Digital Innovations in Science Education in the Philippines: A  
Scoping Review of Teaching Practices and Tools  
Jade C. Colegado  
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Philippines  
Received: 28 August 2025; Accepted: 03 September 2025; Published: 16 September 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This scoping review examined digital innovations in Philippine K12 science education during and after the  
COVID-19 pandemic. Guided by the PRISMA-ScR framework, 37 peer-reviewed studies published between  
2020 and mid-2025 were systematically analyzed through thematic synthesis guided by defined inclusion  
and exclusion criteria. The analysis found that teachers relied heavily on accessible platforms such as  
Messenger, Google Meet, Zoom, and Canva, while learning management systems like Google Classroom  
and Quipper provided structure for content delivery and assessment. Locally developed innovations,  
including gamified applications, virtual laboratories, simulation-based modules, and home-based  
experiments, were also integrated to support conceptual mastery. These tools were embedded in pedagogical  
approaches such as flipped classrooms, online collaborative learning, and inquiry-based strategies, which  
improved engagement and flexibility but also raised concerns between simplifying content for accessibility  
and sustaining scientific accuracy. Reported benefits included strong motivation, participation, and self-  
efficacy, though evidence was often short-term and context-specific. Persistent challenges such as poor  
connectivity, unequal device access, and limited teacher preparation constrain effectiveness, particularly in  
rural and underserved schools. Findings highlight the need for sustained professional development in digital  
pedagogy, targeted infrastructure investment, and scaling of locally relevant content if digital instruction  
becomes not only an alternative solution during crisis but a pathway toward long-term equity and innovation  
in Philippine science education.  
Keywords: digital science instruction, scoping review, educational technology, Philippine education,  
blended learning  
INTRODUCTION  
The digital transformation of education has significantly reshaped how science is taught and learned,  
particularly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Philippines, the sudden shift to remote and  
blended learning compelled science educators to utilize digital tools such as Facebook Messenger, Google  
Meet, PowerPoint, and Canva into their instructional practices (Abareta & Prudente, 2025; Rivera, 2024).  
While these platforms enabled instructional continuity through asynchronous access, real-time engagement,  
and flexible lesson delivery, their use also raises questions about how digital modalities align with the  
demands of science education, where experimentation, inquiry, and hands-on learning are central. In a  
digitally unequal structure like that in the Philippines, the reliance on such tools highlights concerns between  
accessibility and the integrity of scientific learning practices.  
Yet the growing body of literature on digital learning in Philippine education remains fragmented,  
particularly with respect to K12 science. Many existing studies concentrate on higher education or general  
online learning environments (Yeung et al., 2021; Momani et al., 2023), leaving limited insight into science-  
specific innovations in basic education. Systemic barriers like unequal access to devices, poor internet  
Page 6549  
connectivity, and digital illiteracy among both teachers and students further complicate the task (Bustillo &  
Aguilos, 2022; Gonzales et al., 2022). These constraints not only limit participation but also  
disproportionately affect science practices that require experimentation, data collection, and collaborative  
inquiry. Compounding this challenge is the limited preparation of teachers for technology-enhanced  
pedagogy and the scarcity of longitudinal studies assessing the impact and sustainability of digital science  
instruction (Chin et al., 2022; Rondubio & Gantalao, 2025).  
With this, the present study conducted a scoping review of 37 research articles published between 2020 and  
mid-2025, drawn from Scopus and ERIC databases, to systematically map the landscape of digital science  
teaching innovations in Philippine K12 education. Guided by the PRISMA-ScR framework, the review  
examined the types of digital tools employed, pedagogical strategies adopted, benefits reported, challenges  
encountered, and gaps in the literature. By synthesizing these findings, this study seeks to provide a more  
grounded understanding of how digital tools are reshaping science instruction in basic education. Beyond  
cataloging practices, it identifies enabling approaches, structural constraints, and unresolved issues, offering  
insights to support the design of equitable, sustainable, and context-responsive digital science education  
strategies in the Philippines.  
Statement of the Problem  
1. What digital and remote teaching strategies and tools have been employed to deliver science  
instruction in Philippine K12 curriculum?  
2. What are the outcomes, benefits, and challenges in the literature regarding the effectiveness of digital  
innovations in science teaching?  
