Chapter IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and

interpretation of the gathered data in this study. Specific

questions raised were 1) What are the digital learning

environment present in the school along: Digital resources,

Support, and Hardware, software, system? 2) What is the

level of digital literacy skills of students and teachers

along: Accessing, Managing, Evaluating, Integrating,

Creating, and Communicating? 3. What is the level of

effectiveness of the use of digital technology in the

teaching-learning along the following: Personalization,

Accessibility, Relevance, Efficiency, and Performance? 4) Is

there a significant difference in the level of effectiveness

of the use of digital technology in the teaching-learning

and digital literacy skills of students and teachers? 5) Is

there a significant relationship between digital learning

environment and level of effectiveness of the use of digital

technology in teaching? 6) Is there a significant

relationship between digital literacy of students and

teachers to level of effectiveness of the use of digital

technology in teaching?
DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT PRESENT IN THE SCHOOL

Digital learning environment present in the school were

determined through listing down available and usable digital

resources, support and hardware, software, system.

Table 1 shows the digital learning environment present

in the school. In digital resources, 78% of teachers and 62%

of pupils have an access in the internet. Fifty percent 50%

of teachers and 26% of students were aware when it comes to

the Learning Resources Management and Development System

(LRMDS). For the off line (CD ROM) DepEd copy of learning

materials, 47% of teachers and 22% of students have a copy

of the learning materials. Six percent 6% of teachers while

none of the students said that they have other resources.

For the support, 78% of teachers and 90% of students

said that DepEd Computerization Program (DCP) is present. In

terms of the support from the Local Government Unit, 39% of

teachers and 45% of students agree that they receive support

from this particular government agency. Fofty-four percent

(44%) of teachers and 39% of students said that they

received support from the Parents Teachers Association.

Eleven percent (11%) of teachers said that they have other

support and 0% for students.

TABLE 1: DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT PRESENT IN THE SCHOOL
ALONG DIGITAL RESOURCES, SUPPORT, AND HARDWARE, SOFTWARE,
SYTEM

Percentage Percentage
PARAMETER for for
Teachers Students
Digital Resources
1. Internet connection 78% 62%
2. Learning Resources
Management And Development 50% 26%
System (LRMDS)
3. off line ( CD ROM ) DepEd
47% 22%
copy of learning materials
4. others 6% 0%
Support
1. DepEd Computerization
78% 90%
Program DCP
2. Local Government Unit 39% 45%
3. Parents Teachers
44% 39%
Association
4. others 11% 0%
Hardware, software, system
1. Desktop Computers 89% 93%
2. Laptop Computers 89% 77%
3. Television Set 100% 71%
4. Tablet 17% 0%
5. Projectors 89% 71%
6. Promethean for Interactive
39% 24%
White Board
7. Movie Maker 17% 14%
8. Microsoft Office 78% 44%
9. Photoshop 17% 9%
10. Windows Multipoint Server 17% 20%
11. others 0% 0%
 In terms of computer hardware, software, and system,

89% of teachers and 93% of students said that they have

Desktop Computers. For laptop computers 89% of teachers and

77% of students have this kind of tool. One hundred percent

(100%) of teachers have Television set while 71% students

agree it is present. Seventeen percent (17%) of teachers and

0% of students for the tablet, 89% and 71% of teachers and

students respectively when it comes to the projector. In

terms of the Promethean for Interactive White Board 39% of

teachers and 24% of students agree that it is present and

usable, while in the movie maker 17% of teachers and 14% of

students use this software. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of

teachers and 44% of students have an access to Microsoft

office, and 17% of teachers and 9% of students have

photoshop software. Seventeen percent (17%) of teachers and

20% of students are aware that the school have Windows

Multipoint Server.

It was assumed in the statement of an anonymous author

(2013), that current trends in education, a modern classroom

would not be complete without computers, software, internet

connections, projectors and a variety of other high-tech

device. With the internet and computer technology

availability, technology becomes increasingly indispensable

in the field of education and enables both the teachers and

students to have a variety of opportunities to expand the

curriculum, with many new research tools, limitless wealth

of information, shared professional practices, communication

tools, and new modes of learning.

The results agree to the statement of Buturian (2016),

that technology in the classroom enables the use of more

interactive educational tools, which allows for a dynamic

learning experience that directly benefits students. This

was also emphasized in the article of Laping (2016), that

the technology could help teachers accelerate the teaching

and learning process in the classroom. But according to

Ritchell (2012), there is a widespread belief among teachers

that students’ constant use of digital technology is

hampering their attention spans and ability to persevere in

the face of challenging tasks.

