“Pedagogical Communication in Modular Distance Learning Modality for Primary Graders”

 “Pedagogical Communication in Modular Distance Learning Modality for Primary Graders”

JOMAR LAYOLA CAUBE, LPT, MAEd

Panan-awan Integrated School

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.802083

Received: 07 January 2024; Revised: 27 January 2024; Accepted: 31 January 2024; Published: 12 March 2024

ABSTRACT

            The study investigated the significance of pedagogical communication to find out if there is a difference between traditional face-to-face instruction and modular instruction, to discover the flow of pedagogical communication in modular instruction, to identify the needs and challenges that occurred in the pedagogical communication of today’s modular instruction, and to discern the pros and cons of modular instruction. The study employed Tsui’s (1994) IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) Taxonomy and Burroughs’ (2007) Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages as the bases for the detailed categorization of the learners’ responses. Qualitative content analysis was utilized to treat the gathered data generated from the pedagogical communication content of the Grade 2 Grade 3 modules, specifically the entire lessons found in Quarter 1 Module 1 of English subject only per grade level. It encompasses three major phases: preparation, organization, and reporting of the results. Based on the summary of findings, it was found out that all Tsui’s IRF head acts were present. Still, there were some sub-categories that were not present, and so with the sub-categories on Burroughs’ Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages. Indeed, the pedagogical communication present in the Modular Distance Learning modality must be maintained and improved for the continuous development of the teaching-learning process and lived experiences among teachers, learners, parents, guardians, stakeholders, and other concerned individuals, with a focus on learner-centeredness and learner agency.

Keywords: Pedagogical communication, Modular Distance Learning modality, Initiation-Response-Follow-up (IRF) Taxonomy, Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies, and Messages, lived experiences

INTRODUCTION

            Communication is innately woven into the fabric of creation and plays a radical fraction in every aspect of human social life. Basically, as human beings, we are fond of talking to our family, friends, and fellows. We always have something to talk about may it be significant or not, just to while away our time. Huynh (2014) posted that according to a study, an individual can utter words that range from 15000-16000 words per day. In the educational context, communication has always been an indispensable occurrence in every classroom where teachers and students engaged in dialogic exchanges within the pedagogical environment.

            The education process is pedagogical communication (Valeeva, Aitov, and Bulatbayeva, 2016). Hess (2016) had proven that communication is an essential discipline in the academe and specific courses’ contents. Bolkan (2017); Dannels, (2015); Simonds & Cooper (2010) also claimed that communication also plays its role in classroom management aside from the teacher-student interaction alone. Several models, frameworks, and methods for classroom communication had already been established and recognized, including those of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), Tsui (1994), Rashidi & Rafieerad (2010), Semenovaa, Kazantsevaa, Sergeyevaa, Raklovaa, Baiseitova (2016), among others. Although pedagogical communication has been studied, Wubbels and Brekelmans (2005) believed that there are still many unresolved issues. These issues potentially include the pedagogical communication in the learning process conducted in a modular learning environment, where face-to-face communication is absent. For sure, teachers should internalize and actualize a decisive leadership role in teaching and motivating all the students using pedagogically grounded teaching practices wherein every student is involved, as suggested by Diloyan (2017).

            The education sector has been severely impacted by the emergence of the COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) pandemic. This resulted in abrupt paradigm shifts, arduous transitions, and additional challenges for teachers, students, parents, and educational entities. Indeed, societal, political, economic, and cultural shifts have transformed the contexts in which teachers work and have redefined how teachers communicate with students (Beutel and Denise 2010). Therefore, the Department of Education launched and implemented the Modular Distance Learning (MDL) modality as one of the several modalities to respond and secure delivery of instruction in this new normal.  This MDL has received positive feedback as a result of its extensive effects on the teaching-learning process. According to Sadiq and Zamir (2014) and Lopuhova and Jurina (2017), modular learning encourages self-learning, maximizes participation, and motivates learners; Sejpal (2013) and Lopuhova and Jurina (2017) discovered that learners’ growth was developed independently. Other researchers have highlighted the benefits of MDL, such as students being free of transportation hassles and expenses or its non-commuting demands (Nagrale, 2013); it being a cheaper, economical, and time-saving modality (Bijeesh, 2017); and it providing flexibility in learning where students can work at their own pace (Brown, 2017). Despite of the feedbacks, one aspect which needs to be looked into regarding modular distance learning is the pedagogical communication embedded in the modular learning modality.

            Researchers had long been recognizing the importance of communication in the learning environment. Several strategies and communication or conversation frameworks are existent, but these were contextualized within the classroom environment where face-to-face communication between teacher and students is present. Velentzas and Borni (2014) emphasized that communication draws essential interpersonal skills that are pivotal for learning, establishing healthy relationships, and building a sense of oneness and belongingness that leads to the success of the workplace and the teaching-learning environment. Sng Bee (2012) explained that in order for students to be more motivated in the learning process, teachers must use communication skills that are appropriate and aligned with their ability and capability. However, in a learning context where printed materials are the channels of the pedagogical communication between teacher and students, an investigation on pedagogical communication is deemed of significant importance. Thus, the significance of effective communication in the teaching-learning process is undeniable, and it should be prioritized rather than taken for granted and forgotten among great teachers, because it will have profound effects on learners themselves (Hilliard and Newsome, 2013).

            With the implementation of modular learning in the primary grades in the Department of Education, this study was conceived to determine the flow of pedagogical communication in modular instruction.  The information derived from content analysis and interviews with teachers and learners provided important information such as a description of pedagogical communication and a discussion of the salient points affecting the teaching-learning processes and conditions.

            This study is anchored on Amy B.M. Tsui’s IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) Taxonomy (1994). Tsui’s framework will guide the linguistic data classification concerning the exchanges of utterances between teacher and students.

            The purpose of this study was to describe the actualization of pedagogical communication between teachers and pupils in the Modular Distance Learning in Primary Grades of Public Schools in an upland rural context. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:

1. What Initiation strategies do teachers employ in Modular Distance Learning?
2. What are the pupils’ responses to teachers’ Initiation in Modular Distance Learning?
3. What follow-up strategies do teachers engage in Modular Distance Learning?

            This study determined the nature and pattern of the pedagogical communication present in the modules used by the teachers in teaching Primary Graders (Grade 2-Grade 3 pupils) through the Modular Distance Learning modality. This study also aimed to improve the process of pedagogical communication used in the Modular Distance Learning modality for the purpose of achieving long-term and high-quality education.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Pedagogical Communication

                In the mid-1970s, pedagogical communication was recognized as a scientific category. It has commenced by various related researches to Kolominskiy (1977) and Petrovskiy (1979) collective theory and interpersonal relationships in the pedagogical process, Bodalev (1971) social perception problems, and Brudniy (1989) psychology involved in teaching. In psychology, pedagogical communication is a particular class of communication that carries natural features specific and intended to the communication in education. According to the cited principles, it was then stated that the understanding of pedagogical communication holds an independent portion among the significant types of human activities, influences personality formation and multifunctional (Anan’ev et al., 1972), and the most significant mode through which relationship is maintained (Myashishev, 1995). That’s why the pedagogical communication undertaking demands essential internal aspects of human communication (Anan’ev, 1972) and (Bodalev, 1971) and socio-perceptual processes (Bodalev, 1985). Indeed, Zimnyaya (2000) examines pedagogical communication as a structure of pedagogical communication that necessitates collaboration and cooperation between teachers and students, as well as communication on a personal, professional, and social level. Thus, pedagogical communication is one of the prevalent factors that can optimize the educational process (Assilkhanova, Tazhbayeva & Ilimkhanova, 2014).

            Pedagogical communication had been explained and expounded its meaning by several researchers. Leont’ev (1979) highlighted the significance of incorporating a favorable psychological climate in the process of pedagogical communication that led him to define this phenomenon as a type of professional communication between teachers and students in a classroom setting in the advent of classroom discussion or even outside. It is then a piece of education that caters to pedagogical function and is directed (if complete and optimal) in building teacher-student relationships in a favorable psychological climate and psychological optimization within a classroom context. According to Kan-Kalik and Kovalev (1987), it is a system of techniques and methods that ensures the realization and actualization of the pedagogical activity’s goals and objectives, as well as organizing and guiding all involved individuals in the social-psychological communication process solely in the teachers-students communication process. Slastenin and Mazher (1991) also recounted it as a multifunctional communication process between teachers and students generated by the objectives and content of their mutual activity encompassing their well-complemented organization, establishment, and development of communication, understanding, and cooperation. Even, Assilkhanova, Tazhbayeva & Ilimkhanova (2014) agreed with the latter idea because they believed that it is a form of pedagogical communication between teachers and students fuelled with cooperation.

            Fundamentally, there are essential parts that should be taken into careful consideration in the entire process of pedagogical communication to achieve learning, such as integrated self-presentation among teachers towards their students, wherein they should be the ones responsible for holding the fort and being the catalyst for the entire process, information exchange, interpersonal cognition, well-orchestrated system, and well-regulated learning (Kan-Kalik & Kovalev, 1987). As a result, these will mitigate, adapt and adjust with the pressing hierarchy of communication barriers: physical, technical, temporal, psychological, social, cultural, contextual, interaction, and collaboration (Berge, 2013).

            In the essence of defining pedagogical communication, it is expected then to cling on to a particular initial position related to the analysis of this phenomenon: the framework of the general theory of pedagogical communication should be studied within its premise and employed the same terms, and we need to make sure that in the course of the analysis, pedagogical communication specifics must be considered (Assilkhanova, Tazhbayeva & Ilimkhanova, 2014).

            Tsui (1994) developed an IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) Taxonomy, which is a three-part exchange structure that categorizes utterances that are composed of an Initiation move by the teacher, a Response move by the students, and a Follow-up move by the teacher again, and it will provide clear guidance in the analysis of pedagogical communication present in the Modular Distance Learning. Tsui’s (1994) IRF Taxonomy of classroom classification of utterances is practically related to the conversational model application of discourse in a classroom setting developed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1974), wherein the descriptive units (move, act, and exchange) were borrowed from.

            Tsui’s (1994) IRF Taxonomy divides the teacher’s initiation move into explicated head acts of elicitation, requestives, directives, and informatives. Each head act has its corresponding sub-acts, for Elicitation: inform, confirm, agree, commit, repeat, clarify and supply. Requestives: proposal, invite, offer, request for actions, and request for permission. Directives: mandatives and advisives. Informatives: assessment, report, and expressive. In the Responding move of the students is classified into three sub-acts: positive (adheres what the initiation requires—if the Initiation were an elicit confirm, then a positive response to such an initiation would provide the confirmation sought), negative (one sub-act that challenges the realistic presumptions of the initiation; for example, the respondent probably doesn’t have the information required to respond to the initiation) and temporization (is a response which in some way puts off both positive and negative responses until some later time). The Follow-up move of the teacher is also fractionated into three sub-acts: endorsement (adheres to a positive response), concession (adheres to a negative response), and acknowledgment (is a cross sub-act which can conform to all three sub-acts of response) (Guthrie, 1995).