METHODS  
Research Design  
This study employed a scoping review design to systematically map the breadth and depth of research on  
digital science teaching innovations in the Philippines. A scoping review was deemed appropriate because  
the field remains fragmented and rapidly evolving, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and  
requires an approach capable of mapping diverse forms of evidence, clarifying conceptual distinctions, and  
identifying knowledge gaps (Peterson et al., 2017). The review process followed the Preferred Reporting  
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)  
guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018), which provided structured direction for conducting, documenting, and  
reporting the review with transparency and rigor. A PRISMA-ScR flow diagram was used to illustrate the  
process of identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion.  
Using academic journals and other reputable sources, such as Scopus and ERIC databases, the researcher  
meticulously selected and reviewed thirty-seven (37) relevant literature and studies published, identified by  
the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search terms included filters that were applied, combining keywords  
such as (“digital innovations” OR “digital learning” OR “online teaching” OR “remote learning”) AND  
(“science education” OR “science teaching”) AND (“K to 12” OR “high school”) AND “Philippines.” The  
timeframe filter was set to 20202025 to capture literature emerging during and after the COVID-19  
pandemic. Studies labeled as 2025 publications were included if they appeared as early online releases  
accessible by mid-2025; publication date was defined as the date of online availability. Grey literature,  
editorials, and non-peer-reviewed sources were excluded to ensure credibility and replicability.  
Thematic categorization was conducted through an inductive coding process. The researcher initially  
reviewed and coded all included studies, grouping findings into preliminary categories and themes. To  
enhance credibility, an expert independently reviewed the coding framework and sample excerpts from the  
dataset. Feedback from this review were the bases for refinements in theme development, ensuring  
consistency and reducing potential bias.  
Page 6550  
Eligibility Criteria  
The eligibility of studies was determined through a two-stage process. At the search stage, only studies  
published between 2020 and mid-2025 were considered, reflecting the period when digital innovations in  
education accelerated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure accessibility and scholarly rigor,  
the review was limited to works written in English and indexed in Scopus and ERIC. The scope was also  
restricted to the Philippine K12 education context, excluding studies conducted in other countries or those  
that did not explicitly address basic education.  
At the screening stage, the full texts of retrieved articles were examined against more specific criteria.  
Studies were included if they addressed the use of digital, online, remote, or blended learning tools in science  
instruction and demonstrated clear relevance to classroom teaching practices or innovations in the Philippine  
context. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were accepted, provided that they offered sufficient  
methodological. Exclusion criteria at this stage covered studies focusing solely on non-science subjects,  
those limited to higher education unless directly tied to pre-service training or professional development  
relevant to K12, and those lacking full-text access. Duplicate records across databases, as well as editorials,  
opinion pieces, and grey literature, were also excluded from the final review.  
PRISMA-ScR Flow Summary  
Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR flow diagram illustrating the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion  
process  
Page 6551  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS  
Theme 1. Digital Tools and Pedagogical Approaches in Philippine Science Education  
The transition to online and blended learning during the COVID-19 pandemic compelled science educators  
in the Philippines to adopt a range of digital tools that varied in accessibility, cost, and pedagogical potential.  
Among the most widely used were communication platforms such as Facebook Messenger, valued for low  
data requirements and familiarity, along with presentation tools like PowerPoint and Canva, which teachers  
considered effective for creating visually engaging lessons (Abareta & Prudente, 2025; Balbin et al., 2025).  
Video conferencing tools such as Google Meet and Zoom supported synchronous interaction, though their  
utility was constrained by bandwidth reliability. Learning management systems (LMS) like Google  
Classroom and Quipper offered structured content delivery and assessment monitoring but were more  
consistently used in urban and better-resourced schools (Balbin et al., 2025).  
Moreover, mobile phones, especially Android devices, emerged as the most accessible tool for both teachers  
and students, shaping the dominance of low-bandwidth and mobile-friendly platforms in science instruction.  
Locally developed innovations further supplemented instruction, including the WISE game for interactive  
learning (Ruiz et al., 2021), the Science-Inclusive Gamified Mobile Application (SIGMA) to support physics  
learning and inclusivity (Abenes et al., 2023), a genetics-focused virtual laboratory (Avelino, 2025),  
simulation-based modules on molecular biology (Cano et al., 2022), and digitized concept stories in biology  
(de Guzman & Magpantay, 2022). These resources, often developed within specific research or community  
contexts, demonstrated targeted benefits in conceptual mastery, motivation, and retention.  
