing the diverse needs of learners and mitigating academic setbacks caused by disruptions [13], [26].

Despite its benefits, implementing ADM poses significant challenges for both students and institutions. Limited access to reliable internet connectivity and digital devices often restricts students’ ability to participate in remote learning [24]. Financial constraints further exacerbate these issues, particularly for students from low-income families [8]. Additionally, unsuitable home environments and a lack of digital literacy hinder students’ ability to engage effectively in ADM-based learning [18]. For institutions, transitioning to ADM requires substantial resources and infrastructure, which are often lacking, especially in developing countries [8]. Teachers, too, face difficulties in integrating technology into their lessons, leaving them unprepared for the abrupt shift to remote learning [2].

These challenges raise concerns about the effectiveness of ADM in maintaining the quality of education. As Villanueva and Buenbrazo [30] observed, tracking student progress and maintaining regular communication in remote learning environments remain significant barriers. Furthermore, while ADM has been widely implemented to address learning continuity, there is limited research evaluating its long-term impact on academic success. Much of the existing literature focuses on the existence of ADM rather than its effectiveness in achieving educational outcomes during disruptions [3], [8]. Additionally, the role of institutional support in facilitating successful ADM implementation remains underexplored [19], [23].

This study aims to bridge these gaps by examining the effectiveness of ADM in ensuring academic success for college students in Teacher Education Institutions during disruptive classes. It explores the challenges faced by students and institutions, the role of institutional support, and the extent to which ADM addresses learning gaps and sustains educational continuity. By providing a comprehensive analysis, this study seeks to contribute valuable insights to the evolving landscape of education delivery in times of crisis.

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Design

This study employed a descriptive research design to investigate the role of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADM) in ensuring academic success during disruptive classes. The design focused on collecting and analyzing data to describe the preferences, challenges, and institutional support associated with ADM implementation. A survey methodology was utilized to gather quantitative data from teacher education students, allowing for the identification of trends in their experiences and perceptions of ADM strategies. Additionally, qualitative data were collected through open-ended survey responses to provide richer insights into the specific challenges faced by students and their perspectives on institutional support mechanisms.

The descriptive research design was chosen for its ability to systematically capture and summarize observable phenomena without manipulating variables, making it ideal for understanding the multifaceted nature of ADM during disruptions. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative data, the study provided a comprehensive view of how ADM strategies influence student engagement, accessibility, and academic performance in challenging educational environments. This approach enabled the identification of actionable insights that can inform policy recommendations and institutional practices for improving ADM implementation.

Locale of the Study

The research was conducted in a Teacher Education Institution (TEI) within the sole public state university located in the province of Ilocos Norte. This TEI is recognized as a Center of Excellence in Teacher Education, as mandated by the Teacher Education Council (TEC), the body authorized to designate Centers of Excellence in Teacher Education under Republic Act No. 11713. Its designation as a Center of Excellence reflects its commitment to producing highly competent educators, fostering innovative teaching practices, and contributing to the advancement of education both regionally and nationally.

This TEI was selected as the locale of the study because it is one of the major Teacher Education Institutions in the country, renowned for producing top graduates and quality educators who significantly contribute to the teaching profession nationwide. As a Center of Excellence, the institution plays a pivotal role in advancing teacher education through innovative practices and adaptive strategies, including the implementation of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADM), which are critical during periods of class disruption. Furthermore, its adherence to CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 4, Series of 2020, which provides guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning in higher education institutions, highlights its proactive efforts in addressing educational challenges. The TEI’s established infrastructure, institutional support, and reputation for academic excellence provide a rich and ideal context for investigating the effectiveness of ADM in promoting academic success during disruptive classes.

Population and Sampling Procedures

The population of the study consisted of college students enrolled in the Teacher Education Institution (TEI) within the sole public state university in Ilocos Norte during SY 2024-2025. Disruptive classes refer to instances where normal face-to-face academic activities are interrupted due to unforeseen events such as natural calamities, college events, or other emergencies, necessitating the use of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADM) to ensure the continuity of learning, as stated in the revised learning continuity plan of the university. These students were selected as the target population because they represent a diverse group actively engaged in ADM strategies during this challenging academic period.

