INTRODUCTION:

In formal education in online learning settings, in-person interactions between professors, students, and higher education institutions have been linked. Universities, organizations, and businesses are adopting web-based educational systems as a supplement to their traditional in-person classes and to integrate online technology into their curricula^1-3. Through the activities they support, learning environments based on the utilization of technology and digital resources work as mediators in the learning process⁴.

Despite the complexity of learning interactions that take place in the classroom, virtual educational environments allow for the collection and processing of enormous amounts of data from each interaction between every person involved in method⁵.

In classroom settings at the secondary and postsecondary levels, e-tools like Web Whiteboard and cutting-edge technology are being employed to improve teaching and encourage active learning^6-7.

The area of e-learning applications has grown because of recent innovations that put more of a focus on information sharing and enhancing students' learning experiences⁸. In computer-based learning environments, both students and teachers have access to a broad variety of supplementary applications^9-10.

Although their effective use is a different issue, e-tools' accessibility is a big problem^11-12. Numerous institutions all over the world are using online or blended learning strategies as a result of the rapid expansion of global communications and the need for education on a global scale^1,4. In certain circumstances, online learning-based higher education programs enroll more students than those that follow a traditional classroom model. The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus was the root cause of the global pandemic that the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on March 11th, 2020¹². Controlling the pandemic situation and stopping the virus's spread required the construction of physical barriers in many different countries^13-14.

New technologies and teaching strategies have been developed in classrooms. For instance, simulation software, lectures that have been recorded on video or PowerPoint, online assignments, and online meeting platforms^15-16. Each teaching method has advantages and disadvantages, therefore when applied properly, they may fill up the gaps in remote learning circumstances like the Covid-19 epidemic and enhance student learning.

Smart-pen or pen-based technologies are useful in facilitating students’ communication as they permit the employment of electronic handwriting that permits information exchange between educators and learners¹⁷. It's supposed that related technologies are expected to produce student and college member’s active participation within the online learning process.

The use of digital and computer-based technologies for teaching and learning by chemists has a long and significant history. Numerous studies have shown that participation in class activities with peers and teachers helps students learn a subject more effectively. There are alternatives to lectures and publications, including television shows, videotapes, and CD-ROMs that are nevertheless sophisticated in their presentation¹⁸.

Online distance learning courses that support formulae, such as chemistry, numerical computations, graphics, and mathematics, heavily rely on digital technologies. The text may be written with a smart pen, also known as a digital pen, in the same manner as if it were being written on a piece of blank paper or in a notebook. 2009's Moidunny¹⁹.

Smart pens or pen-based technologies are useful in enhancing students' communication since they allow for the use of electronic handwriting that promotes information sharing between educators and learners¹⁷. It is anticipated that related technologies would lead to active staff and student engagement in the online learning process.

As pilot research during the Covid-19 epidemic, this study sought to assess the viewpoints of pharmacy students for two courses on pharmaceutical chemistry and pharmacy regulatory issues. The fifth-year undergraduate pharmacy students received an online survey at the end of the semester. With the implementation of distant learning as a novel learning technique under the COVID-19 pandemic scenario, we expected that students will experience unfavorable consequences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

METHODS:

Study design:

This cross-sectional survey was conducted from September 2020 to December 2020. Participants were Mutah University's faculty of pharmacy undergraduate students. At the conclusion of the semester, an online survey was administered. They were highly urged to complete the questionnaire, although participation was entirely optional. The research participants' names and other private information were kept private. The study was approved by the Pharmacy Research Ethics Committee (approval No: 8-2020) in conformity with the Helsinki Declaration (d1/2020). In this research, ethics, mentioning voluntariness, and privacy is particularly significant.

Participant:

The participants were selected as all students enrolled in previous courses and they attend their courses through an online distance education environment supported by Microsoft team’s platform.

Study design:

The questionnaire was tested as a pilot, and the results were used to inform the final version's clarification and understandability of the questions. The final study did not include data from the pilot sample. The online Google Forms platform was used to distribute the survey to the pupils. All 46 statements have to be addressed in order for the submission and answer to be recorded. The questionnaire was created to gauge how the students felt about the distance learning strategy shown in Figure 1 among other things. The response choices for the survey items are open-ended questions about the difficulties and rewarding aspects of distance learning, with five Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). There was a total of 41 statements in six sections: A basic description of the student's gender, academic year, and GPA; B contributions to learning; C course substance; D discussions that encourage participation; E teaching strategy; and F student output (table 1). The questionnaire was made available in English, the study language of Mutah's university pharmacy students.