The effectiveness of these tools, however, depended largely on the pedagogical approaches through which  
they were embedded. Teachers redesigned lessons to balance synchronous and asynchronous methods,  
simplifying content to accommodate bandwidth and home-learning constraints while also modifying  
assessments to maintain inclusivity (Cahapay & Labrador, 2021; Laudencia, 2024). This often produces  
concerns between simplifying content for accessibility and maintaining the rigor of scientific inquiry. For  
instance, while inquiry-based learning remained a valued goal, teachers reported difficulties sustaining  
authentic experimentation online, leading to increased reliance on guided tasks, simulations, or home-based  
experiments (Cahapay & Labrador, 2021; Robledo et al., 2023).  
Several pedagogical models emerged as particularly prominent. Online Collaborative Learning (OCL)  
encouraged critical thinking and peer exchange but relied heavily on stable internet and consistent  
participation (Pabores, 2024). Flipped classroom designs improved engagement and performance when  
students had reliable access to micro-content and when teachers provided structured feedback; in contexts  
lacking these supports, flipped instruction sometimes devolved into unsupervised content exposure  
(Villarica, 2023). Newer models, such as graphic organizerintegrated astronomy lessons (Endiape et al.,  
2023), mobile-based physics modules (Samosa, 2021), and computer-supported collaborative learning  
(CSCL) in Earth Science (Ramirez & Monterola, 2022), reported targeted gains in logical thinking,  
collaboration, and content retention, but these findings were generally bounded by short-term studies.  
The success of these pedagogical shifts was closely linked to teachers’ technological pedagogical content  
knowledge (TPACK) and their confidence in using digital tools (Cahapay & Anoba, 2021). Evidence  
suggests that limited training sessions were insufficient; more consistent, practice-based professional  
development produced deeper integration of digital strategies into classroom practice (Chin et al., 2022). In  
this sense, digital tools served not as standalone innovations but as enablers whose impact was dependent on  
pedagogical design and teacher capability.  
Theme 2. Opportunities, Benefits, and Challenges of Digital Science Instruction  
Digital innovations created new opportunities for enhancing science teaching and learning, though their  
benefits were uneven and often accompanied by persistent challenges. On the positive side, widely used  
platforms such as Facebook Messenger, Google Meet, and Canva supported continuity and interactivity,  
Page 6552  
while digital games and STEAM-focused activities were linked to higher motivation, reduced absenteeism,  
and stronger teacher integration of technology into pedagogy (Hunter & Fitzgerald, 2021; Atilano-Tang &  
Cirilo, 2023). Purpose-built digital tools demonstrated specific learning benefits: simulation-based molecular  
biology modules improved student mastery of abstract processes (Cano et al., 2022), a genetics virtual  
laboratory supported understanding of heredity (Avelino, 2025), and home-based experiments promoted  
science self-efficacy and enjoyment (Robledo et al., 2023). The SIGMA app, in particular, showed promise  
in supporting inclusivity by improving physics performance among mainstream learners and those with  
hearing impairments (Abenes et al., 2023). Hybrid science learning models further generated positive student  
feedback and performance outcomes when implemented with clear scheduling and scaffolding (Gabor &  
Camano, 2023).  
Yet the strength of evidence behind these benefits varied considerably. Many studies were exploratory,  
relying on self-reported engagement or short prepost interventions rather than controlled or longitudinal  
evaluations (Robledo et al., 2023; Cano et al., 2022). As a result, claims of improved learning outcomes  
should be interpreted cautiously and recognized as context-specific rather than universally generalizable.  
Emerging technologies such as ChatGPT have also been noted for assisting teachers in lesson planning and  
personalization, though current evidence highlights efficiency gains more than direct learning outcomes,  
raising questions about academic integrity, learner autonomy, and instructional design (Ramos et al., 2024).  
Balancing these opportunities are enduring barriers. Infrastructure limitations like poor connectivity, lack of  
devices, and resource scarcity in rural and underserved communities remain the most pressing issues,  
deepening inequities between urban and rural learners (Bustillo & Aguilos, 2022; Mae & Monteza, 2025;  
Kunjiapu et al., 2025). Capacity gaps also persist, as many teachers report limited ICT training, high  
workloads, and psychosocial stressors that impede consistent innovation (Fabito et al., 2020; Baticulon et al.,  
2020; Rondubio & Gantalao, 2025). Institutional constraints, such as weak digital governance and inefficient  
module distribution systems, further complicate the sustainability of digital instruction (Gonzales et al.,  
2022; Volante et al., 2025).  
