INFLUENCING FACTORS AND CURRENT APPROACHES TO ACADEMIC DISHONESTY IN THE PHILIPPINES DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC: AN OVERVIEW

Study purpose. As the Philippines welcomes its new school year, academic dishonesty remains a prevalent concern in the academe. To provide an overview of the situation, this review paper was developed with the goal of presenting current information about academic dishonesty through 1) identification of influencing factors and 2) application of current approaches to academic dishonesty. Materials and methods. Utilizing review of existing literature, this study described possible internal (laziness or procrastination, lack of proper time management, fear of failure, poor learning capability, motivation, state of mental health, self-attitude, capability, and intention) and external influencing factors (peer involvement, overwhelming academic workload, difficulty of subject/course, limited assistance of teachers, parental expectations, and use of digital technology) and current approaches to academic dishonesty (deterrence theory, rational choice theory, neutralization theory, planned behavior theory, as ignorance or confusion on teacher’s expectations, as learned behavior, and as coping strategy to stressful environment) that will serve as a reference point for researchers in investigating the extent of academic dishonesty in the country. Results and conclusions. Similarly, findings revealed here can assist teachers, school administrators, and policymakers in crafting more effective solutions to limit or eliminate any forms of academic dishonesty within educational institutions.


Introduction
Undeniably, COVID-19 pandemic created a situation that adversely affected students' learning motivation and learning environment for the past two school years (Baticulon et al., 2020;Fabito et al., 2020;Barrot et al., 2021;Hidalgo et al., 2021;Salazar et al., 2021;Espina & Monte, 2022). As the Philippines transitioned and retained both online learning and modular learning setup for the past two years, students across the country faced numerous concerns that arise as they continue their education during the pandemic. Their concerns range from internet connections issues and technological literacy to difficulty in comprehending and accomplishing academic requirements (Fabito et al., 2020;Barrot et al., 2021;Salazar et al., 2021;Jaca, 2022;Espina & Monte, 2022;Manalo et al., 2022;Meniano & Tan, 2022). The lack of conducive learning space, as well as the presence of distractions in their environment was exposed as an impor-tant concern to be addressed (Fabito et al., 2020;Barrot et al., 2021;Aguilar et al., 2021). On top of this, students expressed how their mental health had worsened, affecting their overall learning motivation (Baticulon et al., 2020;Barrot et al., 2021;Rotas & Cahapay, 2021;Salazar et al., 2021).
Even before the pandemic school years, Moralista and Oducado (2020) revealed how teachers already expressed concern over the proliferation of academic dishonesty even before School Year 2020-2021 had started. Identifying if a student commits any form of academic dishonesty was perceived as more challenging an online learning setup (Lopena et al., 2021). In a modular setup, Galang and colleagues (2021) cited similar sentiments shared by public school teachers, in which parents' involvement made the situation even more difficult to discern and resolve. In addition, their study mentioned that the answer keys being indicated in the modules provided by school division offices furthered their frustrations. Results of Balba and Caingcoy's (2021) study showed that younger college students were likely to commit academic dishonesty compared to older students. In terms of gender, Pagaddu (2021) stated that while both genders practice acts of plagiarism, males are more likely to commit plagiarism than females, due to the latter having more capacity to multitask and properly manage their time.
In terms of actual behavior committed, Frigillano's (2021) explained that cheating in examinations were performed through studying old exams, students' sharing of answers, and deliberately copying other students' answers.  also reported similar findings, adding that students were able to search examination answers via the internet. Frigillano's (2021) study also revealed how cheating was committed in assignments or projects primarily through collaboration in finishing individual task/s without teacher's permission. In terms of plagiarism, the use of another author's ideas without proper citation and referencing without thoroughly reading an article were revealed. Result of  study also reported the availability of some answers in YouTube that students utilized to accomplish their online activities. For Galang and colleagues (2021), modules submitted to teachers exhibit a different penmanship than the student's and blatant copying of answers from answer keys provided on actual modules. San Jose (2022) reported similar findings on parental involvement and added that students were likely to commit academic dishonesty when their friends are involved. Furthermore, Magsambol's (2021a) investigative report and Aguilar's (2021) study, students resorted to academic servicing to comply with their requirements. Magsambol uncovered that fellow students were providing such commissioned work, with social media (i.e., Twitter and Facebook) as their transaction medium. Results of  complemented this news report, wherein academic servicing was also done by teachers and professors who saw this situation as an opportunity to earn while assisting struggling students. Furthermore, alleged reports of teachers giving and selling answers to students' learning modules was also publicized (Magsambol, 2021b). Yet what gained national traction was the expose concerning a Facebook community page named "Online Kopyahan" (Copying) or "Online Tulungan" (Working Together), created by high school students aimed at helping each other, especially those who were struggling during the pandemic (Perez, 2021). The misconduct was performed by sharing answers to examinations and written assessments/ modules in the said Facebook community page.
As the new school year is about to begin and blended learning was the promoted learning modality (Noriega, 2022;Patag, 2022), the possibility of committing academic dishonesty remains a key issue in the academe. Based on this information, this review paper was developed with the main goal of presenting current information about academic dishonesty through 1) identification of influencing factors and 2) application of current approaches to academic dishonesty.