Table I Demographic Profile Of The Respondents

The study employed purposive sampling to select participants who could provide relevant and insightful contributions to the research questions. The criteria for selecting the target participants included the following: (1) students who were officially enrolled in the TEI during SY 2024-2025, (2) students who actively engaged in ADM strategies during the period of disruptive classes, (3) students from various year levels and academic programs to ensure diversity in perspectives, and (4) students who experienced challenges and institutional support related to ADM implementation. This sampling approach yielded a total of 300 students who participated in the research study as shown in Table I.

This approach ensured the inclusion of participants who had direct and meaningful experiences with ADM during the period of disruptive classes. Given these criteria, the study was able to gather rich data on the effectiveness of ADM strategies, the challenges encountered, and the role of institutional support in facilitating ADM, providing a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Research Instrument                                               

The study utilized a researcher-made survey questionnaire and semi-structured interview guide as the primary data-gathering instruments, both of which were developed based on an extensive literature review and aligned with the research questions. The survey questionnaire was divided into four main sections to comprehensively address the objectives of the study.

Part I focused on the demographic profile of the respondents, gathering basic information such as age, gender, year level, and academic program. This section utilized a checklist format allowing respondents to select their appropriate responses from the provided options.

Part II explored the Alternative Delivery Mode (ADM) strategies adopted by students during disruptive classes. A checklist was used to identify the specific ADM strategies utilized by students, enabling the researchers to measure the frequency of these strategies. Part III assessed the effectiveness of ADM in promoting academic success. This section employed a 4-point Likert scale with the following interpretation: 3.75–4.00 as Most Effective, 2.50–3.74 as Effective, 1.50–2.49 as Slightly Effective, and 1.00–1.49 as Least Effective. Mean scores were calculated to evaluate students’ perceptions of how ADM contributed to their learning outcomes.

Part IV identified the challenges encountered by students in ADM implementation and assessed the role of institutional support in facilitating ADM during disruptive classes. This section included two checklist formats: one to identify common challenges encountered by students and another to assess institutional support provided during disruptive classes. Open-ended questions were also included to capture unique experiences and perspectives.

To complement the quantitative data, a semi-structured interview guide was developed to collect qualitative data, allowing the researchers to delve deeper into the students’ experiences. The interview questions were designed to explore specific ADM strategies, challenges faced, and the extent of institutional support provided during disruptive classes, providing richer insights into the issues at hand.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the instruments, the survey questionnaire and interview guide underwent content validation by a panel of experts, including three educators, three research experts, and three instructional designers. A pilot test was conducted with 30 students who were not part of the actual study sample, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.87, indicating high reliability. The final instruments were administered in both digital and printed formats to ensure accessibility to all participants.

Data Gathering Procedures

The researchers employed a systematic approach in collecting data for this study. A formal request letter was addressed to the Dean of the college to seek approval for the conduct of the survey among the target population. Once approval was granted, the survey questionnaire was distributed using both online and face-to-face methods to ensure accessibility and inclusivity.

For the online distribution, the questionnaire link was shared via Google Forms through various social media platforms such as Facebook, Messenger, and email. A cover letter was attached, explaining the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and the assurance of confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. For face-to-face distribution, printed copies of the questionnaire were handed out to students during scheduled vacant hours or institutional activities, ensuring that participants had sufficient time to complete the survey. The researchers provided respondents with a three-month period to accomplish the questionnaire, during which regular follow-ups were conducted through social media posts, personal messages, and reminders during institutional activities to encourage participation and ensure a high response rate. Once the data collection period was completed, online responses were automatically recorded in Google Forms, while printed responses were manually encoded into a spreadsheet for organization and statistical analysis. This systematic process ensured the accuracy and reliability of the data gathered for the study.

