This chapter provides related literature and studies where the researchers conducted

extensive foraging. The studies presented in this chapter are a selection of literature, readings,

and studies on a.) Development of limited face-to-face Learning b.) Limited face-to-face c.)

Blended learning d.) Student Aspect perception.

Development of Limited Face-to-Face Learning

Several countries had also done the same thing during a pandemic that was still

sweeping the world. However, several countries still have reopened their schools. In several

countries, face-to-face learning through the reopening of schools has been implemented. WHO

Western Pacific and UNICEF East Asia Pacific said the safe reopening of schools is an important

priority, especially entering the second year of the Covid-19 pandemic. For some countries that

have been exposed to Covid-19, they have done engaging learning again (Safira & Ifadah, 2021).

According to Liputan6.com (2021), there are several countries have carried out back-to-school

activities several times ago. Several countries that carry out face-to-face teaching and learning

activities, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, North Korea, South

Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Timor Leste, Turkmenistan, Israel, Cyprus, Botswana, Burundi, Niger ,

Belarus, Croatia, France, Austria, Switzerland, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Uruguay,

Ecuador, Nicaragua, Iceland, Greenland and many more. As is known, the Indonesian

Government finally decided to hold limited face-to-face learning for education units in

Indonesia. Minister of Education and Culture Nadiem Makarim said schools were required to

apply face-to-face learning on a limited basis after all educators and education personnel at the

school were vaccinated. After educators and education staff in one school have been

completely vaccinated. The Central Government, Regional Government, or the Ministry of

Religion office require the education unit to provide limited face-to-face learning services by

implementing health protocols. This decision was stipulated through a Joint Decree of the

Minister of Education and Culture, the Minister of Religion, the Minister of Health, and the

Minister of Home Affairs concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of Learning during the

2019 Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Pandemic

According to DepEd (2021), they announce that President Rodrigo RoaDuterte has

authorized the pilot introduction of face-to-face seminars in low-risk regions as part of the

administration. Nonetheless, we would want to underline that the pilot will only be open to

at least 100 public and 20 private schools as part of its participation requirements. These

schools are located in low-risk areas as determined by the Department of Health (DOH), and

they must have passed the safety assessment conducted by the Department of Education

(DepEd) using the school safety assessment tool, as well as the support of the local government

unit in the form of a resolution or support letter. Even though the public schools have already

gone through a selection procedure, the participants from private schools will still have to go

through a selection process. Participating schools also need to get the written

endorsement and approval of the parents of pupils who will be participating in the pilot

program. No student will be compelled to participate in the experimental deployment of face-

to-face courses in this project. For two (2) months, a mix of face-to-face sessions at school and

distant learning modalities will be used to experiment Sessions will be held in person

once every two weeks for half a day. Participating institutions will make every effort to

ensure that class schedules are set up fairly so that all qualifying learners have the chance to

participate in face-to-face classes. The operational guidelines on the pilot implementation of

face-to-face learning modality, which the Departments of Health and Education

developed with the assistance of the World Health Organization(WHO), the United Nations

Children's Fund (UNICEF), and other organizations specializing in children's health,

provide health and safety standards in terms of personal protective equipment, sanitation,

detection and referral, ventilation, contact tracing, and quarantine, as well as coordination and

contingency plans. It also includes a list of measures to prepare school officials, students, and

community members before reopening. Though the Department of Education is preparing for

local face-to-face classrooms by installing acrylic barriers on each workstation, despite

classrooms being retrofitted to assure their safety against Covid-19, not all parents feel

comfortable bringing their children back to school on November15, 2021, when restricted

face-to-face sessions commence at chosen institutions. The coronavirus illness 2019

(Covid-19) is decreasing, but some parents are hesitant to bring their children back to

school for face-to-face instruction, even though instances of the disease are

lessening. Someparents said that it would not be until the virus had been eliminated or until

the whole population had been vaccinated that the situation would be resolved. They went on

to say that they preferred that their children remain at home for integrated learning. On the

other hand, others want to see their children enjoy more regular lives and alleviate the burden

of having been at home for more than a year at this point. Following the resuming of

physical education courses in 30 schools on November 15, according to responses obtained by

the Philippines News Agency, netizens have expressed contrasting views(Moaje, 2021).