            In Burroughs’ (2007) Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages which encompasses: Complete Compliance (doing what the teacher asked them to do), Partial Compliance (doing the teacher’s request in an incomplete manner), Reluctant Compliance (unenthusiastically complying), Passive Rejection (indifferently rejecting the teachers’ task), Non-responsive (undesirable silence), Avoidance (renouncing the teacher’s task), Rebuttal (an attempt to refute the teacher’s request with evidence), Excuses (an attempt to make unreasonable excuses towards teacher’s request), Complaining to Others (opposing teacher’s request), Information Seeking (an attempt to probe for information from the teacher), Active Resistance (active denial), Deception (dishonest to the teacher), Direct Communication (directly talking to a teacher), Disruption (an attempt to disturb class), Ignoring the Teacher (a continuous manner of neglecting teacher’s request), Priorities (informing the teacher on more important obligations), Challenging the Teacher’s Power (testing the teacher as the authority), Rallying Student Support (an attempt of comparing to others), Hostile-Defensive (an aggressive way of communicating the teacher in a hostile manner) and Revenge (an attempt of retaliating the teacher). These Compliance-Resistance categories will be used to categorize in detail the students’ responses in the Responding Move of the IRF Taxonomy.

            Teachers are encouraged to develop constructive communication interventions such as the interactive communication model, the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) rule, a learner-centered approach to teaching, a positive classroom climate and ambiance conducive to learning, and the Zone of Proximal Development as a pedagogical phenomenon. Indeed, learners are directly influenced by the ways their teachers manage orality. Mousena and Sidiropoulou (2017) believed that this statement extends the scope of pedagogical communication to emphasize the value of authentic dialog in the teaching-learning process.

            Teachers’ communication skills should be honed and sharpened over time because it is viewed as a performative act that will undoubtedly affect the cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes and aspects of the learners (Warren, 2013). Teachers should keep in mind that their perception as communicators plays a significant role in their self-conceptualization and self-evaluation in communication (Glotova & Wilhelm, (2014) because teaching cannot be effective and efficient without excellent pedagogical communication  (Patrick, Kaplan, Ryan, (2011); Reyes,  Brackett,  Rivers,  White,  &  Salovey,  (2012);  Südkamp,    Kaiser,  &  Möller,    (2012);    Kunter,    Klusmann,    Baumert,  Richter, Voss,  & Hachfeld,  (2013). Thus, communication for teachers’ professional competence and the analysis of the perceptions of those involved in educational activities on its quality in teacher-student communication does matter (Seghedin, 2012).

            Mousena & Sidiropoulou (2017) accentuated that teaching demands a good communicator because it is an interpersonal profession wherein communication skills are inherent to it predominantly. On that note, the educators believed that all educators, specifically kindergarten educators, must go through inceptive and further training in communication skills to be what they are expected to be. This poses a significant challenge to educators, who must be resilient and committed to their profession in order to address the challenges that their profession entails. Lecturers who have been trained are more successful and effective in communicating with their students, for they can envision and prevent potential difficulties in pedagogical communication (Darinskaya, Moskvicheva, and Molodtsova, 2014). Moreover, they must also develop the authoritative skills to have an extraordinary impact on their learners’ communication because this will significantly affect their pace of learning (Uspanov, Zhansugirova, & Bissenbayeva, 2013).

             We also need to look into the other side of the coin because, in various cases, learners are indifferent to learning and reluctant to develop their communication skills. They are petrified of committing mistakes, and they dissent about assessing their knowledge which is one of the common conflict-causing scenarios between the teacher and the learners (Darinskaya, Moskvichev, and Molodtsova, 2014). Therefore, Kindeberg (2013) shows the role of emotions, like putting oneself in another’s shoes in pedagogical communication. The educative character of the teacher impacts learners’ enthusiasm to communicate with the teacher and even share the teachers’ knowledge, skills, and values being taught.

            In accordance with the preceding ideas, teachers must expect their students to be curious enough to investigate the world around them. Early education is a critical stage in the teaching-learning process for both teachers and learners to deal with communication development because learners value social relationships, friendship, and a sense of belonging that can enrich their learning stimuli as they strive to develop their communicative skills.

            Arnett (2020) significantly affirmed that teachers should assist the learners not merely on the aspect of learning but also with an enticing invitation to the very practices of the teaching-learning process. Pedagogical communication in times of pandemic and uncertainties bestowed basic truism that things are constantly changing wherein adapting should be pleasing and gratifying. Recalibration comes with a great power that is favorable in the field of teaching.

            According to Breslin and Sharpe (2018) and Reynolds and Sellnow (2015), teachers should also develop pedagogical communication interventions to help with the pedagogical challenges of teacher-student communication. Frey and White (2012) proposed constitutive experiential communication pedagogy in contemplation of teaching the learners in managing their personal and interpersonal concerns with competence. It is time to re-calibrate communication pedagogy to meet the needs of both teachers and students in terms of pedagogical communication (Bochner & Ellis, 2016).

            In the paramount, student-teacher communication must complement each other because the more compatible interests, attitudes, abilities, ideals, and values, the greater the possibility that they will have successful and substantial teacher-student communication (Suzić, Dabić, and Miladinović, 2013).

Modular Distance Learning

            Distance learning is not a state-of-the-art notion of pedagogical instruction. It has been a practice in certain countries as an academic alternative towards the teaching-learning process and delivery of instruction. Its purposes and popularity have increased the demand and interest among learners as a method of learning and research for enhancing one’s skills regardless of the distance (Gasevic, Kovanovic, Joksimovic & Siemens, 2014). Online learning is their primordial way of learning in distance learning; wherein, online discussions are incorporated so that the learners’ conversation can go beyond the classroom setting (Garrison, 2011; Harasim, 2012). Despite these promising results of distance learning, there are times that online learners have faced challenges, and these are documented in history—dissatisfaction and disengagement (Lee, Srinivasan, Trail, Lewis & Lopez, 2011; Paechter, Maier & Macher, 2010). Other researchers found that the reason behind learners’ dissatisfaction might be their cultural differences (Bordelon, 2013). Satisfaction happens when it meets the learners’ expectations about the teaching-learning process. Thus, students’ satisfaction and interaction may have a dependent relationship with each other (Mahle, 2011). Then, they recommend that blended and online courses with small-scale direct meetings could benefit the student more than the archived lecturer per se (Ekwunife-Orakwue and Teng (2014). Everything shall be done like teaching sessions, giving instructions, making assignments, and other related academic activities are conducted with the help of internet connections (Gartner, 2014). Learners were provided with text, figure, audio, video, and interpersonal interaction resources via hyperlinks and online inquiries (Chen, 2010). That is why researchers continue to thrive, improve and innovate online activities that will respond to the needs of the learners’ education (Kör, Erbay, Demir, & Akmeşe, 2016; Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).

            Distance learning is the kind of education in which students are not always physically present at school. They can learn, study, and qualify in their chosen subject online without attending an exam center, a college building, or a university campus (Sadeghi, 2019). It was recorded in history that Distance Learning was primarily employed way back (the 1850s-1960s) generation, utilizing of technology—radio and television. The second generation (1960-1985) used a variety of technologies, including audiocassettes, television, videocassettes, fax, and print. Media was used to deliver distance learning. As the years pass, so does the delivery of distance learning, with the use of newly invented technologies. Thus, online learning (distance learning) as a subset of distance education has always been concerned with providing access to educational experiences that is more flexible than campus-based education (Anderson, 2011).

            Modular Distance Learning Modality as a type of Distance Learning applies the modular approach in the teaching-learning interaction. The module is an educational package that consists of conceptualized and contextualized educational materials and actions for learners’ communication (Lapp, 2012). It is also an interdisciplinary structure and organizational-methodical framework that accumulates topics from different academic disciplines significant for teaching-learning interaction (Lopuhova & Jurina, 2017). Thus, the contents of the modules shall meet the qualifications—integrity, compactness, independence, and clarity (Iovleva, 2016).  Teachers should also be equipped with relevant pieces of training in designing, crafting, and implementing modules (Zamir, 2017). Teachers can hone their skills and learn different learning styles, which are necessary to pursue quality education and sustainable development (Malik, 2012).

            Presently, there is a movement towards a modular approach to curriculum implementation. The process has captured the attention and interest of most nations’ educational systems, particularly in technical and vocational education and higher education (Malik, 2012). A modular system of higher education curriculum is mainly a response to the tremendous growing sectors of industry, business, and consumers’ choice (Ali, Ghazi, Khan, Hussain, and Faitma, 2010). Modularization is based on the division principle of the curriculum into small discrete modules or units that are independent, non-sequential, and particularly momentary in which students can accumulate credits for modules that can lead to required specified credit point qualification. Modular learning is also a pedagogical scheme or an alternative practice used by many to cater to the needs of education and instruction delivery. The use of modules would attract students to participate actively in the teaching and learning process (Matanluk, 2011). Modules have benefited students’ education by generating creative, compelling, engaging, and student-centered activities that helped the students learn more effectively and efficiently (Kempton et al., 2018; Alwi & Kamis 2019; Ismail et al. 2018). Even though the teaching-learning process is put to the test by the unexpected phenomenon, there are still flexible pedagogies (pedagogical schemes) that will serve as rays of light to ensure that instruction is delivered uninterrupted. Indeed, education continues in a more active, enhanced, and modified way where quality shall remain. Since learning is an active construction, students established their understanding through the selective experience to create a conceptual structure that forms the basis of their knowledge (Matanluk, Baharom Mohammad, Kiflee, & Imbug, 2013).

            The pedagogies mentioned above are concrete examples of flexible learning. Flexible learning has been further broadened beyond the breadth of delivery to cover flexible pedagogy (Gordon, 2014; Ryan & Tilbury, 2013). It was thought that flexibility is not only a characteristic of students, but also of educational strategies at the institutional level (Gardon, 2014; Ryan and Tilbury, 2013). Concerning the modality of the resources, it is possible to indicate learning flexibility by utilizing a realm of media formats—podcasts, narrated screen capture, the full video of lectures, and software. The time and even the location to obtain support and the support methods can also be flexible. The place of learners to carry out learning activities and access learning materials can also be flexible anywhere at any period through mobile devices: at the campus, home, public transport, airport, or a plane either (Gordon, 2014). Alternative approaches—online learning, distance learning, modularisation, and even blended learning were then used to maintain and continue learning amidst the pandemic and unpredictable circumstances (Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F., Wang, H.H., et al., 2020). Technology-enhanced the flexible learning and delivery of instruction that maximizes learning within an environment of high-quality course design, which offers students the options of time, place, and pace that emphasize different learning styles in addressing the diversity of the learners themselves (Huang, Chen, Yang, & Loewen, 2013). With the advent of media and technology, it is both timely and relevant to use these inventions to facilitate learning, pursue the delivery of instruction, and improve pedagogy. As a result, other researchers have pointed out that teachers have a difficult task, but this does not negate the fact that teachers should still carefully select educational resources that are relevant, significant, and of high quality, despite the fact that there are a plethora of published and printed educational resources available (Ozdemir and Bonk, 2017). Flexible learning calls for flexible teachers.

            Based on research and information about distance learning, it has been stated and proven that they have used technology as a vehicle to cater education and instruction with ease even before. And, modular learning has been used only for higher education. Modules are suitable for mature learners (Sejpal, 2013). However, the Modular Distance Learning modality will be utilized and will be used in today’s educational undertaking majority of the public schools. Nowadays, there are no exemptions because even Primary Graders will be part of the Modular Distance Learning modality wherein they will have their learning through modules and printed learning materials. This will be the primary focus of the study on modular instruction for primary school students, as no other researchers have attempted it.