Statistical Treatment                                   

The data gathered underwent a systematic process to ensure accuracy and reliability in analysis. Data cleansing was performed to remove incomplete responses and invalid entries, ensuring a clean dataset for statistical treatment. The organized data were initially processed using Microsoft Excel and then transferred to Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 for advanced statistical analysis.

Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts and percentages were used to analyze the first part which is the demographic profile of the respondents, including age, gender, year level, and academic program. For Part II, which explored the ADM strategies adopted by students, frequency counts and percentages were computed to determine the prevalence of specific ADM strategies.

In Part III, which assessed the effectiveness of ADM in promoting academic success, mean scores and standard deviations were calculated based on a 4-point Likert scale: 3.75–4.00 (Most Effective), 2.50–3.74 (Effective), 1.50–2.49 (Slightly Effective), and 1.00–1.49 (Least Effective). This quantified students’ perceptions of ADM’s contribution to their learning outcomes.

For Part IV, which identified challenges encountered in ADM implementation and assessed institutional support, frequency counts and percentages were used to determine the most common challenges faced by students.

The use of descriptive statistics allowed the researchers to address the research objectives comprehensively. The systematic application of SPSS for quantitative computations ensured the reliability and depth of the findings.

Ethical Consideration

The researchers adhered to strict ethical guidelines throughout the conduct of this study to ensure the protection of the rights and welfare of the participants. Prior to data collection, approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Dean of the college and other relevant authorities. Informed consent was secured from all participants, ensuring that they were fully aware of the purpose of the study, their voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw at any time without any repercussions.

A cover letter was included in the survey questionnaire, clearly explaining the objectives of the research, the confidentiality of their responses, and the measures taken to protect their anonymity. The researchers guaranteed that no identifying information would be disclosed, and all data gathered would be used solely for academic purposes. Furthermore, the study complied with the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy, ensuring that participants were not exposed to any harm or undue pressure during the research process. Ethical approval from the institutional ethics committee was also sought to ensure compliance with established ethical standards. This commitment to ethical considerations ensured the integrity of the study and the trust of the participants.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

ADM Strategies Adopted by College Students During Disruptive Classes

Table II presents the Alternative Delivery Mode (ADM) strategies adopted by students during disruptive classes. It appears that 266 respondents (ranked first) prefer online asynchronous learning sessions, making it the most widely adopted ADM strategy. This is followed by 239 respondents (ranked second) who utilize online synchronous learning sessions, emphasizing the importance of real-time interaction in virtual learning environments.

Additionally, 207 respondents (ranked third) rely on e-module materials, showcasing the significance of digital resources for independent learning. Meanwhile, 156 respondents (ranked fourth) favor printed modules, highlighting their relevance for students with limited access to technology or the internet.

Table Ii Adm Strategies Adopted By College Students During Disruptive Classes

Blended learning sessions are preferred by 142 respondents (ranked fifth), indicating a growing interest in combining face-to-face and online learning approaches. Flipped classrooms are utilized by 33 respondents (ranked sixth), while bichronous learning delivery, which combines synchronous and asynchronous methods, is adopted by 30 respondents (ranked seventh).

Traditional media-based strategies, such as TV-based instructions (21 respondents, ranked eighth) and radio-based instruction (3 respondents, ranked ninth), have the lowest adoption rates, reflecting their limited relevance in modern ADM contexts.

These findings align with existing research on Alternative Delivery Modes (ADM) and digital learning strategies. Adedoyin and Soykan [1] emphasize the importance of flexible and accessible learning options, such as asynchronous sessions and digital resources, which have been widely adopted during disruptive classes. Similarly, Dhawan [13] highlights the shift toward self-paced and technology-driven learning approaches as a response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The preference for asynchronous learning is further supported by Sakkir et al. [26], who found that students value the ability to manage their schedules and progress at their own pace in post-pandemic education. Chafouk and Marjanei [10] also demonstrated the positive impact of asynchronous and synchronous online learning on student retention and satisfaction.