Limited face-to-face learning

 Limited Face-to-face Learning is a learning process that is carried out offline by

considering several aspects such as limiting the number of students attending offline lectures.

In addition, another limitation is the time used in the learning process itself which only uses half

the time of normal classes. Some institutions that have implemented limited face-to-face

learning are pre-schools (Al-Iftitah and Syamsudin, 2022), elementary schools such as Ende

8 Catholic Elementary School (Suryani etal., 2022), junior high schools such as Beringin Ratu

Serupa Indah Middle School (Suwece and Kusuma, 2021). ), high schools such as Santa

Maria Vocational High School (Powa et al., 2021), and at the university level such as Syekh

Manshur University of Education and Teacher Training (Mustakim et al., 2021). The results of

the limited face-to-face implementation carried out at each level of education showed different

results. One of the reasons for this difference is the different preparedness of each institution.

One of the state Islamic religious universities that implement this limited face-to-face

learning is the Faculty of Education and Teacher Training which is one of the faculties at UIN

Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung.The implementation of limited face-to-face meetings at the

Faculty of Education and Teacher Training began in early November 2021. This implementation

coincides with the implementation of face-to-face learning carried out by other universities

such as Padjadjaran University, Bandung Institute of Technology and other universities in

Indonesia. In its implementation, face-to-face learning, which is carried out in each

institution, has special characteristics and descriptions that differ from one institution to

another. Reported from its official website of Padjadjaran University, the implementation of

this limited face-to-face learning is carried out with hybrid learning at the undergraduate

level (unpad.ac.id).The implementation of limited face-to-face learning has an influence on

the psychological condition of students. Bahrodin and Widiyati (2021) stated that this

limited face-to-face learning affects the stress level of students with moderate stress levels as

much as 80%. Other research stated that this limited face-to-face learning can also pose a risk

of decreased learning outcomes (Tanuwijaya and Tambunan, 2021). Seeing this

phenomenon, more data is needed regarding how is the implementation of limited

learning in other educational institutions, such as in state islamic university.

Therefore, this paper will try to describe the implementation of limited face-to-face

learning at the Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati

Bandung. The results of this study are expected to provide another description of the

implementation of limited face-to-face learning at the university level, especially Islamic

religious universities so that it can be used as consideration for policymakers either atUIN

Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung itself or for other institutions.

In the Philippines, according to the education secretary they will continue to provide

limited face-to-face lessons, as previously agreed and directed by the President and his staff.

They will begin with 100 public schools, 20 private schools, and a few foreign institutions as a

starting point. Because they are still undergoing examinations, some private schools will begin

classes on November 22 after public schools have begun the trial program on November 22

(Fernandez, 2021).

According to Llimet (2021), due to the continuing Covid-19 epidemic, the City

Government of Davao has proposed that five schools in the city's "minimum risk" districts be
included in the experimental run of the restricted face-to-face sessions being offered in the

nation. The mayor also said that they have already talked with DepEd-Davao Region about the

list of schools that will be included in the first deployment of the face-to-face learning based on

the city's risk assessment and that they have already communicated with them.

With changing student lifestyles and fast-developing technology, universities are

increasingly offering more “flexible” learning environments. Commensurate with the

opportunities that technological advances afford, for over a decade (Imel, 2002) the provision

of online, e-learning experiences has undergone rapid expansion in the higher education sector.

Today, online learning is part of the student experience for a substantial proportion of

university students in a variety of countries (e.g., Ituma, 2011; Otter et al., 2013; Tucker et al.,

2013). The current study aimed to compare students' experience and performance in both

online and traditional face-to-face learning experiences.