            This study on Modular Distance Learning modality aims to focus on the teachers’ schemes on the pedagogical communication of the pupils in this new standard structure of the teaching-learning process and contribute to improving the quality of education in public schools, particularly those located in remote areas of the community and even beyond. After all, distance learning is about flexibility and equal opportunities for all; we should not let division happen in education (Kör, 2013).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

            This study used qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis was utilized to treat the gathered data generated from the pedagogical communication content of the Grade 2 Grade 3 modules, specifically the entire lessons found in Quarter 1 Module 1 of English subject only per grade level. This was the appropriate qualitative method for treating the non-numeric data derived from the modules’ pedagogical communication content, analyzing the qualitative data, and interpreting its meaning (Schreier, 2012).

Research Subjects and Sampling Procedure

            This study is a content analysis of the communication between teachers and students in a Modular Distant Learning modality. The research subjects were the lessons found in the modules distributed by the teacher to the pupils, the pupils’ responses as required in the modules, which were submitted back to the teachers, and the teachers’ follow-up in whatever communication means. All the lessons found in Quarter 1 Module 1 of English subject only per grade level: Grade 2 and Grade 3 underwent content analysis.

            Teachers’ statements (Initiation) as part of the pedagogical communication found in the lessons in the modules were taken. These statements were consolidated and placed into a matrix or a template.

            Another set of communication content was the pupils’ outputs in responses to the teacher’s communication content set in the modules (Response). These responses were consolidated and placed into a matrix or a template based on the categories of Burroughs’ (2007) Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages.

            The last communication content was the teacher’s feedback on the pupils’ outputs (Follow-up). These feedbacks were consolidated and placed into a matrix or a template, too.

            The researcher utilized all the pedagogical communication as the needed data which were extracted from the lessons found in all the gathered modules until these data have reached the point of saturation, for this recommended the optimal sample size needed in the research study as suggested by Guthrie et al., (2004); Sandelowski (1995a). Well-saturated data guarantees replication in categories that sequentially certify and confirm comprehension and completeness (Morse, Barette, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002).

            Purposive Sampling Technique was maximized in all the Primary Schools of a particular district in a certain division of the Visayas region were included in the study because the study considers the area and geographical school locations of the respondents. Kyngäs, Elo, Pölkki, Kääriäinen, & Kanste, (2011) emphasized that this was typically the method employed in content analysis studies and undoubtedly appropriate for qualitative studies wherein the researcher was genuinely interested in the respondents who have the best knowledge about the research topic. This study was concerned about Primary Graders who started from Grade 1-Grade 3. However, DepEd Order 31 s. 2013-Clarifications on the Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Language Learning Areas and their Time Allotment in Grade 1 and 2 of the K to 12 Basic Education Program stated that: English, as a Learning Area, is first introduced in Grade 1 during the third quarter (3rd Quarter) grading period. That’s why the consolidated data were all the lessons found in the English modules of Quarter One from Grade Two and Grade Three instead. Here are the research participants’ criteria: teachers teaching Grade 2 and Grade 3 as they are classified as Primary Graders, Teachers teaching Grade 2 and Grade 3 English subjects through modules, teachers teaching Grade 2 and Grade 3 for one year and above, and selected Grade 2 and Grade 3 pupils.

Research Instrument

            This study utilized textual data or documents, specifically the learning modules and the students’ outputs as required in the learning modules. These data underwent content analysis using the adopted frameworks, those Tsui (1994) and Burroughs (2007). From the identified frameworks, a matrix was created for easy organization and sorting of the linguistic data.

            Four matrices that were being derived. The first was used with linguistic data pertaining to the Initiation move (teaching communication content contained in modules). The linguistic data derived from the students’ responses or the Responding move was used in the following matrix. The data from the Follow-up (teachers) move was used in the third matrix. The fourth matrix was used to direct a more in-depth analysis of the students’ responses, focusing on the behavioral aspect of the responses.

            Tsui’s (1994) IRF Taxonomy divided the teacher’s initiation move into explicated head acts of elicitation, requestives, directives, and informatives. Each head act has its corresponding sub-acts, for Elicitation: agree, repeat, confirm, commit, repeat, clarify and supply. Requestives: proposal, invite, offer, request for actions, and request for permission. Directives: mandatives and advisives. Informatives: assessment, report, and expressive (table 1).

            In the Responding move of the students was classified into three sub-acts: positive (adheres to what the initiation requires—if the Initiation were an elicit confirm, then a positive response to such an initiation would provide the confirmation sought), negative (one sub-act that challenges the realistic presumptions of the initiation; for example, the respondent probably doesn’t have the information required to respond to the initiation) and temporization (is a response which in some way puts off both positive and negative responses until some later time).

            The Follow-up move of the teacher was also fractionated into three sub-acts: endorsement (adheres to a positive response), concession (adheres a negative response), and acknowledgment (is a cross sub-act which can adhere to all three sub-acts of response) (Guthrie, 1995).

Data Gathering Procedure

            The researcher wrote a letter of permission addressed to the School’s Division Superintendent, asking for her consent, allowing me to conduct my study, which involves gathering the modules, the pupils’ outputs, and documents or papers reflecting the teachers’ feedbacks to students’ outputs. The researcher asked for the complete list of Primary Schools of chosen district in a particular division in the Visayas region.

            The researcher conducted an initial verbal interview with selected primary graders (Grade 2: 5 learners and Grade 3: 5 learners) to solicit the reasons why they do not have responses on teachers’ initiation move and to Grade 2 and Grade 3 teachers assigned in all the schools of a certain district in the division of the Visayas region given their location in the upland areas. Then, the researcher asked for authorization from their respective School Principal and their permission, allowing me to secure asking for copies of all the lessons of Quarter 1 Module 1 of English subject only per grade level. The researcher requested permission from the teachers and parents for the pupils’ outputs to be evaluated, as well as an assurance that the modules would only be used for research purposes, and that the names of the teachers and pupils involved, as well as the pupils’ outputs and the teachers’ feedback on the pupils’ outputs, would be handled with the utmost confidentiality.

            The researcher made sure that desired health protocols were earnestly and religiously observed.

DATA ANALYSIS

            This study used qualitative content analysis. This was the appropriate qualitative method for treating the non-numeric data derived from the modules’ pedagogical communication content, analyzing the qualitative data, and interpreting its meaning (Schreier, 2012). The qualitative content analysis encompassed three significant phases: preparation, organization, and reporting of the results.

Phase 1: The preparation phase, which covered the collection of the needed qualitative data for content analysis, interpreting critically and reflexively the gathered data, and chose the unit of analysis. During this phase, the researcher gathered modules from a certain district of a particular division in the Visayas region Grade 2-Grade 3 teachers. The pedagogical communication found in all of the lessons of the gathered modules was critically and thoroughly interpreted. Then, the researcher identified the unit of analysis suited for the collected data (the content of all the lessons found in the modules). All of the contents that were subjected to analysis were already identified, and the linguistic units to be analyzed were the teachers’ statements directed to students, which required pupils’ responses, and this excluded the reading texts/selection presented and printed in the module.

            Phase 2: The organization phase included data extraction from the modules of teachers’ statements and students’ responses and sorting them into a matrix or template. The organized linguistic contents underwent a deductive content analysis following the IRF Taxonomy of Tsui (1994) and Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages of Burroughs (2007) used in this study.  In Burroughs’ (2007) Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages which encompasses: Complete Compliance (doing what the teacher asked them to do), Partial Compliance (doing the teacher’s request in an incomplete manner), Reluctant Compliance (unenthusiastically complying), Passive Rejection (indifferently rejecting the teachers’ task), Non-responsive (undesirable silence), Avoidance (renouncing the teacher’s task), Rebuttal (an attempt to refute the teacher’s request with evidence), Excuses (an attempt to make unreasonable excuses towards teacher’s request), Complaining to Others (opposing teacher’s request), Information Seeking (an attempt to probe for information from the teacher), Active Resistance (active denial), Deception (dishonest to the teacher), Direct Communication (directly talking to a teacher), Disruption (an attempt to disturb class), Ignoring the Teacher (a continuous manner of neglecting teacher’s request), Priorities (informing the teacher on more important obligations), Challenging the Teacher’s Power (testing the teacher as the authority), Rallying Student Support (an attempt of comparing to others),

Hostile-Defensive (an aggressive way of communicating the teacher in a hostile manner) and Revenge (an attempt of retaliating the teacher).

            These Compliance-Resistance categories will be used to categorize in detail the students’ responses in the Responding Move of the IRF Taxonomy.

            Further, these response utterances were analyzed in detail using Burroughs’ typology (Table 2).

            The students’ responses were classified following Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages of Burroughs (2007) to see the details, depth, and beauty of the students’ responses in the modular instruction.

            Since the analysis was qualitative, the researchers’ results were triangulated, verified, or cross-checked by two other English language experts for a credible and valid critique.

Phase 3: Reporting phase presented the results, which described the phenomenon based on the contents of the categories employing a deductive approach.

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

            Pedagogical communication is typically done and manifested in a face-to-face teaching-learning process, particularly in the Philippine educational context. Still, because of the sudden occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the landscape of the realm of education has changed, and it has yielded additional challenges that significantly disrupted the normal, usual way of educating learners. There is no doubt that during this period of experimentation, teachers, parents, and students will have greater autonomy of learning, self-direction, and collaboration (Reimers, 2020).

INITIATION MOVE

            The Initiation Move among teachers it illustrates all the head acts present in Grade Two and Grade Three English modules. In Grade 2, there are 209 Directive utterances of the entire teacher-student are indicated, followed by 83 Elicitation utterances, 61 Informative utterances, and the least displayed head act is Requestive with three statements. In Grade 3, there are 351 Directive utterances marked in the gathered data, followed by 243 Elicitation utterances, 135 Informative utterances, and the least numbered utterances that fall under Requestive. In both Grade 2 and Grade 3, the head acts: Directive, Elicitation, Informative, and Requestive are of the same ranking from highest to lowest, respectively.

            The data clearly showed that in the Modular Distance Learning modality, teachers frequently provided directives that were considered polite and appropriate to be done among teachers relative to their status to have that authoritative features in using imperative, which could be best explained through pragmatic literature which pertains to the usage of the language (Basra, 2017) and relationship connecting between linguistic forms and living individuals who use these forms (Murcia, 2000) to guide the students towards learning and accomplish the assigned tasks specified within the modules (Sulistyani, 2017).

DIRECTIVES

            These are Directive sample utterances: “Draw the objects that make soft sounds and three objects that make loud sounds. Do the activity in your notebook.” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 8) and “Read the story and finish it by writing an ending on the spaces provided below.” (G3, Q1, M3, L1, p. 10).

            Brown (2001) reiterated the roles of teachers as a figure with authority, leader, knower, director, manager, counselor, friend, confidante, and parents to the learners whose functions are to become active well-engaged participants in the teaching-learning process. These directives serve as a scaffold towards learners’ better understanding of the texts printed in the modules and the medium that teachers used to let these learners do something (Yule, 1996). Directive displays the sub-categories: Advisive and Mandative.