Figure 1: Instructor discussing pharmaceutical chemistry topic using the smart digital pen for explanation during students’ interactive discussion (MS Teams distance learning lecture)

Table 1. Content of the online survey.

	Number of Question (s)	Scale
General information/ Background questions	3	-
Contribution to learning	4	Likert 1–5
Skill and responsiveness of the instructor	6	Likert 1–5
Course content	4	Likert 1–5
Encouraging of Participation/Discussion	7	Likert 1–5
Teaching method (distance learning using smart pen)	18	Likert 1–5
Students’ Output	3	Likert 1–5
What aspects of this course were most useful or valuable?	1	Open-ended
How would you improve this course?	1	Open-ended

Data collection:

The form was accessible for 7 days, from December 25 to December 31, 2020. After four and six days, a reminder was issued as a follow-up.

Data analysis:

Data was exported from Google Forms and processed to be used by IBM SPSS STATISTICS V22 for data analysis. A Pearson Chi-Square analysis p-value 0.05 was used to exhibit the suggested statically difference among categorical parameters. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22 was used to analyze the data. Gender, age, GPA, and year level data were descriptively analyzed. Non-parametric tests were used for data that wasn't normally distributed. The Fisher's exact test or Pearson's Chi-Square test was used to analyze proportional data. P 0.05 was deemed statistically significant for all statistical analyses. The range of interpreting the Likert scale mean score was as follows: 1.0-2.6 (Negative or low perceived/attitude), 2.61-3.2 (Neutral/medium perception/attitude), and 3.21-5.0 (Positive /high perception/attitude)¹⁹.

RESULT:

Participants’ data:

Table 2 depicts the descriptive statistics for students’ general information and background. The participants were distance learning students, a total of 164 undergraduates. About 34 enrolled in Pharmaceutical Chemistry-I(MCI), 32 enrolled in Pharmaceutical Chemistry-III(MCIII), and 98 enrolled in Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affair undergraduate courses (RA). The response rate was 100%. About 148 (90.2%) of the participants are female distributed as follows: 29 in MCI; 31 in MCIII and 88 in RA. About 16 (9.8%) of the participants are male distributed as follows: 5 in MCI; 1 in MCIII and 10 in RA this reflects the majority of our undergraduate Pharmacy students are female. Students enrolled in MCIII are all in the fifth-year level whereas RA students 83(84.69%) in the fifth year, 13(3.27%) in the fourth year and 2(2.04%) in the third year. MCI course has widespread student’s level: 3(8.8%) in the second; 15(44.11%) in the third; 8(23.5%) in the fourth and 8(23.5%) in the fifth year. Students’ GPA is normally distributed. About 22% got a high GPA that is between 86 and 99 (Table 2).

Table 2: Descriptive statistics (n (%)) for the respondent’s distribution and their Background

	Gender		Level				GPA
Course	Female	Male	2^nd year	3^rd year	4^th year	5^th year	60-69	70-79	80-85	86-99
MCI^a	29 (85.3)	5 (14.7)	3 (8.8)	15(44.11)	8 (23.5)	8 (23.5)	4(11.7)	13(38.24)	11 (32.6)	6 (17.6)
MCIII^b	31 (96.9)	1 (3.1)	0	0	0	32 (100)	2 (6.25)	11 (34.38)	11(34.38)	8 (25)
RA^c	88 (89.8)	10 (10.2)	0	2 (2.04)	13(13.27)	83(84.7)	5 (5.10)	33 (33.67)	38(38.78)	2(22.45)
Total	148(90.2)	16(9.8)					11(6.7)	57(34.5)	60(36.6)	36(22)

^aPharmaceutical Chemistry-I (MCI), n= 32,

^bPharmaceutical Chemistry-III (MCIII), n=34

^c Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affair (RA), n=98

The percentage was calculated based on the size of Sample n(%)

Table 3. Instructor-specific questions/ Encouraging of Participation/Discussion

		MCI		MCIII		RA
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1.	The instructor engaged the class in productive discussions	3.4	1.1	4.0	0.74	4.1	0.69
2.	The instructor guided the discussion well	3.6	0.95	3.9	0.84	4.1	0.73
3.	The instructor encouraged student contributions	3.7	1.0	3.9	0.9	4.0	0.75
4.	The instructor provided opportunities for class participation	3.7	1.2	3.9	0.9	4.0	0.77
5.	The instructor encouraged critical engagement with the material	3.7	1.0	3.8	0.9	4.0	0.77
6.	The instructor encouraged student questions and participation	3.8	0.97	4.0	0.9	4.2	0.74
7.	The instructor encouraged participation	3.7	1.2	4.1	0.9	4.1	0.75