Blended learning

Blended learning is a combination of face-to-face instruction in classroom and

technology-mediated learning, or a support of traditional teaching by using internet-based

technology such as chat rooms, discussion groups, podcasts, and self-assessment tools (Allan,

2007; Sharma and Barrett, 2007). During the technology-mediated learning mode of this

learning environment, students are not required to physically gather in the same classroom, but

they can connect digitally through online network. In blended learning course, students could

involve in a class taught or directed by a teacher in a face-to-face classroom setting and

complete online learning component of the course independently, outside of the classroom

through online platform. Online learning experiences may replace classroom instruction and

can include interaction with others or learning alone using an independent study. The different

learning experiences are complementing each other, and managed to process in parallel

(Cleveland-Innes and Wilton, 2018). In short, there are two main delivery modes of learning in

the blended learning approach: face-toface classroom learning and online-based learning

experience. Hence, blended learning can refer to an incorporation of online learning tools and

activities into face-to-face classroom instruction. Wang et al. (2015) posited that blended

learning system consist of six interconnected components. They are teacher, learner,

institution, content, technology and learning support. Each of them is independent, but

interdependent at the same time. The teacher act as facilitators, moderators, advisors, and

learning guides, not just knowledge source while the students become researchers,

practitioners, and collaborators. The institution should provide strategies, policy supports, and

necessary infrastructures to facilitate teaching and learning in blended setting.

The content for blended learning should promote both collaborative and individual

learning. The complexity of technology and challenges caused by it should be realized. In

addition, the learning support including academic support and technical supports should assist

students to develop effective learning strategies such as collaborative work and time

management skills. The supports should satisfy students’ needs, created by the teacher’s

knowledge and skills, and advocated by the institution. From abovementioned, when

employing blended learning approach, the policy makers should consider all possible factors

having impact on students’ learning. Learning readiness is considered the preparation for
performing learning activities. Besides, learning readiness is the level of students’ exiting

capacities related to teaching purposes. Students’ readiness is crucial for successful learning in

any conditions. The students’ learning readiness is correlated with their learning outcomes. The

students having more readiness had the greater results of learning, and those who were not

ready to do learning tasks faced difficulties in learning or felt frustrated (Winarso, 2016). In

blended learning environment, Tang and Chaw (2013)suggested that students’ readiness can be

investigated through their viewpoints on six aspects of learning including classroom learning,

online learning, online interaction, technology, learning flexibility, and study management.

First, classroom learning can create real and meaningful interaction between students and

teachers which online learning mode cannot offer. Second, online learning mode, students can

spend more time thinking about responses and expressing their ideas or opinions better. This

aspect can satisfy introverted learners who may feel uncomfortable with expressing their

thoughts in class. The next dimension is online interaction. Blended learning setting should

provide opportunities for interaction and discussion which are essential for learning process.

Asynchronous web-based tools such as online discussion board can be used to carry out online

interaction. Another aspect is concerning technology used in blended learning setting.

Information technology is a key element of this approach. High accessibility of and great

familiarity with digital tools among students are inevitable for fruitful implementation of

blended learning. For learning flexibility, blended learning makes students’ learning become

flexible and convenient in terms of place and time. They should be able to access course

materials on online platforms every time and everywhere when they need. Finally, study

management is seen as a process of self-regulated learning in which students put efforts into
planning, managing, and directing learning activities, and sharing responsibility with their

teachers. The study management is important because it leads to stronger motivation and

better time management for learning online. In blended learning environment, students need

to be self-disciplined and self-motivated.Moreover, according to Osman and Hamzah (2017)

readiness in adopting blended learning is related to capability to learn on one own, self-reliance

in completing given task, feeling comfortable in utilizing technology in learning, and skills for

applying e-learning. Besides, readiness for blended learning correlates to good attitudes toward

face-to-face and e-learning, interest in following blended learning, and readiness to encounter

challenges of such learning experience.Based on previous studies, the students with positive

opinions on the aspects of online learning, study management, online interaction, and learning

flexibility tended to be more ready for blended learning approach whereas the students who

had strong desires for face-to-face instruction were less ready for blended learning setting.

Nonetheless, using technology in learning was not barrier for students (Tang and Chaw,

2013).Furthermore, Osman and Hamzah (2017) found that the level of students’ readiness was

high for both face-to-face and online learning. On the other hand, the lowest mean score on

the statement of self-learning indicated that the students might not be ready to learn on their

own paces because they still relied on teachers’ guidance.