Materials and methods
As a review paper, this study utilized a narrative literature review of journal articles and news/investigative articles, with the primary criteria of focusing on academic dishonesty in the Philippines during COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of a descriptive literature review is to synthesize existing literature of a specific topic as means of providing readers a more comprehensive background of the topic in focus (Paré & Kitsiou, 2017). Following Levy andEllis' (2006, as cited in Paré &Kitsiou, 2017) proposed model, this study utilized the three step approach in conducting a systematic narrative review. The first step was literature search and screening. Using Google Search and Google Scholar Database, fourteen (14) journal articles were searched, one (1) of which indicated the Philippines as one of its settings, and six (6) news articles, one of which was an investigative report; all of which provided results as required by the primary criterion and were published from 2020-2022. Then, all selected literature were thoroughly read and validated to confirm its applicability in the study. The second step was data extraction and analysis. Extracted data were ensured to focus on the objectives of the study specifically, related to influencing factors and relevance to selected theoretical approaches. In terms of data analysis, qualitative narrative approach was utilized to describe the recurring influencing factors and applications of existing approaches to academic dishonesty based on analyzed and interpreted data, following the process employed by Cardina and colleagues in a similar study (2022). Following these processes, the final step in the Levy and Ellis' proposed framework was the actual writing of the literature review.

Influencing Factors behind Academic Dishonesty
In terms of influencing factors, the intricate framework laid down by Cardina and colleagues (2022) identifying the factors that led to students committing academic dishonesty in various universities across several countries (including the Philippines) was utilized in categorizing the possible influencing factors within the context of focus. Briefly, their study revealed two general factors that influence academic dishonesty: internal and external factors. Internal factors refer to causes within an individual that led to committing academic dishonesty. Conversely, external factors refer to causes external to a student/s. For the purpose of this review paper, both internal and external factors were utilized as primary categories wherein, related influencing factors from current literature on academic dishonesty during the pandemic were aligned accordingly.