The importance of synchronous learning for real-time interaction is corroborated by Wang, Wen, and Quek [32], who highlight its role in engaging learners and fostering active participation in virtual environments. Bernard et al. [6] advocate for integrating blended learning and flipped classrooms to diversify delivery modes and cater to varied student preferences. Despite their lower adoption rates, traditional media-based strategies, such as TV-based and radio-based instruction, remain relevant for students with limited access to technology, as noted by Dhawan [13].

These findings underscore the need for educational institutions to enhance asynchronous and synchronous platforms while investing in innovative strategies like blended learning to meet diverse learner needs. Comprehensive policies and support systems, as suggested by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) guidelines [11], are essential for ensuring the success of ADM implementation.

Effectiveness of ADMs in Promoting Academic Success Among College Students During Disruptive Classes

Table II presents the effectiveness of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADM) in promoting academic success among college students during disruptive classes, with mean ratings ranging from 1.84 to 3.12. The findings reveal that Online Asynchronous Learning Sessions and Online Synchronous Learning Sessions received the highest mean rating of 3.12, interpreted as “Effective.” These modes demonstrate their ability to support students’ academic success by providing flexible and interactive learning environments, even during challenging circumstances. Similarly, E-module Materials (M=2.80), Printed Modules (M=2.69), and Blended Learning Sessions (M=2.87) are also rated as “Effective,” highlighting their role in facilitating accessible and adaptable learning experiences.

Table Ii  Effectiveness Of Adms In Promoting Academic Success Among College Students During Disruptive Classes

Note: Descriptive Interpretation-DI, 3.75 – 4.00- Most Effective, 2.50 – 3.75 – Effective, 1.50 – 2.49 – Slightly Effective, 1.00 – 1.49 – Least Effective

On the other hand, strategies such as Flipped Classroom (M=2.29), Bichronous Learning Delivery (M=2.28), TV-based Instructions (M=2.08), and Radio-based Instruction (M=1.84) were rated as “Slightly Effective.” This suggests that while these methods may contribute to academic success, their impact is less pronounced compared to the more interactive and resource-rich delivery modes. The lower ratings for these strategies may reflect limitations in engagement, accessibility, or technological integration, which are critical for effective learning during disruptive classes.

These results imply that educational institutions should prioritize the implementation of highly rated ADM strategies, such as online asynchronous and synchronous sessions, while also addressing the gaps in less effective modes. Investments in technology infrastructure, teacher training, and curriculum development for ADM strategies can further enhance their effectiveness. Additionally, institutions should explore ways to improve the engagement and accessibility of strategies rated as “Slightly Effective,” ensuring a more comprehensive approach to academic success during disruptive periods.

The findings align with studies by Adedoyin and Soykan [1], and Dhawan [13] on the effectiveness of ADM strategies in higher education. They emphasize the importance of flexible and interactive learning environments in promoting academic success during disruptive events. For example, online asynchronous and synchronous sessions have been shown to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes due to their adaptability and accessibility [10], [32]. Meanwhile, the moderate effectiveness of TV-based and radio-based instructions reflects broader trends in educational technology adoption, where traditional methods are increasingly supplemented by more interactive and resource-rich delivery modes [14], [18]. This highlights the need for institutions to balance traditional and modern approaches to ensure equitable access to education during disruptive classes.

Challenges Faced by College Students in Engaging with ADMs During Disruptive Classes

Table III highlights the challenges college students face in engaging with ADMs during disruptive classes. The most significant challenge, ranked first with 264 respondents (88.00%), is unstable internet connectivity in remote areas. This finding underscores the critical need for reliable internet access, as students in remote locations face significant barriers to participating in ADM effectively. Previous studies have identified digital inequity as a major obstacle to online education [1], [8].

Ranked second, cited by 257 respondents (85.67%), is noise and distractions in shared living spaces, which highlights the difficulty students face in maintaining focus and concentration in environments not conducive to learning. Institutions should consider providing resources or tips to help students create effective learning spaces at home [12], [14].