There was positive weak to intermediate correlation (Pearson correlation R) between different fields. Regarding MCI course the situation was as follows: the level of knowledge students acquired at the end of the course was highly correlated to instructors’ responsiveness and involvement during the course. According to Pearson correlation R was 0.70(p<0.001) for the level of knowledge they gain and course information. While level of knowledge and effectiveness of instructor R is 0.60(p<0.001); R is 0.58(p<0.001) for effective information time management; R is 0.58 (p<0.001) for availability of instructor and R is 0.596 for the clearness of course learning objectives. Additionally, correlation was good for level of knowledge and information outcome with course load R is 0.69 (p<0.001); R is 0.58(p<0.001) for course organization and R is 0.61(p<0.001) for productive engagement.

In MCIII the level of course knowledge is strongly correlated to instructor skill and responsiveness and affect R for the four questions was 0.591(p<0.001)for the level of knowledge at the end of course and availability of instructor; R is 0.543(p<0.001) with the time management during class period; R is 0.605 (p<0.001) for engagement in productive discussions and R is 0.712(p<0.001) for encouraged students contribution (opportunity for class participation and critical engagement with material).

Finally in the case of RA course the level of knowledge students gained was quite different ie. weak positive correlation. Level of knowledge to level instructors’ effectiveness and stimulation but not in high limits R is 0.36(p<0.001); 0.33(p,0.001) and 0.33(p<0.001). while it is higher to instructors’ discussion guidance R is 0.48 (p<0.001); 0.515(p<0.001) to encouraging students discussion; 0.477(p<0.001) to class participation and 0.528(p<0.001) for encouraged questions. Additionally, its 0.337(p<0.001) with clearness of learning objectives; 0.33(p<0.001) to course organization.

Students’ perception regarding Teaching method:

The perception of the digital pen method in the three courses is explained in Table 4. The students' perception of the overall teaching method, specifically the digital smart pen, is above average in the MCIII course, with an average of 3.54 on a 5-point Likert scale. As a result, it is suggested that the students' opinions of the service quality fall somewhere between "neither agree nor disagree" and "agree." On a 5-point Likert scale, the average score of 3.54 can be interpreted as leaning more toward "Highly agree" than "Neither agree nor disagree." As a result, students are generally satisfied with the perceived Teaching method. RA and MCI courses were satisfied as well, to a lesser extent with an average of 3.23 and 3.24 respectively. The range of interpreting the Likert scale mean score was as follows: 1.0-2.6 (Negative or low perceived/attitude), 2.61-3.2 (Neutral/medium perception/ attitude), and 3.21-5.0 (Positive /high perception/attitude)¹⁹.

The detailed perception can be seen as follows: average for “teaching method/smart pen is aided their learning” and “effectiveness” ranges from 3.5 to 4 for all courses students. Comparing smart pen to face-to-face learning,

MCI, and RA students’ perception at the border line with average of 2.7(neutral) while MCIII average is higher i.e., 3.5 (highly agree). While their perception regarding learning, MCI average is 2.7; MCIII is 3.5 and RA 2.8. Overall students’ perception regarding if” it is not useful and not good “is 2.2; 2.3 and 2.6 for MCI; MCIII and RA respectively.

Students’ Output Overall evaluation:

Figure 4 explains the various overall evaluations for the three courses. MCIII students were “…… able to score better due to the use of teaching aid that try focus on what the instructor talking about in distance learning” with an average of 3.5 while it was less in MCI (3.2) and RA (3.3). While regarding comparison with other teaching methods like live video “… able to score better due to the use of teaching aid that try focus on what the instructor talking about in distance learning better than live video” MCIII >RA>MCI with values 3.8>3.7 and 3.2 respectively. Finally with the same attitude MCIII students were more satisfied regarding the benefits of teaching method with an average of 3.9; MCI average is 3.4 and RA average is 3.3 for the statement “… using smart pen provides me guidance about the concepts that I need to focus”.