STUDENT ASPECTS PERCEPTION

According to Wang (2007); Arslanyilmaz, and Sullins (2013); Kirmizi (2015), online

interaction in learning occurs when students interact with course content and with instructors
and peers. Well-designed interactive learning tasks tend to promote student interaction with

instructors and peers and increase student involvement with course content. Students benefit

from providing explanations rather than receiving them. In this form of interaction, students

are encouraged to pose questions about an issue in order to find an explanation to their

inquiry. “Such proactive learning engages students in a higher level of thinking than the reactive

type of learning” (Wang, 2007).

In addition, Wang states that assessment, including assigning a grade to collaborative

learning tasks, positively relates to students’ learning. Furthermore, Jackson, Jones, and

Rodrigues (2010) find that significant factors that enhance student learning and satisfaction are

instructors’ prompt responses, clarity of expectations, and accessibility of content. Overall, Carr

(2000); Frederickson, Picket, & Shea (2006); Jung, Choi, Lim, and Leem (2002) agree that

student interaction with instructors and peers play a pivotal role in student learning success.

The authors emphasize the importance of student participation and level and quality of

collaboration with peers and instructors.

PHYSICALLY

Physical education is an inseparable part of education in general which affects the

potential of learners in terms of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor activity through physical

activity (Pangrazi & Beighle, 2019). Through physical activity, children will gain various kinds of

valuable experiences for life, such as intelligence, emotions, attention, cooperation, skills, and

so on. Physical activity for physical education can be through sports or non-sports. The point of

concern is the improvement of human movement (Bailey et al., 2009). More specifically,
physical education is concerned with the relationship between human movement and other

areas of education; the relationship of body-physical development to mind and spirit. His focus

on the influence of physical development on the area of growth and development of other

aspects of the human being is what makes it unique. No other single field, like physical

education, is concerned with total human development (Gallahue & Donnelly, 2007).

MENTALLY

The fear and anxiety of contracting the virus, the suspension of physical classes, the

disruption of regular daily routine, and the decrease of social support from school peers

collectively add burden to the mental well-being of children. [Loades ME (2020); UNICEF (2020)]

The shift to online classes increases the burden on the mental well-being of children. Excessive

use of these technologies has been associated with developmental delays and has resulted in

sleep schedule disruptions. [Hageman JR (2020)]This situation is aggravated by the strict

implementation of the confinement of children at home. Children living with preexisting mental

health concerns [Lee J (2020)] and living in cramped households and communities face worse

circumstances.

EMOTIONALLY

Pekrun et al. described “emotions of progress” as emotions that are directly linked to

either emotion during the activities or its consequences, which consists of various situations.

Their study findings revealed that academic emotions were remarkably associated with the

students’ enthusiasm, academic achievement, self-regulation, cognitive resources, and learning

strategies, as well as class experiences and character [Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W (2002)].
 Positive emotions include pride, hope, and enjoyment, while negative ones include

anger, anxiety, hopelessness, shame, and boredom. The public opinion considers positive

emotions to have positive consequences and negative emotions to have negative

consequences; however, each of these two categories of emotions has its own benefits.

Positive emotions broaden the circle of human thinking; spreading creativity, curiosity, and

bonding with others; discovering social perspectives and connections; and acquiring physical

and social skills. On the other hand, negative emotions are the motivational sources for self-

defense, spirit of cooperation (feeling guilty), seeking justice (anger), informative aspects (for

example, sadness about deficiency), and assist in learning. Negative feeling indicates a problem

and, therefore, motivates us to solve that problem [Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W (2002),Pekrun R,

Lichtenfeld S.(2017),Sakiz GJRiS, Education T. (2017)]. In another study, it was demonstrated

that positive emotions positively predicted subsequent achievement (math test scores and end-

of-the-year grades), and that achievement positively predicted these emotions, controlling for

the students’ family socioeconomic status, and intelligence; however, negative emotions

negatively predicted achievement, and achievement negatively predicted these emotions

[Pekrun R, Lichtenfeld S.(2017)]. Also, Sakiz et al. state that the total effect of perceived teacher

affective support on behavioral engagement was as effective as that of the students’ perceived

academic self-efficacy beliefs in science [Sakiz GJRiS, Education T. (2017)].