Table Iii Challenges Faced By College Students In Engaging With Adms During Disruptive Classes

Note: f-frequency, %-percentage

The third-ranked challenge, with 180 respondents (60.00%), is limited opportunities for real-time feedback from professors. This suggests that students struggle with the lack of immediate support and clarification during online classes, which can hinder their understanding of concepts. Regular synchronous sessions and interactive platforms can help address this issue [19], [22].

Inadequate access to practical teaching experiences, ranked fourth with 167 respondents (55.67%), emphasizes the difficulty of replicating hands-on learning in virtual settings. This is particularly challenging for courses requiring laboratory work or field experiences, as noted in studies on remote learning for technical and vocational education [20], [25].

Ranked fifth, with 166 respondents (55.33%), is difficulty staying motivated and focused during online classes, which reflects the psychological and emotional challenges students face in maintaining engagement with ADM. Institutions can help by incorporating interactive and gamified learning methods to enhance motivation [6], [18].

Lack of access to personal laptops or updated software, ranked sixth with 159 respondents (53.00%), highlights the digital divide many students experience. Providing loaner devices, software access, or financial assistance can mitigate this challenge [11], [27].

Ranked seventh, cited by 157 respondents (52.33%), is struggles with time management due to increased workload, reflecting the difficulty students face in balancing academic responsibilities with personal commitments. Workshops and resources focused on time management can support students in overcoming this challenge [33], [35].

Challenges in comprehending complex theoretical concepts via digital platforms, ranked eighth with 156 respondents (52.00%), underscore the limitations of ADM in teaching abstract or technical subjects. Institutions should focus on creating more interactive and visual content to aid comprehension [7], [15].

Finally, ranked ninth with 95 respondents (31.67%), is mismatch between digital learning methods and preferred learning styles, which highlights the need for more flexible and personalized learning options to cater to students’ diverse preferences [26], [30].

These findings reveal the major challenges students face in engaging with ADM during disruptive classes. Addressing these challenges requires institutions to prioritize improving internet access, providing real-time feedback, and creating interactive, engaging content. Additionally, offering practical teaching opportunities and tools to support time management and motivation will help students navigate ADM more effectively. Institutions must consider these findings to develop inclusive strategies that address the diverse needs of college students during disruptive classes.

Institutional Support Roles in Facilitating Alternative ADMs During Disruptive Classes

Table IV highlights the institutional support roles in facilitating Alternative Delivery Modes (ADM) during disruptive classes, as identified by college students.

The most critical support role, ranked first with 230 respondents (76.67%), is providing access to technology and infrastructure. This finding aligns with previous studies emphasizing the importance of reliable devices and internet connectivity for effective ADM implementation [1], [8], [24]. Without these resources, students face barriers to accessing learning platforms and materials, underscoring the need to address digital inequity [18], [27].

Ranked second, cited by 215 respondents (71.67%), is providing emotional and mental health support. This reflects the psychological challenges students encounter during disruptive classes, such as stress and anxiety. Institutions play a vital role in offering counseling services and mental health initiatives to support students’ well-being, as highlighted in studies on the impact of remote learning on mental health [5], [13], [25].

Table Iv Institutional Support Roles In Facilitating Adm During Disruptive Classes

Note: f-frequency, %-percentage

The third-ranked support role, with 190 respondents (63.33%), is ensuring availability of learning materials, which is critical for maintaining academic quality in ADM. Accessible, high-quality resources such as modules, video lectures, and interactive content are essential for effective learning, as noted by Donkor [14] and Crawford et al. [12].

Facilitating student-teacher interaction, ranked fourth with 176 respondents (58.67%), emphasizes the importance of maintaining strong connections between students and educators, especially in virtual settings. Regular synchronous sessions and timely feedback are vital for fostering engagement and ensuring students receive the guidance they need [22], [25].

Ranked fifth, with 155 respondents (51.67%), is offering technical support, which reflects the necessity of dedicated teams to assist students with troubleshooting ADM-related issues. Technical challenges can significantly hinder learning, making this role vital for smooth ADM implementation [23], [16].