Internal Influencing Factors
Under internal influencing factors, current studies presented laziness and procrastination as a primary factor. Ac-cording to , some students were too lazy to accomplish tasks as they were busy playing with their friends, with social media, and disinterested to learn their lessons, hence resorting to acts of academic dishonesty. He also underlined that the idea that "someone else will do" the student's tasks was stated. Likewise, several studies confirmed similar results that influenced students to commit such acts (Pagaddu, 2021;Frigillano, 2021;Revilla & Libre, 2022;San Jose, 2022). Even the Department of Education recognized how this factor proliferates academic dishonesty (Perez, 2021). In relation to abovementioned factor, another factor reported among students was their lack of proper time management. San Jose (2022) cited that students were busy with other activities. Although in his study, participants were working and married, resulting to job-related or personal matters. Among male students, Pagaddu (2021) reported that the inability to multitask and properly manage their time led to higher odds of committing plagiarism. Nevertheless, the lack of proper time management in managing their studies was well-documented (Barrot et al., 2021;Jaca, 2022;Manalo et al., 2022;Meniano & Tan, 2022;Espina & Monte, 2022). In terms of online examination, time pressure was reported to cause students to commit cheat and attain passing scores (Revilla & Libre, 2022).
Another influencing factor revealed from existing studies was students' fear of failure and its subsequent consequences. Revilla and Libre's (2022) study emphasized how the fear of failing influenced students to commit academic dishonesty. Frigillano (2022) also cited a similar result, emphasizing how academic dishonesty was a means to avoid failing a test or a subject/course. Similarly,  reiterated what is already common knowledge, that fear of failing is always at the back of a student's mind. Something that was already present in previous pre-pandemic studies (Balbuena & Lamela, 2015;Diego, 2017;Gutierrez & Padagas, 2019). Additionally,  pointed out student's poor learning capability, another possible influencing factor that led to academic dishonesty. According to the results of his study, student's poor lesson comprehension and self-defeating mindset entailed them to acquire academic servicing. Alvarez and colleagues (2022) cited similar results, in which students were not smart enough to finish certain subjects. While other literatures did not provide similar findings, students' plight to learn and comprehend their lessons, specifically on their own, was also present in other literatures (Ditona & Rico, 2021;Galang et al., 2021;De Guzman, 2021;Meniano & Tan, 2022;Espina & Monte, 2022). In turn, this influencing factor is likely linked to the motivation factor discussed by Cardina and colleagues (2022). Briefly, motivation, according to them, refers to the stimulus that enables a student to do something. In the case of academic dishonesty, if students' learning motivation is inversely correlated to them committing such acts (Šprajc et al., 2017(Šprajc et al., , as cited in Cardina et al., 2022. Furthermore, a student's state of mental health was also revealed to influence their intention to commit academic dishonesty. According to Alvarez and colleagues (2022), when students feel stressed and worry over the expectations set around them, they are likely to cheat on quizzes, tests, and even their assignments.  also reported that even those students who had adjusted well in an online learning setup, ultimately resorted to academic dishonesty due to the difficulty of their subjects or their situation in general. that even those students who had adjusted well in an online learning setup, ultimately resorted to academic dishonesty due to the difficulty of their subjects or their situation in general. The reality of students during the pandemic was how mental health-related concerns plagued most of their pandemic school years (Baticulon et al., 2020;Barrot et al., 2021;Rotas & Cahapay, 2021;Salazar et al., 2021). Lastly, while not explicitly stated among current literature, self-attitude, capability, and intention, were deemed as key internal factors when current data were understood through various analytical approaches presented in the succeeding sections. These three influencing factors were adapted from Cardina and colleagues (2022), to which they had operationalized them as follows: self-attitude as "students' feelings or how one behaves towards academic dishonesty" (p. 8710); capability as "students' ability to act on his knowledge and skills to acknowledge the results of others as his own"; and intention referring to that something that motivates a person to commit academic dishonesty, determined primarily by one's attitude towards it.

External Influencing Factors
Under external influencing factors, peer involvement was the most prevalent result across current resources. According to Frigillano (2021), when a student's friend/s allow them to copy their exam answers or receive help in finishing assignments without the teacher's consent, they are well-aware of committing academic dishonesty. The idea that everyone commits some form of academic dishonesty, particularly one's friends or classmates, influences a student to behave in the same manner. Likewise,  cited that peer influence plays a crucial role in committing academic dishonesty specifically, for students to "avoid having difficult time" with their academics (p. 310). Correspondingly, Perez' (2021) news report and San Jose's (2022) study revealed similar results, to which academic dishonesty is typically committed when one's friend/s are also involved.
Another influencing factor was the overwhelming academic workloads that students need to accomplish within a given period.  explained that one of the primary reasons why students resort to academic servicing was due to the overwhelming number of academic tasks they were required to submit. The weekly demands of their teachers, as well as their hectic deadlines likely influenced their negative behavior. Among male students, heavy workloads were also revealed as a reason for plagiarizing their tasks/projects (Pagaddu, 2021). As reported by Perez (2021), overwhelming or excessive academic workload was one of the reasons why students created the Facebook community page "Online Kopyahan" (Copying) or "Online Tulungan" (Working Together) (Perez, 2021) in the first place. Similar news reports cited how students were burdened with numerous tasks throughout the pandemic (Adonis, 2020;Hernando-Malipot, 2021;Cabreza, 2021;, as well as related literature (Dangle & Sumaoang, 2020;Pinar, 2021;Manalo et al., 2022). In relation to this, the difficulty of subjects/courses was also revealed as an influencing factor to academic dishonesty. As cited by Revilla and Libre (2022), students tend to cheat when they are faced with a difficult subject/course, to lessen their difficulties. Subjects/courses that students saw difficulties were typically the Match and Sciences (Robledo et al., 2021;Meniano & Tan, 2022;Nabayra, 2022).
Limited assistance of teachers was highlighted as an influencing factor. According to , as students fail to grasp their lessons and teachers asserted to be unresponsive to their academic concerns, academic dishonesty was their recourse to get passing grades. However, San Jose (2022) noted that students prefer seeking clarifications from their peers than their teachers, which can further worsen what was already a concern between student-teacher communication. In addition, parental expectations, typically attributed to receiving passing marks or even attaining higher grades was expressed as an influencing factor among students (Pagaddu, 2021;Frigillano, 2021;San Jose, 2022). Lastly, the use of digital technology, specifically utilizing the internet to commit academic dishonesty was observed as an influencing factor since it provides students with the opportunity to commit such acts with ease (Cruz et al., 2021;Frigillano, 2021;Revilla & Libre, 2022). This specific factor underlies the extensive use of social media to commit forms of academic dishonesty (Aguilar M. G., 2021;Magsambol, 2021a;Perez, 2021).