Table 4. Teaching method (distance learning using smart pen)

		MCI		MCIII		RA
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1.	The instructor presented course material in a clear manner that facilitated understanding	3.6	1.1	4.0	0.86	4.0	0.84
2.	The instructor effectively organized and facilitated well-run learning activities	3.7	0.97	4.0	0.80	3.9	0.84
3.	This method aided my learning.	3.8	0.95	3.9	0.95	3.6	0.99
4.	This method was effective.	3.6	0.95	3.8	0.91	3.5	1.0
5.	These methods were effective better than face to face learning	2.7	1.2	3.5	1.1	2.7	1.2
6.	This method aided my learning better than face to face learning	2.7	1.3	3.5	1.2	2.8	1.1
7.	This method stimulated my interest in the subject matter better than face to face learning	2.9	1.2	3.3	1.1	2.7	1.2
8.	This method helped to grasp my attention	2.9	1.2	3.2	1.1	2.9	1.1
9.	This method is better than using the white board in classroom	2.8	1.2	3.2	1.2	2.8	1.2
10.	This smart pen is good but not better than face to face learning	3.9	0.99	3.5	1.0	3.7	0.86
11.	Depending on the instructor ability this pen can be good or has no impact	3.7	0.93	3.4	0.88	3.5	0.73
12.	This method helped specifically here in medicinal chemistry	3.4	1.1	3.9	0.88	3.2	1.1
13.	This method made very good communication to understand chemistry more	3.2	1.3	3.8	1.0	3.2	1.0
14.	This method is not good and not useful	2.2	1.3	2.3	1.1	2.6	1.1
15.	Compared to previous online related courses this method helped me better to understand organic structures	3.3	1.2	3.7	1.0	3.3	0.88
16.	Compared to previous face to face related courses this method helped me better to understand organic structures	2.9	0.85	3.6	1.0	2.9	1.0
	Overall Mean	3.24		3.54		3.23

Figure 4: Students’ Output Overall evaluation

The students had recently concluded a 12-week online course in digital pens, and were asked open-ended questions about the course's engagement, feedback, challenges, and motivation. Participants in the open-ended questions consistently emphasized how crucial the smart pen is to the learning process. It was said that this enhanced participation in particular by streamlining the presentation of process phases, chemical structures, and feedback. It made classes livelier as a result.

Some students responded to the feedback by saying, "I found it easier regarding notes documentation, I focused on the instructor's discussion and saved time to understand concepts instead of spending time with handwriting nots that reduce my understanding." Others state their response as follows: "I am a very slow hand writer, and a smart pen has saved me time and improved my ability to concentrate." While others stated, "... I have issues with chemistry topics in that I document my notes incorrectly while writing quickly, but when the instructor used this smart pen, my notes were more valid and guaranteed.". Additionally, a number of answers discussed the problems during classrooms interactive lectures:” using classroom whit board was not effective from my side as I cannot see properly because some angles are blind in the interactive class rooms”.

DISCUSSION:

Within educational institutions, online educational environments are being integrated. So, it doesn't seem appropriate to contest their acceptance. To make them a significant factor in students' performance, though, is a challenge. It is virtually impossible to identify all the factors that affect students' performance, and it is even more challenging to gauge how much each factor affects the outcomes of learning^20-22.

Most academic institutions switched to online learning as an alternative during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown to ensure the safety of staff and students. It was crucial to examine the impact of online education on pharmacy students using several factors since we had a significant transition to online learnin⁸. General Science courses, pharmacy practice, clinical and more advanced pharmaceutical chemistry, and pharmacy laws are all well-known components of the pharmacy curriculum. that can be converted to an online format more easily because it requires a different level of in-person interaction between the lecturer and the students^17;20-23. Many academic studies have shown that participation in class activities with classmates and teachers helps students learn a subject more effectively. Although "delivery technologies" such as videotapes, television programs, and online lectures are often more sophisticated in their presentation, they are merely substitutes for lectures and books. However, "engagement technologies" demand participation from the students. As a result, computer programs that constantly provide feedback to encourage students, with loopbacks as needed, interactive videodiscs, well-designed Web environments, even email, are all static until the student participates. These interactive learning tools have a very positive effect on education.

Numerous research investigations on this subject of literature have indicated that pen-based technologies are utilized to support classroom participation and interaction in real-life educational situations. One of the pen-based technologies called the "smart pen" was employed in this study by higher education institutions taking online pharmacy courses. The smart pen was evaluated from the perspective of distance students in the online Medicinal Chemistry-I (MCI), Medicinal Chemistry III (MCIII), and Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs courses.

Multiple factors are considered when evaluating a teaching method that may influence students' perceptions. Most pharmacy students in Mutah university pharmacy school are female, as evidenced by the majority of students being female (90.2%). The voluntary contribution to this study is made by the three courses' participants. The year level of the student is impacted by the courses they are enrolled in, with MCI directed at 2nd year students and MCIII and RA directed to 5th year students. The students' grade point average (GPA) is normally distributed and reflects the assessment of each student's performance in relation to the challenges posed by their grade output.