Supporting diverse learning styles, ranked sixth with 125 respondents (41.67%), highlights the need for flexible learning options such as synchronous and asynchronous classes, interactive modules, and personalized learning pathways. This ensures ADM caters to varied learning preferences and enhances student engagement [6], [26].

Ranked seventh, cited by 86 respondents (28.67%), is promoting time management and self-regulation, which reflects the challenges students face in balancing academic responsibilities with personal commitments in remote learning setups. Workshops and resources focused on time management are essential for student success, as noted by Wolters and Brady [33].

Ensuring equity in access, ranked eighth with 73 respondents (24.33%), emphasizes the need for financial assistance, scholarships, or grants to ensure all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, have equal opportunities to participate in ADM [28], [11].

Ranked ninth, with 67 respondents (22.33%), is encouraging peer collaboration and community building, which highlights the importance of fostering collaborative learning environments through virtual group projects and peer mentoring programs to reduce isolation and promote engagement [9], [15].

Finally, ranked tenth with 59 respondents (19.67%), is monitoring and feedback mechanisms, which reflects the need for institutions to assess the effectiveness of ADM and gather feedback to refine strategies and address students’ concerns [19], [30].

These findings reveal the multifaceted roles institutional support plays in facilitating ADM during disruptive classes. They underscore the need for institutions to prioritize access to technology, mental health support, and quality learning materials while addressing barriers such as technical challenges and inequity in access. Strategies such as improving infrastructure, offering flexible learning options, and fostering collaboration can help mitigate these challenges and enhance the ADM experience for students. Institutions must consider these findings to develop holistic and inclusive ADM strategies that address the realities faced by college students during disruptive classes.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are drawn:

The study comprehensively highlights the strategies, effectiveness, challenges, and institutional support roles associated with ADMs during disruptive classes, providing valuable insights into the experiences of college students. The findings reveal that online asynchronous and synchronous learning sessions are the most preferred and effective ADM strategies, underscoring the importance of flexibility and real-time interaction in virtual learning environments. However, challenges such as unstable internet connectivity, noise and distractions in shared living spaces, limited access to practical teaching experiences, and difficulty staying motivated during online classes significantly hinder students’ engagement and academic success. These challenges emphasize the need for institutions to address barriers related to technology access, mental health support, and the digital divide. Furthermore, institutional support plays a crucial role in facilitating ADM, with priorities including providing access to technology and infrastructure, ensuring availability of learning materials, and fostering student-teacher interaction. The study underscores the importance of developing inclusive and adaptive ADM strategies that cater to diverse learner needs, promote engagement, and enhance academic success. By addressing these challenges and leveraging institutional support, educational institutions can create resilient and equitable learning environments to support students during disruptive periods.

Limitations Of The Study

While the study provides valuable insights into Alternative Delivery Modes (ADMs) for college students under Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) during disruptive classes, several limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, the study is limited to one institution and one field of study, which affects the generalizability of the findings. Focusing exclusively on TEIs may limit the applicability of the results to students in other fields of study within higher education institutions. The unique requirements of teacher education programs, such as practical teaching and fieldwork, may not fully represent the challenges faced by students in other disciplines. Secondly, the study only captured students’ perspectives and did not include other stakeholders such as educators, administrators, or policymakers. This reliance on self-reported data introduces potential biases, such as subjective perceptions or social desirability, which may affect the reliability of the findings. Respondents’ answers may not entirely reflect the actual effectiveness of ADM strategies or the extent of the challenges encountered, as individual circumstances, personal experiences, or external factors could influence their responses.

Thirdly, the study does not extensively explore diversity among teacher education students, such as differences in socioeconomic status, geographic location, or cultural context. These factors can significantly affect students’ access to technology, learning materials, and institutional support, yet their impact was not fully examined. Additionally, while the study highlights general challenges such as internet connectivity issues, distractions, and motivation, it does not delve deeply into how these challenges interact with the specific requirements of teacher education programs, such as the need for practical, hands-on learning experiences. Implementing ADMs in practical courses presents significant challenges due to the experiential nature of these programs, which rely on activities like classroom simulations, teaching demonstrations, and supervised practice. These are difficult to replicate in virtual or remote settings, and the lack of physical resources and real-time feedback can hinder skill development. Tailored strategies, such as virtual simulations, video demonstrations, and hybrid approaches combining online and in-person components, are essential to address these challenges and ensure that students receive the necessary training despite disruptions.