Current Approaches to Academic Dishonesty
For this review paper, seven (7) approaches were utilized based on the results of existing studies and supplementary articles, namely: 1) deterrence theory, 2) rational choice theory, 3) neutralization theory, 4) planned behavior theory, 5) academic dishonesty as ignorance or confusion on teacher's expectations, 6) academic dishonesty as learned behavior, and 7) academic dishonesty as coping strategy to a stressful environment. These approaches were adapted from DiPietro (2010)'s work that aimed to highlight current frameworks in the analysis of academic dishonesty within the educational sphere.

Deterrence Theory and Rational Choice on Academic Dishonesty
Both deterrence theory and rational choice theory view individuals as rational decision-makers (Akers, 1990). Deterrence theory posits that, as rational beings, the degree or severity of punishment for illegal, immoral, or deviant behavior compensates for any motivation to do such acts (Akers, 1990). Following this assumption, as cited by DiPietro (2010), if students are made aware that the consequences for committing academic dishonesty was little to non-existent, then students are likely to commit such acts. Pandan and Lomibao (2022) also reported that some teachers had perceived low integrity in their Math-related assessments due to the likelihood of cheating. Despite this, according to San Jose (2022), teacher's leniency or permissive personality during the pandemic were deemed by students as implied consent to cheat during exams and even plagiarize their submitted outputs. Teacher's non-action or toleration will likely result in proliferation of academic dishonesty.
Leniency in terms of school policies had long been associated with acts of academic dishonesty (Balbuena & Lamela, 2015). During the pandemic, leniency was one of the primary recommendations when students were abruptly required to transition to online and modular learning modalities (Baticulon et al., 2020). Thus, both the Department of Education (DepEd) and Commission on Higher Education (CHED) were enjoined to exercise academic leniency to protect students' health and well-being (CHED, 2020;Cervantes, 2020). If the results of San Jose's (2022) study were to be considered, then the possibility of grade inflation due to academic leniency must be revisited. Accordingly, an opinion piece highlighted by David (2022), wherein lenient university guidelines have the unintended consequence of an upsurge in the number of graduating students with Latin honors. There were also reports from DepEd indicating that the majority of passing grades that students received in 2021 were attributed to teachers' being 'considerate' to their students (see Gascon, 2021;Magsambol, 2021;De Guzman, 2021). Additionally, results of Frigillano's (2021) study cited that students' low regard of school policies was one of the reasons for committing academic dishonesty. On top of these, it must be noted that the shift to online learning modality afforded students with a self-paced or flexible learning option to which they can work independently on their modules at their own time and pace, with limited supervision from their teachers (Yazon et al., 2021;Salazar et al., 2021;Samortin et al., 2022;. From these, it is highly recommended that future studies should investigate the causality between leniency and grade inflation, as well as the possible role that academic dishonesty had played to validate or invalidate such assumption. On the other hand, rational choice theory emphasizes that man is a rational being capable of taking actions by maximizing the benefit while limiting the cost of such action (Akers, 1990). Under this assumption, DiPietro (2010) described academic dishonesty as a result of a cost-benefit analysis, leaning towards the importance of favorable outcome/s (i.e., better test scores, passing the subject/course) rather than possible punishment for committing such acts. The pressure to get good grades, specifically due to parents' or family expectations, referred to as home environment Cardina and colleagues (2022), remained a key motivating factor for academic dishonesty (Aguilar M. G., 2021;Cardina et al., 2022). Similarly, the fear of failure in terms of grade expectations or college degree acceptance was observed to be one of the major reasons for cheating among college students (Revilla & Libre, 2022). In this case, the possibility of no punishments may warrant students to conduct cheating of various forms.