Advisive

            In Grade 2, it shows there that 204 utterances are Advisive: “Put a check () if the given phrase uses a correct article or a cross (x) if it does not. Write your answer on a sheet of paper or in your notebook.” (G2, Q1, M4, L1, p. 8) and “Underline the correct article to complete each sentence. Do this on a separate sheet of paper or in your notebook.” (G2, Q1, M4, L1, p. 10). On the other hand in Grade 3, it has 343 Advisive utterances: “Choose one of the characters in the story and complete its character profile below. Copy the character profile on a separate blank sheet of paper.” (G3, Q1, M2, L1, p. 9) and “Name the picture. Fill in the blanks with the letters a, e, i, o, u, to complete it. The read the words that you made.” (G3, Q1, M10, L1, p. 2).

Mandative

            In Grade 2, it shows there that five utterances are Mandative: “Read the answer you have given.” (G2, Q1, M2, L1, p. 9) and “Answer the questions orally.” (G2, Q1, M2, L1, p. 10). On the other hand in Grade 3, it has 8 Mandative utterances: “Filipinos live in the Philippines. What is the correct way of writing the italicized word?” (G3, Q1, M6, L1, p. 10) and “Write three sentences with proper nouns and two sentences with common nouns based on the picture below.” (G3, Q1, M6, L1, p. 11).

            Still, both grade levels have the same ranking in terms of the Directive sub-categories, respectively. It resulted in this way because there were numerous Advisive utterances from the teachers being revealed in the modules proving that teachers advise learners to do such activities for their benefit as what Advisive stands for.

            Indeed, the modular approach is one of the excellent alternatives that could surpass the challenges of today and active agent that is student-centered and self-paced (Gonzales, 2015). And it proposes flexible learning, which is advantageous for both teachers and learners (Cheng and Abu Bakar, 2017). After all, Modular Distance Learning Modality adheres to student-centeredness (Gonzales, 2015).

ELICITATION

            The directives wherein they were manifested were followed by Elicitation through several activities and questions that demand learners’ linguistic responses. Elicitation can be done in both verbal and nonverbal approaches, and it is one of the primary ways in which teachers can manage classroom discourse or even pedagogical communication within modules (Walsh, 2013). The purpose of these elicitation utterances is for the learners to speak for their ideas and insights in writing because of the concept of today’s modular learning modality (Usman, Ahmad, Fitriani, and Nour 2018). Nunan (1999) even asserted that the process of elicitation involves the learner’s stimulation with the help of the teachers to produce a sample of the structure, function, and vocabulary item being taught. These are Elicitation sample utterances: “How many letters does the English Alphabet have?“ (Q1, M2, L1, p. 10) and “What do you call on the character who is the focus in the story?” (G3, Q1, M2, L1, p. 14). Elicitation by the teacher can generate information that can increase learner engagement and lead to better cognitive development (Nathan and Kim, 2007).

Supply

            In Grade 2, it conveys that there are 83 utterances for Supply alone: “Is it good or helpful to know some words in English and Filipino? Why or Why not?” (G2, Q1, M5, L1, p. 5) and “Have you experienced riding all the means of transportation you have just seen?” (G2, Q1, M7, L1, p. 4). In short, there is a monopoly of learners’ activity which is only to supply the needed information asked from the modules initiated by the teachers themselves. However, in Grade 3, there is the presence of several utterances that fall under Elicitation sub-categories: There are 230 Supply utterances: “What was rose being symbolized to? How about Sampaguita?” (G3, Q1, M1, L1, p. 5) and “How will you identify the nouns in a sentence?” (G3, Q1, M7, L1, p. 10).

Commit

            In Grade 3, there are 13 Commit utterances which means that teachers initiated statements that would demand the learners to commit themselves to do such particular activities at a certain point of time: “How does a diary help you in expressing your thoughts and feelings?” (G3, Q1, M4, L1, p. 6) and “Do you like to talk about a lot of things? Do you love to tell stories?” (G3, Q1, M5, L1, p. 4).  There is now a difference in the occurrence of the sub-categories under Elicitation between the two grade levels. Supply only for Grade 2 while Supply and Commit for Grade 3.

            This was the case for Grade 2 students because all pedagogical communication under Elicitation was focused solely on providing the information required and requested by the teachers. Yes/no questions, alternative questions, indirect questions, and WH-interrogatives can all be used to accomplish this (Jafari, 2013). On the contrary, Grade 3 learners are expected to go beyond supplying the needed information only because they are in different levels wherein they need to have that additional skill of commitment to be actualized by their group. This could be in the form of Yes/No questions or WH-interrogative (Jafari, 2013). In this context, it is a technique of soliciting and drawing information from the learners commonly by asking questions instead of utilizing the teacher’s explanation. As a result, learner engagement will increase, thinking will be stimulated, and learners will be driven to self-discovery (Scrivener, 2012).

            Supplying information and committing themselves to these academic actions can help them to be more attentive in applying language structure, vocabulary and even proper pronunciation, maximizes speaking and writing opportunities, and checks student’s understanding above all (Darn, 2010).

INFORMATIVES

            Informatives are also reflected in the modules that provide essential and relevant information in the form of facts, opinions, ideas, or new information for learners’ intellectual consumption and engagement (Mardiningsih, Istiqomah, and Mujiwati, 2020). These are Informative sample utterances: “These modules provide you with activities that will help you learn how to differentiate common nouns from proper nouns.” (G2, Q1, M3, L1, p. 1) and “Stories have their ending. The word end means what happened to the characters at the last part of the story, whether a happy, memorable, sad, or good ending.” (G3, Q1, M3, L1, p. 6). In the Informative it appears the sub-categories: Report, Assessment and Expressive.

Report

            In Grade 2, it appears that there are 49 utterances for Report: “The English Alphabet has 26 letters, while the Filipino Alphabet has 28 letters.” (G2, Q1, M2, L1, p. 1) and “The words a and an are articles. These words are always used with nouns.” (G2, Q1, M4, L1, p. 3). In Grade 3, there are 109 utterances: “Diary is a personal piece of writing. It reflects your thoughts about a person, event, place, and experience that interests you most.” (G3, Q1, M4, L1, p. 7) and “Here are some CVC words with short vowel sounds.” (G3, Q1, M9, L1, p. 11). Still, the report is on the highest rank in terms of manifested utterances.

Assessment

            In Grade 2, it reveals that there are nine utterances for Assessment: “Learning to clarify or categorize sounds heard is an important skill. It helps us identify and distinguished the sounds heard in the environment, Knowing how sounds are produced will help us to determine and produce the sounds of the letters of the English Alphabet.” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 2) and “Learning to differentiate common nouns from proper nouns is an important skill that we should learn. It helps us in identifying all of the objects around us.” (G2, Q1, M3, L1, p. 3). Conversely, in Grade 3, there is a change of ranking or placement between Assessment and Expressive. The Assessment comes first in Grade 2 with nine utterances and three utterances under Expressive. There is only one utterance in Grade 3 under Assessment: “Meaning of words can be shown in different ways.” (G3, Q1, M10, L1, p. 3).

Expressive

            In Grade 2, it shows that there are three utterances for Expressive: “Activities in this modules will also teach you to appreciate the things around you.” (G2, Q1, M3, L1, p. 1) and “To determine the background knowledge of the learners about the topic that is already known, pupils are asked to recall their experiences as the basis for motivation in understanding the narrative or expository text. New information can be understood easily if the connection to something that is already known is made.” (G2, Q1, M7, L1, p. 5). In Grade 3, there are 25 indicated utterances: “I have a new bag.” (G3, Q1, M9, L1, p. 18) and “Vitamin C is good for the body. It fights against infection. It keeps our body active.” (G3, Q1, M12, L1, p. 14).

            It came about this way because all of the pedagogical communication under Informative was based on personal experiences, which is an indicator under Report that teachers always consider unique experiences to be the medium of learning and that would help learners create and manage their meaning-making towards learning (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). Followed by Assessment in which the teachers of today are definite with their goals, judgments, and evaluations on certain things around them which could be of use in the academic pursuit and the real pedigree of information on learners’ achievement (Ready and Wright, 2011, Südkamp et al., 2012, Südkamp et al., 2014).

            Lastly, Expressive is the least sub-category revealed in the modules because the medium calls for limitation wherein the expression of the teachers’ feelings and attitudes are up to some extent only due to inaccuracies and limited cognition (Carson, Weiss, & Templin, 2010).  However, Grade 3 teachers revealed that after manifesting utterances under Report, they followed with Expressive, indicating that these teachers have the type of attitude that is more concerned with specific events or affairs displaying mood and psychological state than asserting their judgments over certain people, events, or conditions (Searle, 1969). Honestly, the attitudes and mindset of teachers truly matter in motivating and de-motivating the learners (Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, & Marzulina, 2018).

            Knowing that Report prevailed over the other sub-categories that value teachers’ articulating their personal experiences and even learning needs in the teaching-learning process, which can make it more realistic and authentic, which is genuinely beneficial for the learners’ way of learning and teachers’ professional development (Smith and Lindsay, 2016).

            The other two sub-categories also play their essential roles for the success of this significant undertaking regardless of their different ranking or placement. The fact remains that the occurrence of these three prominent sub-categories initiated among teachers revealed in the modules are teachers’ support that would undoubtedly accompany these young learners to become well-oriented about the realities of life as early as possible wherein they can mirror what to do and not to do, even giving them the opportunity to learn more and express their opinions (OECD, 2016b; Ricard and Pelletier, 2016).

            These are commendable gauges that realistic and authentic teaching-learning process is still present and independent learning is supported as specified in the Modular Distance Learning modality (Gayan, Anar, Karakat, & Madina, 2016). In addition, teachers are expected to be the coaches of understanding and not only as providers of content or activities in the modules (Wiggins and McTighe, 2011). In giving information, teachers should spare time for the learners to grasp, absorb and adjust information into the cognitive structure with the new information. Thus, learning objectives are expected to be achieved at an optimum level (Mardiningsih, Istoqomah, and Mujiwati, 2020).

REQUESTIVES

            Requestives initiated among teachers within the modules for the learners to answer wherein they’re all given the liberty to answer such or not. Yet, teachers expect these learners to answer them still. These are Requestive sample utterances: “Let’s move on.” (G2, Q1, M4, L1, p. 6) and “Enjoy your journey. Good luck!” (G3, Q1, M1, L1, p. 1).  Again, this is one of the teacher’s ways to engage the learners in future courses of action that concurs with the teacher’s goals and visions (Jorda, 2008). In the Requestive it appears the sub-categories: Proposal and Invite.

Proposal

            In Grade 2, it proclaims one utterance for Proposal: “Let’s move on.” (G2, Q1, M4, L1, p. 6). It resulted in this way because teachers always consider the sake of their learners that even in the modules, they never forget to give reminders to learners for their academic engagement (Otero & Jillian, 2015). These are essential to be seen and read in the modules to be an ounce of learners’ achievement motivation (Plante et al., 2013; Wigfield et al., 2016). Since Proposal and Invite were being proclaimed utterances in Grade 2, it shows that learners need teachers’ guidance by providing several examples wherein teachers also perform the tasks before the learners will do them so they can be guided appropriately.