Importantly, these challenges are interrelated. Infrastructure gaps narrowed inquiry activities to low-  
bandwidth formats, while limited professional development left teachers without strategies to adapt inquiry-  
based practices under such conditions (Cahapay & Labrador, 2021; Chin et al., 2022). The result was often  
compounded disadvantage in rural and low-income settings. Nevertheless, coping mechanisms and localized  
solutions were documented: home-based experiments with accessible materials (Robledo et al., 2023),  
offline modules paired with periodic digital check-ins (de Guzman & Magpantay, 2022), and device-sharing  
or bandwidth-scheduling arrangements at the school level (Rivera, 2024; Volante et al., 2025). These  
demonstrate the resilience of educators and communities in sustaining science instruction amid structural  
inequities. Taken together, the opportunities and challenges reveal that digital science education in the  
Philippines is not simply a matter of tool adoption but of alignment between access conditions, pedagogical  
design, and teacher support. Benefits such as increased engagement, inclusion, and targeted learning gains  
are possible, but without systemic investments and context-responsive professional development, these gains  
risk remaining fragile and uneven.  
CONCLUSION  
This scoping review synthesized 37 studies on digital innovations in Philippine K12 science education,  
highlighting both the opportunities and constraints of integrating technology into teaching and learning. The  
evidence shows that teachers demonstrated flexibility by adopting inclusive approaches such as flipped  
classrooms, online collaboration, simulations, and home-based experiments, but these strategies were not  
uniformly effective. Their success depended on contextual factors such as reliable connectivity, access to  
devices, sustained professional development, and supportive school leadership. In better-resourced settings,  
digital tools were associated with engagement gains and targeted learning improvements, while in  
disadvantaged schools, innovations often narrowed to continuity-focused practices rather than inquiry-driven  
science learning.  
Page 6553  
As a scoping review, the study surfaces the breadth of innovations but cannot establish causality or assess the  
overall quality of interventions. These limitations point to the need for further research that evaluates both  
the effectiveness and sustainability of digital science instruction in diverse Philippine settings. Further, the  
findings reveal that while digital innovations hold transformative potential for science education, their  
impact is fragile and uneven. The most urgent barriers, such as poor infrastructure, unequal access, and  
limited teacher capacity, must be addressed if digital instruction becomes not only an alternative solution  
during crisis but a pathway toward long-term equity and innovation in Philippine science education.  
RECOMMENDATIONS  
To advance digital science education in the Philippines, action is needed on four key areas: first, equip  
teachers through continuous, hands-on professional development that builds confidence in using digital tools  
for inquiry-based and inclusive science lessons; second, close infrastructure gaps by prioritizing  
disadvantaged schools in the rollout of affordable devices, reliable internet, and low-bandwidth solutions;  
third, scale up locally developed and culturally relevant digital resources such as virtual labs, gamified  
applications, and home-based experiments that align with curricula and learners’ contexts; and fourth,  
establish stronger collaboration among government, schools, and private partners to pool resources and  
expand access. At the same time, policymakers and researchers may support longitudinal and equity-focused  
studies to ensure these innovations are sustainable and responsive to the needs of rural and marginalized  
communities.  
REFERENCES  
1. Abareta, J., & Prudente, M. (2025). Digital Technology Tools (DTT) in Science Teaching: Teachers’  
Perceptions of Usage and Effectiveness. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational  
2. Abenes, F. M., Caballes, D. G., Balbin, S. A., & Conwi, X. L. P. (2023). Gamified mobile apps'  
impact on academic performance of Grade 8 in a mainstream physics class. Journal of Information  
Technology Education: Research, 22, 557579.  
3. Atilano-Tang, L., & Cirilo, M. (2023). Improving Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age:  
Recommendations for Teachers of the Department of Education in Zamboanga City, Philippines.  
4. Avelino, Z. L. (2025). Learning the concept of genes, DNA and chromosome through developed  
virtual laboratory website. Journal of Biological Education Indonesia, 11(1), 399405.  
5. Balbin, S., Abenes-Balbin, F., Yangco, M., & Opulencia, K. (2025). Evaluating flexible learning  
adoption  
by  
the  
Philippine  
secondary  
school  
Teachers.  