Moreover, the study focuses on a specific period of disruptive classes, which may limit its relevance to future disruptions occurring under different circumstances or technological advancements. As education delivery methods continue to evolve, some findings may become less applicable over time. Finally, the study does not include the perspectives of educators, administrators, or policymakers within Teacher Education Institutions, whose roles are critical in shaping ADM strategies. Their insights could provide a more holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities in implementing ADM specifically for teacher education students. Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights for improving ADM strategies in Teacher Education Institutions. Future research should address these gaps by exploring diverse contexts, examining the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, and focusing on how ADM strategies can be adapted to meet the specific needs of teacher education programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are offered:

Future research should broaden the scope of study by including multiple institutions and diverse fields of study to enhance the generalizability of the findings. Expanding the research to cover various higher education institutions, including public and private schools as well as those in urban and rural settings, would allow for comparative analyses that can reveal unique challenges and opportunities in implementing Alternative Delivery Modes (ADMs). Furthermore, future studies should include the perspectives of educators, administrators, and policymakers to provide a more holistic understanding of ADM implementation. These stakeholders play critical roles in shaping and executing ADM strategies, and their insights could strengthen the development of effective solutions. To address potential biases from self-reported data, future research should employ direct observation or longitudinal methods to ensure more reliable and objective findings. Additionally, tailored ADM strategies for practical, hands-on courses should be investigated, such as the use of virtual simulations, video demonstrations, and supervised remote practice. These approaches can help bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, ensuring that students in experiential fields like teacher education receive adequate training despite disruptions.

By addressing these areas, future research can contribute to the refinement and adaptation of ADM strategies across diverse educational contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researchers extend heartfelt gratitude to everyone who contributed to the completion of this study. Sincere appreciation goes to the faculty and administration of the Teacher Education Institution for their support and guidance throughout the research process. Special thanks are given to the respondents, whose cooperation and honest responses provided the essential data for this study. The researchers also acknowledge the unwavering encouragement and support of family and friends, whose motivation made this endeavor possible. Above all, the researchers are deeply grateful to God for providing wisdom, strength, and perseverance in completing this academic undertaking.