Invite

            In Grade 2, it exhibits one utterance for Invite: “Remember this!” (G2, Q1, M4, L1, p. 7). But in Grade 3, it proclaims seven utterances under Invite only: “Enjoy your journey. Good luck!” (G3, Q1, M1, L1, p. 1) and “Now let’s try the following activities.” (G3, Q1, M7, L1, p. 9). However, in Grade 3, it was proclaimed that only utterances under Invite were revealed; it means to say that there is an opportunity for independent practice wherein these learners must do these tasks on their own, even for sometimes. This concept is derived from the term scaffolding, which refers to unpredictability, faded support aimed at the transfer of responsibility for a specific task or learning (Van de Pol et al. 2010 ). Praetorius et al. (2012) explained that a teacher’s manner of interacting with his/her learners affects their performance and achievement.

            These utterances must be incorporated into the modules as frequently as possible so that the learners are always given signals to work in their academic venture exercising their responsibilities as modeled in Fisher & Frey’s (2014); Pearson & Gallagher’s (2014) Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) Model (1983) “I do (teachers) learners simply watch and listen to what is being modeled to them, We do (teachers-learners) learners are to be partially involved, and You do (learners) learners are expected to demonstrate what they have just learned through independent practice” (McCoy, 2011)

            These verbatim sample utterances have emerged in works of literature that call for teachers to be agentic professionals serves as a strategic response to policy agenda recommending firm accountability of educational reforms and school development (Eteläpelto et al., 2013) and taking greater heights towards proactive actions of taking initiatives to carry out the roles of education no matter what (Imants and Van Der Wal 2020). Biesta et al. (2015) highlighted that it is considered to be a specific reform in the context of professional agency in which their active and humble contribution to shaping their responsibilities and its conditions is assumed to be an inevitable factor of excellent and meaningful education regardless of what learning modality is being implemented. This is due to the idea that pedagogical communication relies on these modules per se.

            As a result, it is an essential and great move among teachers that they have provided numerous directives than any head acts because these students rely on these directives as their guide on what to do and what to perform to achieve the learning objectives of the lesson (Yule, 1996). These directives aim to personify attempts on the teacher’s part for the learners to accomplish the given task (Ana & Musarokah, 2018).

            In addition, other head acts also play their salient roles to carry out modular instruction.  This flow of the teaching-learning process through modules will prioritize the academic ease of the teachers-learners so that they can work at their own pace while the instructions are clearly stated for better understanding and performance in working those feasible and bearable lessons so that an effective learning engagement can still be demonstrated (Briones, 2020).

            Thus, teachers have salient roles in incorporating motivation using the modules, sufficient knowledge of their learners, and their characteristics. These desirable teaching-learning outcomes must still be attainable in modular instruction (Alelaimat and Ghoneem, 2012).

RESPONDING MOVE

            The Responding Move among learners it reveals all the head acts present in Grade Two and Grade Three English modules.  These head acts are Positive response comprising two sub-categories: Complete

Compliance and Partial Compliance and Negative response comprising one sub-category: Passive Rejection.

POSITIVE RESPONSE

            In Grade 2, it conveys 162 Positive utterances, which show the majority of the learners’ responses are in a positive manner: “1. Aa Bb Cc 2. Ff Gg Hh 3. Kk Ll Mm 4. Oo Pp Qq 5. Rr Ss Tt” (G2, Q1, M2, L1, p. 6) and “Selecting from the options given” (G2, Q1, M4, L1, p. 12). In Grade 3, there are 331 utterances under Positive: “The Carabao is blind, hardworking and generous.” (G3, Q1, M2, L1, p. 7) and “Myrna is always sad in school. Her classmates laugh at her because she is fat. Her hair is curly. She has no friends except Mika.” (G3, Q 1, M3, L1, p. 4)

NEGATIVE RESPONSE

            In Grade 2, it manifests 45 Negative utterances which that these learners’ responses are in a negative manner: “(no drawing)” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 8) and “(no answer)” (G2, Q1, M3, L1, p. 9). In Grade 3, it expresses 111 utterances under Negative: “(no answer)” (G3, Q1, M3, L1, p. 9) and “(no drawing)” (G3, Q1, M10, L1, p. 10). Both grade levels have the same ranking based on the revealed head acts.

            It resulted in this way that the majority of the students responded to the teachers’ initiation move wherein these young learners are in total dependence on the teachers’ initiation move to the extent that they have just done their part following what is indicated in the modules. The data reveals that learner-engagement is still present in modular instruction. The majority of them have responded positively. Learners made conscious efforts that promote their engagement and commitment in the teaching-learning process to acquire knowledge and establish their critical thinking (Dixson, 2015). As a result, according to Aung and Ye, this leads to student success and achievement, which are related to student satisfaction (2016). On the contrary, the data show that there were students who either did not answer the questions printed in the modules or did not realize they did.

            That is why they preferred not to answer them instead. The same scenario happened in both Grade 2 and Grade 3, regardless of their levels. This awful realistic occurrence of undesirable learning outcomes and cognitive development are profound results of learner-disengagement (Ma, Han, Yang, & Cheng, 2015). Undeniably, there is a prevailing disagreement on various aspects: affective/emotional, cognitive, and behavioral (Eccles, 2016), agentic engagement (Reeve, 2012; Reeve & Tseng, 2011), and social engagement (Fredricks, Filsecker, & Lawson, 2016) brought by the pandemic.

            The data shows that if this trend continues, the majority of students will respond positively to their modules, which is an excellent indication that these students are eager to learn. For the negative responses, these are concrete signs that the teachers should have open communication to these learners to lend help if these learners are really in need of help might as well with the parents and guardians guide these young learners in answering their modules (Gordon, 2010; Peterson 2010).

            Some teachers said that these cases are very alarming: “Di sila mu-tubag sa modules kay lisud kuno” (Teacher 1), “Di sila mu-answer sa modules kay way mutabang nila” (Teacher 2), “Di sila makatubag sa mga modules kay ang uban nila di pa kaajo makamao makabasa” (Teacher 3), “Di sila makatubag sa ilang modules kay busy ilang mga ginikanan ug panginabuhi” (Teacher 4), and “Di sila katubag sa ilang modules kay ang ilang mga igsuon daghan pong modules nga answeran” (Teacher 5). These young learners preferred not to answer because they don’t know who to seek for help if there are items that they are confused about: “Libog” (Pupil 1), “Lisud” (Pupil 2), “Kaghan mn ug answeranan” (Pupil 3), “Makatog ko ug sajo” (Pupil 4), “Mulakaw man si Mama way mutabang nahu” (Pupil 5), “Di pa mn ko makabasa ug ajo” (Pupil 6) and “Di maklaro ang ubang printa sa modules” (Pupil 7). A good rapport must be established among teachers, students, parents, and guardians to address the needs of these students as soon as possible. This relationship should be confirmed with much respect, especially between teachers and learners (Kranea et al., 2017). Moreover, this will result in the development of learner’s outcomes which significantly helps the learners generate positive relationships with their teachers even more (Jong et al., 2014).  However, this must be done with utmost adherence to health protocols and physical restrictions.

            In a nutshell, this would almost certainly result in all learners answering and responding to all of the activities to be completed in the modules, especially if they receive collaborative support from the school and authorities by yielding crisis-oriented psychological support and facilities to address these alarming cases of partially or completely failing to answer the modules (Khodabakhshi-Koolaee, 2020; Pragholapati, 2020).

Complete Compliance

            Positive Actual Compliance Resistance Strategies and Messages that are present in the modules. In Grade 2, 156 utterances exhibited Complete Compliance: “Ship because I enjoyed looking at the sea.” (G2, Q1, M7, L1, p. 4) and “1. food 2. water 3. clothes 4. sunlight 5. Milk” (G2, Q1, M7, L1, p. 13). In Grade 3, there are 323 utterances under Complete Compliance: “I describe one drawing by looking the message of the drawing.” (G3, Q1M1, L1, p. 11) and “Character is important in the story because it is the one who made the story craetive and alive. It is the reason why the story happened.” (G3, Q1, M2, L1, p. 7).

Partial Compliance

            In Grade 2, there are six utterances exhibited Partial Compliance: “1. Ee Ff 2. Gg 3. Nn 3. Xx Yy 4. Hh Ii 5. Qq Rr 6. Ss Vv 7. (No answer)” (G2, Q1, M2, L1, p. 6) and “pond, water, ricefields (lacking)” (G2, Q1, M7, L1, p. 10) and 45 utterances exhibited Passive Rejection: “(no drawing)” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 8) and “(no answer)” (G2, Q1, M7, L1, p. 11). In Grade 3, there are eight utterances under Partial Compliance: “1. Alren has a pet lover.2. Alren loves to play with Mill. 3. The rat is under the pile of blocks. (not in paragraph form)” (G3, Q1, M3, L1, p. 2) and “Clinton and his friends riding a boat. 2. Lamesa beach is clean. 3. (no answer)” (G3, Q1, M6, L1, p. 11) and 111 utterances under Passive Rejection: “(no answer)” (G3, Q1, M10, L1, p. 11) and “(no drawing)” (G3, Q1, M10, L1, p. 10). These few utterances demonstrating Partial Compliance are strong indications that there is still hope that these can be treated in such a way that there will be no more partial accomplishments and missing items that these students may be doing as long as there is constant communication among teachers, parents, and guardians. This requires energy, effort in action, and observable manifestation within the involved individuals included in the teaching-learning process to strengthen learner engagement.

            The idea of Partial Compliance of the assigned tasks will be eliminated and not be normalized. (Eccles & Wang, 2012; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). In both Grade 2 and Grade 3, the Actual Compliance Resistance Strategies and Messages are of the same ranking.

            The majority of the learners have completely completed all of the required activities in the modules, which means that they have either answered their modules cordially or have been guided by their parents or guardians as they answer the activities. This must be upheld and be consistent through time, for this a concrete indicator of learners’ satisfaction as a prevalent indicator of learners’ overall academic experiences and achievements (Virtanen et al., 2017).

            However, there were utterances that demonstrated that some of these learners only partially complied because the items or activities were difficult for them to complete or they were not properly guided by their parents or guardians, resulting in the submission of their modules with missing answers to several items as teachers said in verbatim: “Di sila mu-answer sa modules kay way mutabang nila” (Teacher 1), “Di sila makatubag sa ilang modules kay busy ilang mga ginikanan ug panginabuhi” (Teacher 4), and “Di sila katubag sa ilang modules kay ang ilang mga igsuon daghan pong modules nga answeran” (Teacher 5). Therefore, teachers should intensify the teaching-learning process with suitable and relevant learning strategies, which are principal factors that will contribute to better learner outcomes and performances (Thanh and Viet 2016).

Passive Rejection

            In Grade 2, it appears that there are 45 utterances of Passive Rejection: “(no drawing)” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 8) and “(no answer)” (G2, Q1, M3, L1, p. 9). On the contrary, in Grade 3, it indicates 111 utterances of Passive Rejection: “(no answer)” (G3, Q1, M3, L1, p. 9) and “(no drawing)” (G3, Q1, M10, L1, p. 10). These utterances conveyed that these learners are disinterested in reading and answering their modules. They do not even understand what they are reading, or they do not have proper guidance from teachers, parents, or guardians, or the items are too difficult for their intellectual levels. As learners have said genuinely: “Libog” (Pupil 1), “Lisud” (Pupil 2), “Kaghan mn ug answeranan” (Pupil 3), “Mulakaw man si Mama way mutabang nahu” (Pupil 5), “Di pa mn ko makabasa ug ajo” (Pupil 6) and “Di maklaro ang ubang printa sa modules” (Pupil 7). These are results of learner-disengagement. Frustration (Ikpeze, 2007), opposition/rejection (Smidt, Bunk, McGrory, Li, & Gatenby, 2014), disappointment (Granberg, 2010), and affective disengagement are tangible indexes of learner-disengagement.

