A Systematic Review of Youth Online Learning in ASEAN Countries

Abstract

Quality in higher education is one of the key enablers for developing nations to achieve their sustainable development goals by 2023. Recently, the Covid-19 pandemic forces university students to shift from traditional face-to-face to remote learning. Regardless of how classes are conducted, it is critical that the learning process is delivered according to the curriculum. The original goal of online learning is to allow students to learn whenever and wherever they want, at their own pace. Nevertheless, there appears to be a disparity in the rate of expansion of online learning between the West and developing countries particularly in the technology adoption, yet no matter what it takes, youth students in the world need to adapt to the new learning norm due to pandemic Covid 19. However, there are some drawbacks in online learning. Online learning limits the interaction between educators and other students in class industry observers have forecasted that the adoption of online learning in developing countries will grow faster in the next ten years. Noting that, past researchers putting effort to cover on empirical study. Yet, efforts to systematically review these promising area are still lacking. Thus, this article aims to fill the gap in understanding and identifying factors affecting youth online learning in ASEAN countries. Guided by the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) review method, a systematic review of the Scopus and Web of Science databases identified 11 related studies. The systematic review process involved four (4) main processes, namely identification, screening, eligibility and data analysis. From 576 articles have been reviewed; only 11 articles were finally selected for further analyses. Further review of these articles resulted in three main themes -preferences of online learning tools, youth opinion on online learning and youth motivation on online learning in the ASEAN perspective. With in-depth deliberation, this paper provides several recommendations which are highlighted at the end of this article. Based on the review, it was found that several online learning tools are being preferred to be used by youth students in ASEAN countries namely, social networking sites,

Research on International Talent Cultivation Mode of Internet of Things Professional Cluster under Digital Intelligence

“…The use of neural networks for teaching evaluation was investigated by Y Jin et al [5]. A study of the Numeracy Learning Platform for Adolescents was conducted by Shafie et al [6]. At present, the research on the talent cultivation mode of IoT professional cluster of "ASEAN+Digital Intelligence" is of great significance to cultivate international composite talents.…”

e-Modyul: Technical-vocational-livelihood support learning management system

“…ASEAN countries and other developing countries such as Malaysia, Mexico, India, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, and Eastern Europe have adopted elearning technology to complete their training easily, improving performance and greater productivity. The pandemic has compelled students in these developing nations, particularly those with limited access to medical facilities and low vaccination rates, to embrace online learning for a prolonged period (Shafie et al, 2021). Blended learning as the catalyst for change and seen as the solution for establishing the democratic principle of education is the way to provide equal access to education, which guarantees equity and justice to ensure the timely delivery of educational content.…”

The Use of DingTalk among Middle School Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China

“…in various localities carry out online teaching through various forms. Industry observers predict that the adoption of online teaching in developing countries will accelerate over the next decade (Shafie et al, 2021). Many researchers also believe that the use of online media for online education is an important part of future education (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2016;Friedman and Friedman, 2013;.…”