Neutralization Theory on Academic Dishonesty
Neutralization theory refers to justifications that an individual offers for doing a deviant behavior to negate the blame or culpability for such actions (Maruna & Copes, 2005). According to DiPietro (2010), despite the act being morally wrong, students engage in academic dishonesty by justifying the motivations behind their actions. Simply put, students provided reasons (or excuses) to justify why they committed academic dishonesty and became morally neutral on said deviant behavior. Storch and colleagues (as cited in DiPietro, 2010), described four neutralization techniques used by students, the first of which was that justifying academic dishonesty due "to being influenced by circumstances beyond their control", in this case, the effects of global pandemic on various aspects of human life. According to Cardina and colleagues (2022), external factors in the form of environmental influences affect student motivation in performing academic dishonesty. This consists of pressure, opportunity to commit such acts, and normalization of academic dishonesty. In terms of pressure, it was cited that peer pressure, as well as pressure brought about by many assignments to accomplish within a certain period. Such are in line with San Jose's (2022) study that revealed the influence of peer involvement and  study that revealed how peer influences served as a influencing factor for academic dishonesty, specifically in the form of academic servicing. The pressure brought about by their overwhelming number of academic workloads was also recounted as another reason for committing academic dishonesty (Aguilar M. G., 2021;Pagaddu, 2021). In terms of opportunity, the theory of planned behavior in the succeeding section provided a clearer application of such a factor. As for normalization of academic dishonesty, existing literature during the pandemic did not highlight similar findings. However, pre-pandemic studies cited that the students engaged in academic dishonesty, particularly in the tertiary level, viewed cheating as normal (Balbuena & Lamela, 2015;Diego, 2017;Gutierrez & Padagas, 2019).
The second neutralization technique was to deny the consequences of academic dishonesty, as it was a victimless crime and the third one redirecting the blame to authorities, specifically teachers or professors, for administering difficult assessments. However, current literature provided no similar assumptions or data to back both techniques' relevance to the Philippine setting during the pandemic. As a point of contention, the surge in academic servicing motivated by the opportunity for additional income and helping struggling students may be considered as a morally counterpoint to neutralize a students' decision to commit academic dishonesty. The last technique refers to "invoking a more compelling value system" as the basis for justification. The prime example provided by DiPietro (2010) was the value that one designates to helping their peers over the consequences of committing academic dishonesty. This was highly evident with the creation of the "Online Kopyahan" Facebook community page that supposedly promoted bayanihan or cooperation amongst students (Perez, 2021). Moreover, prepandemic study by Diego (2017) also emphasized the critical role that friendships play in motivating such behavior among students.

Planned Behavior Theory on Academic Dishonesty
The theory of planned behavior emphasized how an individual's action is dependent on one's intention and ability to act upon it (LaMorte, 2019). According to Ajzen (1969, as cited in DiPietro, 2010, academic dishonesty, under this theory, is a result based on students' intention to commit such acts driven by the opportunities present in each situation. A clear example here is cheating during exams taken online or at home due limited to no supervision from teachers, an act of academic dishonesty that was likely prevalent during the pandemic, as emphasized by Estrellado (2021), Frigillano (2021, and While this may be out of teachers' or a school's authority, the lack of oversight to students' behavior online enabled an opportunity to create a Facebook community page that proliferated such behavior. As reported by Bautista (2021), it was not until that Facebook community page became an online controversy that the government took necessary preventive measures. In addition, San Jose (2022) cited that the leniency in the form of allowing delayed submission due to pandemic-related excuses were presumed to encourage possible misconducts. More importantly, the use of technology, through various digital tools or applications, breed opportunities for students to commit academic dishonesty (Cruz et al., 2021;Frigillano, 2021;Revilla & Libre, 2022). Consequently, the nature of both online and modular learning setup afforded students to accomplish exams and assessment independently within set deadlines, of which such a situation provides opportunity for students to commit forms of academic dishonesty to attain a passing score/grade.