Diversitas  
Journal.  
6. Baticulon, R., Sy, J., Alberto, N., Baron, M., Mabulay, R., Rizada, L., Tiu, C., Clarion, C., & Reyes, J.  
(2020). Barriers to Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical  
021-01231-z.  
7. Bumagat, R. J. M., Ordillas, M. G., Rogayan, D. V., Jr., Basila, R. M. G., Gannar, M. I. R., & Catig,  
M. J. (2023). Practices and challenges of teachers in teaching science online. International Journal of  
Technology in Education and Science, 7(3), 306330.  
8. Bustillo, E., & Aguilos, M. (2022). The Challenges of Modular Learning in the Wake of COVID-19:  
A
Digital  
Divide  
in  
the  
Philippine  
Countryside  
Revealed.  
Education  
Sciences.  
9. Cahapay, M., & Anoba, J. (2021). Technological pedagogical knowledge self-efficacy and  
continuance intention of Philippine teachers in remote education amid COVID-19 crisis. Journal of  
10. Cahapay, M., & Labrador, M. (2021). Experiments Gone Wrong? Lived Experience of Filipino  
Teachers in Remote Science Education amid COVID-19 Crisis. Asian Journal of Science Education.  
Page 6554  
11. Cano, J. S. (2022). Development and validation of simulation-based instructional materials on Central  
Dogma of Molecular Biology for senior high school. International Journal of Technology in Education  
and Science, 6(2), 373387.  
12. Cano, J. S., Olvis, P. R., Disca, B. Y., & Docena, A. F. (2022). Simulation-based instructional  
materials on Central Dogma of Molecular Biology: Basis in studying genetics for Grade 12 learners.  
International Journal of Technology in Education, 5(2), 249268.  
13. Cheng, C., Wang, L., Xie, H., & Yan, L. (2023). Mapping digital innovation: A bibliometric analysis  
and  
systematic  
literature  
review.  
Technological  
Forecasting  
and  
Social  
Change.  
14. Chin, J., Ching, G., Del Castillo, F., Wen, T., Huang, Y., Del Castillo, C., Gungon, J., & Trajera, S.  
(2022). Perspectives on the Barriers to and Needs of Teachers’ Professional Development in the  
15. Cojocariu, V., & Boghian, I. (2024). A Literature Review on Digital Creativity in Higher Education—  
16. De  
Guzman,  
D.  
(2024).  
TEACHERS’  
DIGITAL  
INNOVATIONS:  
AN  
EMPIRICAL  
JUSTIFICATION. International Journal of Management Studies and Social Science Research.  
17. de Guzman, F. I., & Magpantay, M. S. (2022). Students' engagement and meaningful learning  
experiences in using digitized concept stories in Grade 7 Biology. LUKAD: An Online Journal of  
Pedagogy, 2(1), 3153.  
18. Endiape, J. A., Lopez, J. F. V., Lastimosa, Z. T., Gecain, C. A. V., Herbieto, N. M. C., Sanchez, J. M.  
P., & Picardal, M. T. (2023). Students' performance, satisfaction, and experiences in graphic organizer  
integrated online instruction of astronomy. Science Education International, 34(4), 303311.  
19. Fabito, B., Trillanes, A., & Sarmiento, J. (2020). Barriers and Challenges of Computing Students in an  
Online Learning Environment: Insights from One Private University in the Philippines. ArXiv,  
20. Forde, C., & Obrien, A. (2022). A Literature Review of Barriers and Opportunities Presented by  
Digitally Enhanced Practical Skill Teaching and Learning in Health Science Education. Medical  
21. Gabor, D. H., & Camano, L. M. C. (2023). Redesigning sciences courses based on a local senior high  
school in Iloilo, Philippines’ student performances and perspectives towards hybrid learning approach.  
Journal of Science Learning, 6(2), 143153.  