The course curriculum and the instructor's related characteristics were evaluated. Clear course objectives and a manageable workload have satisfied students. Students at higher year levels expressed greater satisfaction with the teaching methods used by the instructor. This is typical as first- and second-level students are just beginning to adjust to all their specialty coursework and their new higher education journey and are experiencing a disconnect between high school strategy and university education tools. Additionally, MCI is the first prerequisite for MCII and MCIII. Medicinal chemistry course is considered an advanced course that requires a combination of good knowledge of organic chemistry and pharmacology, which requires a lot of effort from both the educator and the students.

In order for students to become motivated learners and continue in their pursuit of their particular educational goals, academic staff play a crucial role in fostering learning environments that support these behaviors²¹. For more effectively addressing the motivational problems that frequently obstruct both effective teaching and sustained learning, a greater knowledge of academic staff perceptions of students and the influence of those perceptions on student accomplishment offers considerable potential. Educators who identify and use successful student motivation tactics may inspire even the most challenging kids to be academically driven, appreciate their educational experiences, and become future-oriented.

The findings revealed that students' perceptions of the instructor's encouragement, motivation, engagement, productive discussion, and stimulation, as well as their overall level of satisfaction with the instructor’s methods and strategy provided, were slightly above average, and all courses were highly satisfied, with the mean being 3.4 or higher for all statements across all courses (Table 3). This demonstrates that the later evaluation of new teaching methods and strategies, whether accepted or rejected by students, will be method-related rather than due to the instructor's inability to master this new technique.

The level of overall knowledge students gains at the end of the course, along with good satisfaction in all the courses with minimal variation, were correlated with the students' acceptance of the instructor's responsiveness, involvement, management, and level of instruction. Compared to MCIII students, MCI students expressed less satisfaction with the smart pen. This can be attributed to the fact that, as was previously mentioned, MCI is an introductory course, which differs from the content and students' prior knowledge of these topics. Due to the nature of the course, students are unable to determine whether their difficulties are due to the lack of background knowledge in organic chemistry, the challenge of connecting it to the information in pharmacology, the distance learning setting, or the smart pen technique.

According to the mean perception listed in table 4 and earlier mentioned in the results section, RA students are also less satisfied than MCIII students. The most satisfied students with smart pens are in MCIII. The course covers relationships between chemical structures and their functions, which request for in-depth discussion of a single scaffold. This vast amount of information necessitates in-depth discussion and requires students to take effective notes. However, there is no room for any additional organic information in the RA course, which contains reliable information about pharmacy regulations.

These findings are followed by open-ended questions. In general, they are happy with the smart pen because it makes it simple for them to address all the significant information that the instructor himself has recorded. Additionally, the ability to record lectures through distance learning gives students the chance to review all the information, which is especially helpful for those with slow handwriting and even low- to intermediate-level students. This has been established using a digital pen in a math course by Karal et al (2013)⁸.

The researchers determined that smart pens helped academic workers to express themselves more freely. It was found that academic staff members could simply transfer and apply their own handwriting to the online course utilizing a smart pen in several pharmaceutical courses. Similar to how they were in conventional classroom settings, chemical structures, equations, and expressions may be easily conveyed on a screen. According to Karal et al. (2013)⁸, this enhanced engagement between the teacher and the students, as well as peer-to-peer interaction, offers real-time feedback and raises total student involvement. Additionally, electronic handwriting was made possible by pen-based technologies while teaching pupils scientific concepts, which had a favorable effect on education^20-24.

Recently, as Since smart pen technology has been widely adopted by higher education institutions recently, there is a need for solid empirical support to assess their positive effects. Without empirical data, it can be difficult for an assistive technology service provider to make positive recommendations. To assess the transformative impact that these pens are having on students' learning, more research is needed. To assess the positive impact on students with special needs enrolled in higher education, more extensive studies are required. The lack of awareness of the pens being used among academic staff suggests a need for additional training.

CONCLUSION:

Analysis of the study's findings, it was determined that the use of smart pens in online distance learning environments increased student and instructor interaction, allowed for timely and accurate feedback, and encouraged student participation. Additionally, this study found that using a smart pen in an online course on Medicinal chemistry reduced time waste, avoided distractions, and allowed for active participation increased students' interest in the subject. Similar findings were drawn from a different study, which found that using the appropriate technologies increased student motivation and made participants more active. To promote interaction and the understanding of chemical structures in online distance education, it might be argued that making pen-based technology available for use by remote medicinal chemistry instructors is essential.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors have no conflicts of interest regarding this investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The authors wish to thank the students who participated in the study.