Academic Dishonesty as Ignorance or Confusion on Teacher's Expectations
According to DiPietro (2010), under this approach, academic dishonesty was brought about by unarticulated and unclarified expectations among teachers and their students. These expectations can be in the form of unclear explanations of the school/university code of conduct and its subsequent punishments or even ambiguous task guidelines/instructions which may invite interpretations. As mentioned by Frigillano (2021), covert collaborations among students to accomplish individual projects was a primary reason for academic dishonesty. There is the possibility that the teacher's lack of strict instructions in undertaking such a task/project allowed the possibility of such collaboration. This assumption can be a point of concern since according to Moralista and Oducado (2020), one of key concerns of teachers/professors going into the pandemic school year was what the limitations of depersonalized instructions will entail to teacher-student interactions. On the other hand, poor student-teacher communication was also a key concern among students that further affected their learning experience (Baticulon et al., 2020;Aguilar M. G., 2021;Aguilar et al., 2021;Jaca, 2022). Future research can investigate more on this topic to further clarify its validity in the current context.

Academic Dishonesty as Learned Behavior
In terms of the learned behavior approach, DiPietro (2010) emphasized how academic dishonesty as behavior is something that is reinforced by the environment where the student was socialized. Simply, if the school or university tolerates any forms of academic dishonesty, leaning towards allowing such culture, then such acts are likely to proliferate among its student population. As previously mentioned, prepandemic-related studies had already provided an insight to normalization of cheating, plagiarism, and similar misconducts (see Balbuena & Lamela, 2015;Diego, 2017;Gutierrez & Padagas, 2019). While there are no clear indications of the school environment allowing a culture of academic dishonesty during the pandemic, the role that social media played in the creation and proliferation of cheating, as evidenced by the Facebook community page controversy must be accounted for and as mentioned by , that of academic servicing social media groups or pages.

Academic Dishonesty as a Coping Strategy in a Stressful Environment
Lastly, one of the approaches enumerated by DiPietro (2010) was how academic dishonesty was observed as students' coping strategy to their stressful environment. Jaca (2022) explained how learning experiences during an ongoing global pandemic was a primary source of stress that affected students. Students felt that online learning setup was more tedious while their supposed learning environment was unconducive and full of distractions that hampered their focus. Academic-induced stress was also prevalent in modular learning setup as cited by Espina and Monte (2022). Barrot's (2021) study emphasized that the learning environment proved to be a greater challenge affecting students' learning process. A poor learning space within any household adversely affects students' motivation and well-being. Such a situation, under this approach, necessitated a student to commit cheating of any form as a means to get by these past two pandemic school years. On top of this, DiPietro (2010) highlighted how pressure to get good grades also drove students to commit academic dishonesty, a narrative that is already prevalent within context of focus (see Pagaddu, 2021;Cardina et al., 2022;San Jose, 2022).

Conclusions
This review paper highlighted the results presented by several studies on academic dishonesty in the Philippines during the pandemic. As the Philippines ventures in a blended learning modality for both basic education and tertiary level, the exploits of students explained here remain an important concern within the educational sphere. By outlining the possible internal (laziness or procrastination, lack of proper time management, fear of failure, poor learning capability, motivation, state of mental health, self-attitude, capability, and intention) and external influencing factors (peer involvement, overwhelming academic workload, difficulty of subject/course, Limited assistance of teachers, parental expectations, and use of digital technology) based on existing literatures and current approaches to academic dishonesty (deterrence theory, rational choice theory, neutralization theory, planned behavior theory, as ignorance or confusion on teacher's expectations, as learned behavior, and as coping strategy to stressful environment), this study serves as reference point for researchers in further investigating the extent of academic dishonesty in the country.
As for teachers, school administrators, and policymakers, findings detailed here can be utilized to craft better solutions to limit or even eliminate forms of academic dishonesty within their educational institutions. Within the context of academic dishonesty, it is crucial to reiterate the role the educational institutions and their personnel in upholding academic integrity within the confines of an online or modular learning environment, primarily through constant re-orientation and enforcement of school policies and code of conduct (San Jose, 2022). In addition, future studies can investigate the validity of the data revealed here, applied across various levels of education and both blended modular and blended online learning setups.