22. Gonzales, G., Costan, F., Suladay, D., Gonzales, R., Enriquez, L., Costan, E., Atibing, N., Aro, J.,  
Evangelista, S., Maturan, F., Selerio, E., & Ocampo, L. (2022). Fermatean Fuzzy DEMATEL and  
MMDE Algorithm for Modelling the Barriers of Implementing Education 4.0: Insights from the  
23. Hunter, J., & Fitzgerald, T. (2021). STEAM games are good for learning in elementary schools: A  
study of teacher professional development in the Philippines.. Journal of Computers in Mathematics  
24. Kunjiapu, S., Sinnappan, P., Salim, F., & Kunasegaran, M. (2025). Challenges and Dilemmas of  
Digitalization in Philippine Education: A Grassroots Perspective. Journal of Public Administration and  
25. Laudencia, J. (2024). Urban and Remote Areas Online Pedagogy in Science with Laboratory  
Activities in the COVID 19 Pandemic (Philippines New Normal): A Phenomenological Study.  
26. Mae, A., & Monteza, M. (2025). DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY  
SOLUTIONS FOR UNDERSERVED PHILIPPINE COMMUNITIES. JTH: Journal of Technology  
27. Momani, M., Alharahasheh, K., & Alqudah, M. (2023). Digital learning in Sciences education: A  
Page 6555  
28. Mukul, E., & Büyüközkan, G. (2023). Digital transformation in education: A systematic review of  
education  
4.0.  
Technological  
Forecasting  
and  
Social  
Change.  
29. Pabores, A. (2024). Proposal for Online Collaborative Learning for Remote Learning. International  
30. Paje, Y. M., Rogayan, D. V., Jr., & Dantic, M. J. P. (2021). Teachers' utilization of computer-based  
technology in science instruction. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 5(3),  
427446.  
31. Peterson, J., Pearce, P., Ferguson, L., & Langford, C. (2017). Understanding scoping reviews:  
Definition, purpose, and process.. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 29 1,  
32. Ramirez, H. J. M., & Monterola, S. L. C. (2022). Co-creating scripts in computer-supported  
collaborative learning and its effects on students' logical thinking in Earth Science. Interactive  
Learning Environments, 30(5), 908921.  
33. Ramos, R., De Angel, R., Ruetas, A., Enrile, J., Calimbo, A., & Vargas, P. (2024). Impact Assessment  
of ChatGPT and AI Technologies Integration in Student Learning: An Analysis for Academic Policy  
Formulation. 2024 6th International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE), 87-  
34. Rivera, K. (2024). Online Teaching-Learning Practices of Science, Technology, and Society:  
Philippine Higher Education Context. Journal of Educational Science and Technology (EST).  
35. Robledo, D. A. R., Miguel, F. F., Arizala-Pillar, G., Errabo, D. D., Cajimat, R., Aguja, S. E., &  
Prudente, M. S. (2023). Students' knowledge gains, self-efficacy, perceived level of engagement, and  
perceptions with regard to home-based biology experiments (HBEs). Journal of Turkish Science  
Education, 20(1), 84118.  
36. Rondubio, D., & Gantalao, J. (2025). ICT in the Context of Education for Quality Outcomes-Based  
Teaching-Learning  
Model.  
Psychology  
and  
Education:  
A
Multidisciplinary  
Journal.  
37. Ruiz, M., Esclada, R., Balderama, J., Aguirre, A., Cutin, M., & Lozada, R. (2021). WISE game:  
wireless interactive software educational game. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and  
38. Samosa, R. C. (2021). Mobile physics as innovation to reinvigorating active engagement and learning  
dynamics of Grade 11 learners on uniform accelerated motion. International Journal for Research in  
Applied Sciences and Biotechnology, 8(2), 162166.  
39. Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.,  
Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L.,  
Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C., Macdonald, M., Langlois, E., Soares-  
Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunalp, Z., & Straus, S. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping  
Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169, 467-473.  
40. Villarica, M. (2023). The Effectiveness of Flipped Classrooms in Distance Education During the  
Covid-19  
Pandemic.  
International  
Journal  
of  
Computing  
Sciences  
Research.  
41. Volante, D., Olivario, J., Greda, M., & Bayani, V. (2025). Awareness and Readiness of School  
Leaders in Digital Governance: Challenges and Strategies for Implementation in the Philippine  
Context.  
International  
Journal  
of  
Research  
and  
Innovation  
in  
Social  
Science.  
42. Yeung, A., Parvanov, E., Hribersek, M., Eibensteiner, F., Klager, E., Kletečka-Pulker, M., Rössler, B.,  
Schebesta, K., Willschke, H., Atanasov, A., & Schaden, E. (2021). Digital Teaching in Medical  
Education:  
Scientific  
Literature  
Landscape  
Review.  
JMIR  
Medical  
Education,  
8.  
Page 6556