            If these students continue to passively reject all of the items and activities expressed in the modules and are not immediately corrected by their teachers, parents, and guardians, there is a greater chance that they will learn nothing. Gordon (2010) used the significance of shared leadership among teachers, parents, and the community to inform, follow-up, and assist learners in dealing with this frightening reality, as they play critical roles as partners in the learning process. As a result, there is an urgent need to restructure and redesign teaching-learning strategies that will enable teachers to adapt instructional needs in response to changes in learners’ motivation, involvement, and attitude toward the course, teaching-learning dynamic, and educational pursuits in modular instruction (Mandernach et al., 2011), as well as the inclusion of parental engagement (Peterson, 2010).

            Overall, only three of the 20 categories identified in Burroughs’ (2007) Typology of Actual Compliance-Resistance Strategies and Messages are frequent and present in the Modular Distance Learning modality.

FOLLOW-UP MOVE

            The Follow-up move among teachers expresses all the head acts that are present in the modules. This move among teachers contains two head-acts: Endorsement and Concession.

ENDORSEMENT

            In Grade 2, 164 utterances expressed Endorsement: “Checked” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 7) and “Note: 1. Some modules were answered by parent’s or guardians 2. Some of the modules were found no answer 3. Penmanship was from the parents” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 11) and 345 utterances expressed for Endorsement in Grade 3 in which teachers give expected follow-up or feedback to the learners’ responses: “Checked” (G3, Q1, M2, L1, p. 7).

CONCESSION

            In Grade 2, it reveals that there are 47 utterances in Grade 2 expressed Concession: “(no follow-up)” (G2, Q1, M1, L1, p. 8) and 100 utterances in Grade 3 expressed Concession in which teachers did not provide any follow-up or feedback to the learners’ responses: “(no follow-up)” (G3, Q1, M3, L1, p. 9). Both Grade 2 and Grade 3 have the same ranking in terms of the revealed sub-categories.

            The data expressed the reality that the majority of the teachers spend time providing follow-up or feedback to the learners’ responses or outputs. Ethically, follow-up or feedback plays a vital role in the teaching-learning process, especially for the learners’ benefit, because they can have that discernment whether they are performing well or not (Littleton et al., 2011). Furthermore, follow-up or feedback can lead to learners’ development as independent learners who can monitor, evaluate, regulate and improve their skills and learning (Ferguson, 2011).

            However, some teachers demonstrated passive follow-up or feedback or did not provide any follow-up or feedback to the learners’ responses or outputs due to prevailing factors such as countless works, time constraints, or worse, they simply procrastinate and intend not to provide any follow-up or feedback at all. Time attitude must be practiced wherein teachers, and other individuals can efficiently and constructively control, manage and utilize his/her time (Karim et al., 2015).  This is an alarming reality because it defies the purpose of learners’ improvement that even unclear, vague, too brief, and ambiguous follow-up or feedback can result in learners’ disappointment, dissatisfaction and carry that feeling of uncertainty which is unhelpful to future learning, how much more if teachers continue in exhibiting passive follow-up or feedbacking? (Price et al., 2010) (Ferguson, 2011; Hyland, 2013).

            Follow-up coming from the teachers are indeed significant for the learners’ improvement. This necessitates all of the teacher’s effort and time to read and check the learners’ responses and outputs so that he/she can assess the strengths and weaknesses of his/her learners so that the learners themselves have that conscious mind on what they should avoid and what they should improve on the next time. Immediate follow-up or feedback leads to immediate learning breakthrough. Always, immediate follow-up or feedback is much better than delayed one (Kehrer, Kelly, & Heffernan, 2013; Singh et al., 2011).

            In general, modular instruction has its advantages and disadvantages, as researchers recapitulated. Its benefits stated that modules are well-known for their features to be to be self-contain, methodically prepared, independent, well-defined, and have means in measuring the students’ outputs (Sejpal, 2013). Sadiq and Zamir (2014) added that modules converted classrooms into vigorous and learner-centered learning milieus. They presented a more resilient learning atmosphere that is favorable for the teachers and the learners. However, modular instruction has its fragment of disadvantages. Mahlangu (2018) highlighted how these modules assure the career growth opportunity of the learners and that these modules have adverse effects on learners’ psychological aspects. Modules necessitate extra time and preparation for teachers, but there is no reward for them, and it necessitates additional resources to track learners’ outputs and generate various modules (Dangle & Sumaoang, 2018).

            In today’s modules, it was revealed in this study that learner-centeredness is still being considered where teachers provided lots of directives to guide the learners in answering their modules. Still, it lacks an opportunity for the learners to develop their communicative skills because these modules are minimal on subjective test items, for learners simply selected their answers from the given options.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

            This study explored and scrutinized the pedagogical communication in the Modular Distance Learning modality for Primary Graders in adherence to Tsui’s (1994) IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) Taxonomy has extracted the following findings:

1. Teachers utilized most of the time Directives and Elicitation in their initiation move. Other two initiation moves which teachers least practiced are Informatives and Requestives.
2. Learners responded positively through Complete Compliance and Partial Compliance. Few manifestations of Passive Rejection which is considered a negative response.
3. The teacher’s follow-up move is more on Endorsement than Concession.

CONCLUSION

            Tsui’s IRF Taxonomy is true and present in the pedagogical communication of the Modular Distance Learning modality which serves the purpose to facilitating instruction; however, the linear cycle of the IRF model limits the opportunity of reaching the teachers’ Follow Up move to the learners.

RECOMMENDATIONS

            The following recommendations are derived from the findings of the study:

1. In the initiation move, there should have a balance among Directive, Elicitation, Informative and Requestive in the modules to avoid academic exhaustion on the part of the learners.
2. In the responding move, there should have a proper guidance and meaningful interventions of the teachers and the parents to ensure that the learners will completely answer their modules.
3. In the follow-up move, teachers should give constant, detailed, and immediate follow-up to the learners’ outputs for the learners to be aware of their academic progress and could keep track on the skills that they need to develop specifically in the pedagogical communication.
4. For Further Studies: Andragogical Communication in the Modular Distance Learning modality could be explored and ventured, too.