REFERENCES:

1. Alves P. Miranda L. Morais C. The Influence of Virtual Learning Environments in Students’ Performance. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(3): 517-527, http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2017.050325

2. Shailendra K. G. A study on Problems and Solutions for Distance Learning Education. Asian J. Management. 2015; 6(1): January–March, 05-11.

3. Shailendra K. G. The Role of Distance Education in the Human skill Development of India. Asian J. Management. 2014; 5(3): July-September 2014, 306-311.

4. Janakiraman B. Assessment of Visual, Auditory, and kinaesthetic Learning Styles among Postgraduate Management Students. Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(2): 1031-1037.

5. Debodip C. Role of E-Learning on Education: A Review of Literature. Asian Journal of Management. 2019; 10(3): 273-278.

6. Andres F. Mena-GuacasCamilo A. Velandia R. Interaction through mobile technology in short-term university courses Heliyon. 2020; 6. e03287

7. Blessy P. Shruti M. Roy. Lockdown to login to make virtual Learning more Effective. Asian J. Nursing Education and Research. 2020; 10(4): 505-508.

8. Karal H. Kokoç M. Çolak C. Yalçın Y. Using Pen‐Based Technology in Online Mathematics Course: An Evaluation Study. European Journal of Open, Distance and E‐Learning. 2013; 16 (2)

9. Ambika N. J. Varsha R. Gaikwad A. Akshay H. Sangita S.Varsha G. Impact of Online Education during COVID-19 Pandemic among the Pharm. D. Students, A Web - Based Survey. Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2023; 13(4): 269-4.

10. Muilenburg L.Y. Berge Z.L. Student barriers to online learning: a factor analytic study. Distance Educ. 2005; 26(1):29–48.

11. Radha. K, N. Vijayanarayanan S.K. Sharat. V. K. Lesson Learned During Covid-19 Pandemic: Impact, Challenges and Opportunities in Nursing Education – A Review. International Journal of Advances in Nursing Management. 2021; 9(4): 417-2.

12. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) – World Health Organization. https://www.who. int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019. (Accessed 31 December 2019). Accessed 26 June 2020

13. UNESCO, A, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-eme rgencies/coronavirus-school-closures. (Accessed 19 March 2020).a

14. UNESCO, B: Jordan transforms education challenges into opportunities during COVID-19 crisis. (https://en.unesco.org/news/jordan-transforms education-challenges-opportunities-during-covid-19-crisis) 5\5\2020.b

15. Amir L.R. Tanti I. Maharani D.A. et al Student perspective of classroom and distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic in the undergraduate dental study program Universitas Indonesia. BMC Med Educ. 2020; 20, 392. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02312-0

16. Arias J. J. Swinton J. Anderson K. Online Vs. Face-to-Face: A Comparison of Student Outcomes with Random Assignment. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching. 2018; 12: 2: 1-23

17. Stevens E. P. Creation of a Medicinal Chemistry MOOC as a Teaching Tool for Both Online and Residential Students. Online Course Development and the Effect on the On-Campus Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016. chapter 7

18. Boschmann E. Teaching Chemistry via Distance Education. JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu. 2003; 80: 6

19. Jennette Mol P James. E-Learning in Nursing Education. International Journal of Advances in Nursing Management. 2022; 10(3): 295-0.

20. Galligan L. Loch B. McDonald C. and Taylor A.J. The use of tablets and related technologies in mathematics teaching. In Australian Senior Mathematics Journal. 2010; 24(1): (38- 51).

21. Weitz R.R.Wachsmuth B. and Mirliss D. The tablet pc for faculty: A pilot project. In Educational Technology and Society. 2006; 9(2): (68-83).

22. Casas I. Ochoa S.F. and Puente J. Using tablet PCs and pen-based technologies to support engineering education. Paper presented at 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. San Diego, CA.2009

23. Vaidehi R. Girija T. Factors Influencing Diffusion and Continuance of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(3): 731-733.

24. Sini V. P. Linda S. M. Abilash D. Abhilash VS. Technology enabled online learning in a Digital age. Asian Journal of Management. 2020; 11(3): 266-274.

Received on 06.12.2023 Modified on 18.04.2024

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2024; 17(9):4329-4336.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00669