REFERENCES

1. Adedoyin, O., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 863 – 875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
2. Agung, A. S. N., & Surtikanti, M. W. (2020). Students’ perception of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A case study on the English students of STKIP Pamane Talino. SOSHUM: Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora, 10(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.31940/soshum.v10i2.1316
3. Alipio et al. (2022) EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY MODE (ADM) AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF KEYSTAGE 1 LEARNERS OF TAFT DISTRICT. https://eprajournals.com/IJMR/article/14645/download
4. Anderson, J. (2021). Bridging the gap between ADM implementation and student achievement (Research Report No. 456). Center for Educational Research. https://www.cer-reports.org/ADM2021
5. Asio, J., & Jimenez, E. (2021). Implementation of Alternative Delivery Mode Learning Resources Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: Basis for Intervention Program. International Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Science. https://doi.org/10.36079/lamintang.ij-humass-0402.293.
6. Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R., Tamim, R., & Abrami, P. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3.
7. Blasiman, R., Larabee, D., & Fabry, D. (2018). Distracted Students: A Comparison of Multiple Types of Distractions on Learning in Online Lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4, 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000122.
8. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3778083.
9. Brady, A., Kim, Y., & Cutshall, J. (2021). The What, Why, and How of Distractions from a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 51, 153 – 172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2020.1867671.
10. Chafouk, O., & Marjanei, D. (2024). COMPARING THE IMPACT OF SYNCHRONOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE LEARNING ON STUDENT RETENTION AND SATISFACTION. European Journal of Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v11i11.5605.
11. Commission on Higher Education (CHED). (2020). Guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning. https://ched.gov.ph
12. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. 1. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7.
13. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49, 5 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018.
14. Donkor, F. (2010). The Comparative Instructional Effectiveness of Print-Based and Video-Based Instructional Materials for Teaching Practical Skills at a Distance.. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11, 96-116. https://doi.org/10.19173/IRRODL.V11I1.792.
15. Goode, E., Nieuwoudt, J., & Roche, T. (2022). Does online engagement matter? The impact of interactive learning modules and synchronous class attendance on student achievement in an immersive delivery model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7929
16. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
17. June 15, 2012 DO 54, s. 2012 – Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Alternative Delivery Modes (ADMs) | Department of Education. (2012, June 15). https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/06/15/do-54-s-2012-policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-alternative-delivery-modes-adms/
18. Kapasia, N., Paul, P., Roy, A., Saha, J., Zaveri, A., Mallick, R., Barman, B., Das, P., & Chouhan, P. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105194 – 105194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105194.
19. Langseth, I., Jacobsen, D., & Haugsbakken, H. (2022). The Role of Support Units in Digital Transformation: How Institutional Entrepreneurs Build Capacity for Online Learning in Higher Education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28, 1745 – 1782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09620-y.
20. Maulana, M. (2024). Development of E-learning Based Mechatronics Learning Module for Distance Education. Engineering: Journal of Mechatronics and Education. https://doi.org/10.59923/mechatronics.v1i2.181.
21. Moser, K., Wei, T., & Brenner, D. (2020). Remote teaching during COVID-19: Implications from a national survey of language educators. System, 97, 102431 – 102431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102431.
22. Ong, S., & Quek, G. (2023). Enhancing teacher–student interactions and student online engagement in an online learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09447-5.
23. Pedro, N., & Kumar, S. (2020). Institutional Support for Online Teaching in Quality Assurance Frameworks. Online Learning. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2309.
24. Prajveen, V., Debaroti, D., & Sanghasri, M. (2024). Impact of limited internet connectivity on online learning outcome of students. 2024 5th International Conference on Innovative Trends in Information Technology (ICITIIT), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITIIT61487.2024.10580570.
25. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online University Teaching During and After the Covid-19 Crisis: Refocusing Teacher Presence and Learning Activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 923 – 945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y.
26. Sakkir, G., Trisnawati, I., & Nurfadhilah, A. (2023). The Benefits of The Asynchronous Online Learning Model at Post-Pandemic Covid-19: Students’ Perception. ELT Worldwide: Journal of English Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v10i2.51636.
27. (2023). Building resilient education systems: Guidelines for disaster risk reduction in education. UNESCO Publications. https://www.unesco.org/en/disaster-risk-reduction/education
28. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2021). Ensuring equitable access to learning during crises: Guidance for education systems. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ensuring-equitable-access-learning-during-crises-guidance-education-systems
29. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Education and conflict: The role of education in peacebuilding. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246057
30. Villanueva, H., & Buenbrazo, J. (2023). Challenges Encountered by School Administrators During the New Normal Education: A Phenomenological Study. EduLine: Journal of Education and Learning Innovation. https://doi.org/10.35877/454ri.eduline1338.
31. Villaveza, P. L. P. D. (2022). Learning activities for modular distance learning in Dr. Francisco L. Calingasan Memorial Colleges Foundation Inc. TUY and Nasugbu campuses. Instabright International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(1), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.52877/instabright.04.01.0109
32. Wang, Q., Wen, Y., & Quek, C. (2022). Engaging learners in synchronous online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 4429 – 4452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11393-x.
33. Wolters, C., & Brady, A. (2020). College Students’ Time Management: a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1319 – 1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09519-z.
34. Fabro, R. B. B., Rivera, E. C. C., Rivera, J. C., Rabang, N. T. G. S., Asuncion, A. C., & Limon, M. R. (2023). Struggling, Coping, and Persisting in New Normal Education: Pre-Service Teachers in Field Study Courses. TEM Journal, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM121-45