REFERENCES

1. Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., & Marzulina, L. (2018). ” If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL Student Teachers’ Challenges Speaking  Qualitative Report, 23(1).
2. Alberto, V. et al. (2013). Motivation and learning strategies in the use of ICTs among university students. Computers & Education, vol.61,52–
3. Alelaimat, AR. and Ghoneem, KAAR., 2012. The Effect of Educational Modules Strategy on the Direct and Postponed Study’s Achievement of Seventh Primary Grade Students in Science, in Comparison with the Conventional Approach. April 25, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v2 n2p40
4. Ali, R., Ghazi, R., Khan, S., Hussain, S., & Faitma, T. (2010). Effectiveness of modular teaching in Biology at secondary level. Asian Social Science, 6(9), 49–doi:10.5539/ass.v6n9p49
5. Almario, A.R. and Austria, R. (2020). Learning Opportunities Shall Be Available: The Basic Education       Learning Continuity Plan in the Time of COVID-19. (Enclosure to DepEd Order No. 12 , s. 2020).  DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, 1600. 1-883.
6. Alwi, A.; and Kamis, A. (2019). Using The ADDIE Model to Develop Green  Skills   Teaching Module.   Journal of Engineering Research    and Application, 9(1), Series -II, 53- 57.
7. Ana, Rayda & Musarokah, Siti. (2018). DIRECTIVES SPEECH ACTS ANALYSIS IN TEACHING VOCABULARY OF THE EIGHT GRADE STUDENTS OF MTS HUSNUL KHATIMAH IN THE  ACADEMIC  YEAR 2011-2012. ETERNAL (English Teaching Journal). 3. 26877/eternal.v3i2.2241.
8. Anan’ev, et al., (1972). Nature 238, 297– 298(1972).  https://doi.org/10.1038/238297b0
9. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v 12i3.890
10. Andrade, D. (2015). The Importance of Communication in Education. Retrieve from Online on 15/08/2015 http://www.techlearning.com/blo gentry/8716
11. Arnett, R., (2020). Communication pedagogy: The coronavirus Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 3, 5-10. https://doi.org/10.31446/JCP.2020.02
12. Assilkhanova, M., Tazhbayeva, S., and Ilimkhanova, L. (2014). Psychological Aspects of Pedagogical September 2014   Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5(20). doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p2726
13. Aung, J., & Ye, Y. (2016). The relationship between the levels of students’satisfaction and their achievement at Kant Kaw education Center in Myanmar. Scholar: Human Sciences, 8(1), 38 Retrieved from http://repository.au.edu/handle/6623004553/17994.
14. Basra, S. , & Thoyyibah, L.  (2017). A speech act analysis of teacher talk in an EFL classroom. International Journal of  Education, 10(1),  73-81.  doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ije.v10i1.6848
15. Berge, Z. (2013). Barriers to Communication in Distance Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education- TOJDE January 2013 ISSN 1302-6488   Volume: 14 Number: 1 Article 31.
16. Beutel, A., & Denise, A. (2010). The nature of pedagogic teacher-student interactions: a phenomenographic Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2), 77-91.
17. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624–640.
18. Bijeesh, N. A. (2017). Advantages and disadvantages of distance learning.
19. Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories. Routledge.
20. Bodalev, A.A. (1985). Subjective importance of the other person and its determinants. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 14. Psychology, 2, 13-17.
21. Bolkan, S. (2017). Making an impact: Facilitating student success with lessons from instructional communication and educational Dubuque, IA:Kendall Hunt.
22. Bordelon, K. (2013). Perceptions of achievement and satisfaction as related to interactions in online courses  (PhD dissertation), Northcentral University.
23. Breslin, J. D., & Sharpe, A. (2018). Transformative learning in the first-year experience. In M. G. Strawser (Ed.), Transformative  student experiences in higher education: Meeting the needs of the twenty-first century  student and modern workplace (pp. 207–223). Lexington Books.
24. Briones, L., 2020. Do 31, S. 2013 – Clarifications on the Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Language Learning Areas and their Time Allotment in Grades 1 and 2 of The K To 12 Basic Education July 16, 2013.
25. Briones, L., 2020. The Department of Education (DepEd). November 02, 2020
26. Brown, C. (2017). Advantages and disadvantages of distance learning. Retrieved from https://www.eztalks.com/elearni   ng/advantages-and- disadvantages-of-                  distance learning.html
27. Brown, C. (2017). Benefits of distance Retrieved from https://www.eztalks.com/elearning/benefits-ofdistance-learning.html
28. Brown, H 2001. Teaching  by Principles:  An Interactive    Approach to  Language       Pedagogy. London: Longman.
29. Brudniy, A. A. (1989). Understanding of Moscow.
30. Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy and
31. Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy and student compliance-resistance with Communication Education, 56, 453–475.
32. Carson, R. L., Weiss, H. M., & Templin, T. J. (2010). Ecological Momentary Assessment: A
33. Carson, R. L., Weiss, H. M., & Templin, T. J. (2010). Ecological Momentary Assessment: A Research Method for Studying the Daily Lives of International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33(2), 165-182. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2010.484548
34. Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain E. (2000). Discourse  and  context in  language teaching: a guide for language  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. chapters/60465
35. Chen, C. W. (2010). Brief introduction of new instruction – network   Living Technology       Education Journal, 34(4), 10-16.
36. Cheng, C. M & Abu Bakar, M. B. (2017). The Impact of Using Modules in the Teaching and Learning of English in Malaysian Polytechnics: An Analysis of the Views and Perceptions of English Language Teaching, Jabatan Pengajian Am, Politeknik Melaka,  Jebatan Politeknik, Kementerian, Pendidikan, Malaysia.
37. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and  Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
38. Dangle, Y. & Sumaoang, J. (2020). The Implementation of Modular Distance Learning in the Philippine Secondary Public 3rd International Conference on Advance Research in Teaching and Education. Dublin,  Republic of Ireland. November 27-29, 2020. https://www.dpublication.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/27-427.pdf
39. Dannels, D. P. (2015). Eight essential questions teachers ask: A guidebook for communicating with New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40. Darinskaya, L., Moskvicheva, N., and Molodtsova, G. (2014). Training Program   as a Means of Improving       Effectiveness of Pedagogical St. Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, 199034, Russia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 171(2015) 569 – 575.
41. Darn, S. (2010). Eliciting.  Retrieved April 4, 2016 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.u k/article/eliciting.
42. Diloyan, A. (2017). The Importance of Communication in the Classroom: The Impact of Effective   Communication Skills on Student American University of Armenia.
43. Dixson, M. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course:   The onlinestudent engagement  scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i561.
44. Domenech, F. & Gomez, A (2014). The relationship among students’ and teachers’ thinking styles, psychological needs and In Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 29, January 2014, Pages 89-97.
45. Eccles, J. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43, 71–75.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learnins 2016.02.003.
46. Eccles, J., & Wang, M.-T. (2012). Part I commentary: So what is student engagement   anyway? In S. L.       Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C.Wylie (Eds.),   Handbook of research on   student engagement, (pp. 133–145). Boston: Springer US Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007 /978-1-4614-2018-7_6.
47. Ekwunife-Orakwue, K. C.V., & Teng, T.-L. (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on  student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78, 414– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011
48. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi,S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing profes-sional agency at work. Educational Research Review,10,45–65.
49. Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62.
50. Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002.
51. Frey, N. and Fisher, D., 2014. The Formative Assessment Action Plan. 120–122, section heading    “Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Framework.”   Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Copyright 2007 by ASCD. Reprinted with permission.
52. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for       research and       practice (2nd ed.).     New York, NY: Routledge.
53. Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses    headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. The International Review of Research   in Open and   Distributed     Learning, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1954
54. Gayan, G., Anar, M., Karakat, M., & Madina, A. (2016). Modern approaches to the pedagogical designing of modular educational programs of higher professional education in the Republic of Kazakhstan. International  Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(9), 2863–2876.
55. Glotova, G., & Wilhelm, A. (2014). Teacher’s Self-concept and Self-esteem in Pedagogical Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences., 132, 509–514.
56. Gonzales, E. E. (2015). A Modular Approach Utilizing Decision Tree in Teaching Integration Techniques in Calculus, Department of Arts, Sciences and Teacher Education, City College of Calamba, Calamba City, Laguna, Philippines.
57. Gordon, M. F. (2010). Bringing parent and community engagement back into the education reform spotlight: A  comparative case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
58. Gordon, N. A. (2014). Flexible Pedagogies: technology-enhanced learning. In   The     Higher Education Academy. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2055760
59. Granberg, C. (2010). Social software for reflective dialogue: Questions about reflection and dialogue in student Teachers’ Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3),345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2010.513766.
60. Guthrie, A. (1995). English Conversation, by Amy B.M. Tsui. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. xviii+298   Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2). University of California, Los Angeles, 1995. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/ 6n75787p
61. Guthrie, J., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into  intellectual capital reporting.  Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5,     282-293.
62. Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY:
63. Hess, J. A. (2016). Strengthening the introductory communication course: An opportunity through better alignment with today’s Basic Communication Course Annual, 28, 11–21. https:// ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol28/iss1/7/
64. Hilliard, A.T. and Newsome, E. Jr (2013), “Effective communication and creating professional learning    communities is a valuable practice  for superintendents”, Contemporary Issues In Education Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 353-364. http://www.indiaeducation.net/online-education/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-Html
65. Huang, R., Chen, G., Yang, J., & Loewen, J. (2013). The New Shape of Learning: Adapting to Social Changes in the Information Society. In R. Huang & M. Spector (Eds.), Reshaping Learning SE – 1 (pp. 3–42). Springer          Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32301-0_1
66. Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F., Wang, H.H., et al. (2020). Handbook on Facilitating Flexible Learning During Educational Disruption: The Chinese Experience in Maintaining Undisrupted Learning in COVID-19 Outbreak. Beijing:       Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University.
67. Huynh, J. (2014). Study Finds No Difference in the Amount Men and  Women Talk.
68. Hyland, K. (2013). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180–187.
69. Ikpeze, C. (2007). Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: An analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving Preservice and Inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 383–407.
70. Imants, J. and Van Der Wal, M., 2020. A model of teacher agency in professional development and school reform. May 2019. Curriculum Studies   52(4):1-14. DOI:10.1080/00220272.2019.160 4809 Instructional Communication And Educational Psychology. Dubuque, Ia: Kendall Hunt. Instructional Communication And Educational Psychology. Dubuque, Ia: Kendall Hunt. Instructional Communication And educational    Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
71. Iovleva, V. I. (2016). Modul’no- kompetentnostnaja tehnologija obuchenija dlja formirovanija
72. Ismail, B. L., et al. (2018). Application of Fuzzy Delphi Methods in Developing of Green       Skills   Elements in Secondary Schools.      Sains Humanika, 10(3).
73. Jafari, (2013).  The  role  of  elicitation questions  in  language  learning:  A function-based framework.    Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing.
74. Jong, R., Mainhard, Tim., Tartwijk, J., Veldman, I., Verloop, N., & Wubbels, T. (2014). How pre-service teachers’ personality traits, self-efficacy, and discipline strategies contribute to the teacher–student relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 294-310.
75. Jorda, P., 2008. The Speech Act of January 2008.
76. Jurik, V. et al. (2014). Predicting students’ cognitive learning activity and intrinsic learning motivation: How powerful are teacher statements,   student profiles, and gender? Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 32, 132–
77. Kan-Kalik, V. A., & Kovalev, A. G. (1987). Classification of psychological types of communication. Problems of psychology, 3.
78. , & Mitra, K. (2015),  Time management skills impact on  self- efficacy and    academic performance. Journal of American Science, 7(12).
79. Kehrer, P., Kelly, K. & Heffernan, N. (2013). Does Immediate Feedback While  Doing Homework Improve   In Boonthum-Denecke, Youngblood(Eds) Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2013, St. Pete Beach, Florida. May 22-24, 2013. AAAI Press     2013. p 542-545
80. Kempton, S. , et al. (2018). Surgical education module improves operative proficiency in endoscopic carpal tunnel release: A blinded randomized controlled trial of trainees. Journal of Surgical Education, 75(2), 442-449. Khodabakhshi-koolaee A. Living in home quarantine: analyzing psychological experiences of college students during Covid-19pandemic. J Military Med.     2020;22(2):130–8.
81. Kindeberg, T. (2013). The Significance of Emulation in the Oral Interaction Between Teacher and Students. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47( 1), 99–111.
82. Khodabakhshi-Koolaee, A. (2020). Living in Home Quarantine: Analyzing Psychological Experiences of College Students during Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Military 22. 130-138. 10.30491/JMM.22.2.130.
83. Kolominskiy, Ya. L. (1977). Sotsiometriya v sotsialno-psichologicheskom issledovanii  [Metodologiya I metodyi sotsialnoy psihologii] Moskva: Nauka [in Russian].
84. Kör, H. (2013). Uzaktan ve Örgün Eğitimin Öğrenci Başarısı Üzerine Etkisinin Araştırılması, Gaziantep  Ünversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2), 267-279.
85. Kör, H., Erbay, H., Demir, E., & Akmeşe, Ö. F. (2016). A study on the factors affecting the academic performance of distance education students and formal students, Hit University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 9(2), 1029-1050.
86. Kranea, V., Nessa, O., Holter-Sorensena, N, Karlssona, B., & Binderb, P. (2017). You notice that there is something positive about going to school: How teachers’ kindness can promote positive teacher– student relationships in upper secondary International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(4), 377-389.
87. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology,   105(3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
88. Kyngäs, H., Elo, S., Pölkki, T., Kääriäinen, M., & Kanste, O. (2011). Sisällönanalyysi suomalaisessa hoitotieteellisessä tutkimuksessa [The use of content analysis in Finnish nursing science research]. Hoitotiede, 23(2), 138-
89. Lambrechts, Wim, Mulà Ingrid et al. (2013). The integration of competences for sustainable development in   Higher Education: an analysis of bachelor programs in management.  In Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, Pages 65–73.
90. Lapp, E. A. (2012). Modul’nyj podhod v proektirovanii uchebnogo plana bakalavriata po
91. Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student   perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.  04.001
92. Leont’ev, A. A. (1979). Pedagogical Moscow.
93. Littleton, Ch et al. (2011).The Role of feedback in Two Fan fiction writing Unpublished, PhD, Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 346537.
94. Lopuhova, Ju. V., & Jurina, M. V. (2017). Soderzhanie uchebnogo materiala kak vazhnyj aspekt izuchenija inostrannogo jazyka priispol’zovanii modul’nogo Baltijskij gumanitarnyj  zhurnal. T. 6. № 3 (20), 326-329.
95. Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition  for engagement in an online  learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26–34.   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.09.005.
96. Mahlangu, V. (April 4th 2018). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Distance   Learning in Higher Education,  Trends in E-learning, Mahmut Sinecen, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.75702.Availablef rom:https://www.intechopen.com /
97. Mahle, M. (2011). Effects of interactivity on student achievement and motivation in distance education.  Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(3), 207-215.
98. Malik, S. (2012). Effects of modular and traditional approaches on students’ general comprehension. Department, National University of Modern Languages (NUML) Islamabad, Pakistan. Elixir Social Studies 42 (2012) 6228-
99. Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli-Sallee, E., & Dailey-Hebert, A. (2011). Assessing course student engagement. In R. Miller, E. Amsel, B. M. Kowalewski, B.B. Beins, K. D. Keith, & B. F. Peden(Eds.), Promoting Student Engagement: Techniques and Opportunities (pp. 277- 281). Society for the Teaching of Psychology, Division 2, American   Psychological
100. Mardiningsih, Istiqomah, DM. and Mujiwati, Y., 2020. The Lecturers’ Speech Act on Online Learning During the Covid-19 Pandemic at PGRI Wiranegara January 2020. DOI:10.2991/assehr.k.201017.090
101. Matanluk, O. (2011). The Effectiveness of Using CSAA Module on Students Academic Performance. Paper        presented at 1st International Conference on World- Class Education (ICWED) on 5-6th,          Dec, University of Malaya, Kuala
102. Matanluk, O., Mohammad, B., Kiflee, D.N.A., and Imbug, M. (2013). The Effectiveness of Using Teaching Module Based on Radical Constructivism toward Students Learning Process. SMK. Sikuati, P. O. Box 355, 89058 Kudat, Sabah, Malaysia. University Of Malaysia Sabah, School Of Education And Social Development,88400, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 90(2013) 607 – 615.
103. McCoy, A. (2011, March 4). Teaching New Concepts: “I Do It, We Do It, You Do It” Method. Retrieved October 13, 2015, from http://antoinemccoy.com/teaching-new-concepts
104. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.  International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-19.
105. Mousena, E. and Sidiropoulou, T. (2017). Oral Communication Skills and Pedagogy,             New    Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century – Contributions of  Research in Education, Olga Bernad Cavero and Núria Llevot-Calvet, IntechOpen,DOI:5772/intechopen.70831.https://www.intechopen.com/books/ne  w-pedagogical-challenges-in-the-21st-century-contributions-of-research-in-education/oralcommunication-skills-and-pedagogy
106. Myasischev, V.N. (1995). Psychology Moscow, Institute of Applied Psychology, MODEK, 246 p.
107. Nagrale, P. (2013). Advantages and disadvantages of distance https://surejob.in/advantages-   anddisadvantages-of-distance-education.html napravleniju«special’noe (defektologicheskoe) obrazovanie»: teoreticheskie osnovanija i problemy realizacii. Vestnik Burjatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.1.2/2012, 145-150.
108. Nathan,   J  &  Kim,  S.  (2007). Regulation  of  Teacher  Elicitations and  the Impact  on Student  Participation  and Cognition.  Retrieved November  8, 2015 from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/.
109. Norliza A. M. et al. (2010). Communication Skills and Work Motivation Amongst Expert Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 7(C), 565–567.
110. Norliza A. M. et al. (2010). Communication Skills and Work Motivation Amongst Expert Teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
111. Norliza A. M. et al. (2010). Communication Skills and Work Motivation Amongst Expert Teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
112. Norliza A. M. et al. (2010). Communication Skills and Work Motivation Amongst Expert Teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
113. Norliza A. M. et al. (2010). Communication Skills and Work Motivation Amongst Expert Teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral  Sciences
114. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching  and    Boston: Heinle  & Heinle Publisher.
115. OECD (2016b). PISA 2015 Results: Excellence and Equity in Education, I Paris: OECD Publishing, 10.1787/9789264266490-en
116. Otero, Tiffany L., Haunt, Jillian M. (2015). Differential Effects of Reinforcement on the Self-Monitoring of On-Task Behavior:   American Psychological 91-103.
117. Ozdemir, O., Bonk, C. J. (2017). Turkish Teachers’ Awareness and Perceptions of Open Educational Resources. Journal of Learning for Development, v4 n3p307-321
118. Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: their      relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1), 222–229.       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comped2009.08.005
119. Panisoara, G. & Panisoara, I.O. (2012). Motivation in a crisis society. Romanian perspective. Procedia   Social and Behavioral Sciences,33,20-24.
120. Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., Ryan, A.M. (2011). Positive classroom motivational environments: Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of Educational Psychology. 103 (2), 367-382.
121. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
122. Peterson, K. (2010). Connecting parents and schools: Examining perceptions and building bridges to a more unified education Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
123. Petrovskiy, A.V. (1979). Vozniknovenie I suschnost stratometricheskogo podhoda k psihologii kollektiva [Psihologicheskaya teoriya kollektiva] Moskva: Pedagogika [in Russian].
124. Plante, I., O’Keefe, P. A., and Théorêt, M. (2013). The relation between achievement goal and expectancy-value theories in predicting achievement-related outcomes: a test of four theoretical Motiv. Emot. 37, 65–78. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9282-9
125. Praetorius, A. K., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction,6,387–400. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.0  002. Pragholapati A. COVID-19 IMPACT ON STUDENTS. 2020.
126. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.
127. Rashidi, N., & Rafieerad, M. (2010). Analyzing patterns of classroom interaction in EFL classrooms in Iran. Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(3), 93–120.
128. Ready and Wright, 2011 D.D. Ready, D.L. Accuracy and inaccuracy in teachers’ perceptions of young children’s cognitive abilities: The role of child background and classroom context. American Educational Research Journal, 48   (2) (2011), pp. 335-360, 10.3102/0002831210374874
129. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002.
130. Reimers, F. 2020. “What the Covid-19 Pandemic will change in education depends on the thoughtfulness of  education responses today”. April 09, 2020.
131. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Erlbaum. Research & Method in Education, 33(2), 165-182. doi: Research Method for Studying the Daily Lives of Teachers. International Journal of Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A.,
132. Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268
133. Reynolds, M., & Sellnow, D. (2015). Navigating the new: Examining the transition experiences of firstsemester college students. In Hicks and C. W. Lewis (Eds). High school to college transition research studies (pp. 3–25). University Press of America.
134. Ricard N. C., Pelletier L. G. (2016). Dropping out of high school: the role of parent and teacher self- determination support, reciprocal friendships and academic Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 44 32–40. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.003
135. Ryan, A., & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible Pedagogies: new pedagogical ideas. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/flexiblelearning/flexiblepedagogies/new_ped_ideas/report?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The+Higher+EducationAcademy&utm_campaign=4074096_140506&utm_content=New-pedagogical-ideas-
136. Sadeghi, M. (2019). A Shift from Classroom to Distance Learning: Advantages and Limitations. International  Journal of Research in English Education (2019) 4:1
137. Sadiq and Zamir, S. (2014). Effectiveness of Modular Approach in Teaching at University Level. National University of Modern Languages, Journal of Education and Practice. ISSN 2222- 1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-     288X (Online). Vol.5, No.17.
138. Sandelowski, M. (1995a). Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin? Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 371-375.
139. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
140. Scrivener, J. (2012). Classroom      management techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
141. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in philosophy of language. London:
142. Seghedin, E. (2012). Communication – the main component of teaching Procedia – Social and  Behavioral Sciences, 69, 350-358.
143. Sejpal, K. (2013). Modular Method of International Journal for Research in Education. Vol. 2, Issue:2. (IJRE) ISSN:2320-091X.
144. Semenova, L., Kazantseva, I., Sergeyeva, V., Raklova, Y., and Baiseitova, Z. (2016). Pedagogical Interaction in Hugh School, the Structural and Functional Model of Pedagogical Innovative University of Eurasia, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. Pavlodar State Pedagogical Institute, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. International Journal of  Environmental & Science Education 2016, Vol. 11, No. 9, 2553-2566 doi:10.12973/ijese.2016.706a.
145. Simonds, C. J., & Cooper, P. J. (2010). Communication for the classroom teacher (9th). Boston,   MA: Pearson.
146. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. 1992. ‘Towards an analysis of discourse’. In Coulthard,(Ed) 1992. Advances in spoken discourse analysis. 1-34. London: Routledge.
147. Sinclair, J.McH. and Coulthard, M.R. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and London: OUP. [-10-]
148. Singh, R., Saleem, M., Pradhan, P., Heffernan, C., Heffernan, N., Razzaq, Dailey, M. O’Connor, C. &  Mulchay,  C.  (2011) Feedback  during Web-Based Homework:  The  Role of  Hints In Biswas  et  al (Eds) Proceedings  of  the Artificial Intelligence in Education Conference 2011.  Springer. LNAI 6738,  Pages.  328–336.
149. Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement,   (pp. 21–44). Boston: Springer US.
150. Slastenin, V. A., & Mazher, N. E. (1991). Diagnostics of professional competence of young people to pedagogical activity. Moscow.
151. Smidt, E., Bunk, J., McGrory, B., Li, R., & Gatenby, T. (2014). Student attitudes about distance education: Focusing on context and effective IAFOR Journal of  Education, 2(1), 40–64.
152. Smith, K., & Lindsay, S. (2016). Building future directions for teacher learning in science education. Research in Science Education, 46, 243–261. doi:10.1007/s11165-015-9510-x
153. Sng Bee Bee.(2012).The Impact of Teachers’ Communication Skills on Teaching: Reflections of Pre- service Teachers on their Communication Strengths and Humanising language teaching. student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education,56, 453–475 student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication   Education,56, 453–475
154. Südkamp et al., 2012. A. Südkamp, J. Kaiser, J. Möller. Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta- Journal of   Educational Psychology, 104 (3) (2012), pp. 743-762, 10.1037/a0027627
155. Südkamp et al., 2014. A. Südkamp, J. Kaiser, J. Möller. Teachers’ judgments of students’ academic S. Krolak-Schwerdt, S. Glock, M. Böhmer (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development: Assessment, training, and learning, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, NL (2014), pp. 5-25
156. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational 104 (3), 743-762.
157. Sulistyani, 2017. The Power of Directive Speech Acts in EFL Classroom August 2017. https://doi.org/10.2991/iconelt-17.2018.4
158. Suzić, R., Dabić, T., and Miladinović, I. (2013). Student-Teacher Communication in University Teaching. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kragujevac, Sino-US English Teaching,   ISSN 1539-8072. Vol. 10, No. 1, 65-   71.
159. Thanh, N., & Viet, N. (2016). How to increase student’s satisfaction at higher education institutes (HEIs) today? Journal of Studies in Social Sciences and   Humanities, 2(4), 143–151.
160. Tsui, (1994). English Conversation. Oxford: OUP. Undergraduate Biology Research Program, University of Arizona.
161. UNESCO, 2015. “Education for All 2015 National Review Report: Philippines”.
162. Usman, B., Nour, A., Ahhmad, I., and Fitriani, S. (2018). Teachers’ elicitation: Unviting students to speak.   Edulite, Journal of English Education, Literature, and Culture, 3 (1), 56. Retrieved from net/publication/323 450722_Teachers’ Elicitation_Inviting_Students_To_Speak
163. Uspanov, K., Zhansugirova, K., & Bissenbayeva, Zh. (2013). Professionally Important Qualities Inherent In a  Teacher – A Measure of Rationality Regarding Pedagogical Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89, 751-755.
164. Valeeva, R.A., Aitov, V. F., and Bulatbayeva, A. (2016). The Levels of English Language  Acquisition on the Basis of Problem-Solving and Product-Oriented Tasks in the Multilingual Social Medium. Bashkir State Pedagogical University named after М.Аkmulla, Ufa, RUSSIA. ISSN: 1306-      doi: 10.12973/iser.2016.21025a
165. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction:    A decade of research.        Educational Psychology Review,     22, 271–297. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.
166. Velentzas, J.O.H.N. and Broni, G. (2014), “Communication cycle: definition,   process, models and       examples”, Recent Advances in Financial Planning and Product Development, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference  on Finance, Accounting and Law(ICFA ’14), Istanbul, Turkey, 15-17 December 2014, pp. 117-131.
167. Virtanen, M. A., Kääriäinen, M., Liikanen, E., & Haavisto, E. (2017). The comparison of students’ satisfaction  between ubiquitous and web-basedlearning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2565–2581.   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-  016-9561-2.
168. Walsh, S., (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Warren, M.L. (2013). Effects Beyond Effectiveness: Teaching as a Performative Act. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(2), 261–288.
169. Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., and Klauda, S. L. (2016). “Expectancy-value theory,” in Handbook of Motivation in   School, 2nd Edn. eds K. R. Wentzel and D. Mielecpesnm (New York, NY: Routledge), 55–74.
170. Wiggins, G, McTighe, J 2011, The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units,. Alexandria, Va, ASCD
171. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6-24. Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.