LEVEL OF DIGITAL LITERACY SKILLS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS

The level of digital literacy skills of teachers and

students consisting of six aspects - accessing, managing,

evaluating, integrating, creating and communicating - were

determined through a six point scale questionnaire and the

results were presented using the mean, interpretation, and

TABLE 2: LEVEL OF DIGITAL ACCURACY OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS

 TEACHERS STUDENTS
Aspects
Mean Int Rank Mean Int Rank
Accessing 3.96 I 3 3.75 I 1
Managing 4.23 I 1 3.51 I 3
Evaluating 3.91 I 4 3.49 B 4
Integrating 4.04 I 2 3.66 I 2
Creating 3.43 B 6 2.89 B 6
Communicating 3.52 I 5 3.37 B 5
Overall 3.85 I 3.45 B

Legend:

Interval Interpretation (Int)

5.50 – 6.00 Expert (E)

4.50 – 5.49 Advanced (AD)
3.50 – 4.49 Intermediate (I)
2.50 – 3.49 Basic (B)
1.50 – 2.49 Aware (AW)
1.00 – 1.49 Unaware (U)

the rank. Table 2 shows the summary of the level of digital

accuracy of teachers and students.

 In accessing, teachers got an overall mean value of

3.96 with an interpretation as Intermediate with a rank 3

while the students mean value is 3.75 interpreted as

Intermediate and with a rank 1. When it comes to the aspects

under accessing, teachers’ highest mean value of 4.33

interpreted as Intermediate is on using the internet for

surfing and browsing information while they have low mean

value of 3.61 interpreted as Intermediate in downloading

video clips, audio/mp3 to youtube and other trusted sites.

The students got high mean value of 4.84 interpreted as

Advanced in watching video clips in youtube and low mean

value of 2.98 with an interpretation as Basic in sending

message using emails. These findings shows that the level of

proficiency of teachers in digital literacy skills through

accessing is Intermediate, which means they can successfully

complete tasks without assistance. On the other hand, the

students’ level of proficiency is Intermediate, they can do

it completely and independently with assistance from time to

time.

Under managing, teachers got 4.23 mean value and

interpreted as Intermediate with a rank 1 while the students

mean value is 3.51 with an interpretation as

Intermediate and ranked 3rd. When it comes to the aspects

under managing, teachers got a high mean value of 4.72

interpreted as Advanced on saving encoded files and low mean

of 3.89 interpreted as Intermediate in sorting important and

unimportant documents. They apply and enhance their skills

but they may need some guidance from the expert from time to

time. The students got a high mean value of 4.32 interpreted

as Intermediate in locating file saved in the computer and

low mean value of 2.90 interpreted as Basic in sorting

important and unimportant documents. Students can do tasks

in this aspect but if there are some issues they need some

assistance from the expert.

In evaluating, teachers got a mean value of 3.91 with a

rank 4 with an interpretation as Intermediate while students

got 3.49 with a rank 4 and interpreted as Basic. Under the

aspects in Evaluating, teachers’ highest mean value of 4.39

interpreted as Intermediate is on deciding whether the

information in the internet is important and the low mean

value of 3.50 interpreted as Intermediate is on identifying

edited and not edited pictures. Whereas, the students’

highest mean value of 4.06 interpreted as Intermediate is on

identifying edited and not edited pictures while they got

low mean of 2.60 interpreted as Basic on distinguishing real

and fake information in the internet.

Under integrating, teachers and students got 4.04 and

3.66 mean value respectively with both ranked 2 and

interpreted as Intermediate. Under its aspects, teachers got

a highest mean value of 4.17 interpreted as Intermediate in

using internet browser to find important information

regarding lessons while they have low mean value of 3.89

interpreted as Intermediate in copying information in the

internet and pasting to a word document. Students’ highest

mean value of 4.43 interpreted as Intermediate is on using

internet browser to find important information regarding

lessons and got low mean of 3.17 interpreted as Basic in

using powerpoint for a presentation.

In creating, the teachers mean value is 3.43 with an

interpretation as Basic and ranked 6 while the students got

2.89 mean value with a rank 6 and interpretation as Basic.

In the aspect of creating, teachers got a highest mean value

of 3.94 interpreted as Intermediate in producing texts using

a word processing program while low mean value of 3.06 with

an interpretation as Basic in capturing and editing digital

photos, movies or other graphics file. Students’ highest

mean value of 3.25 interpreted as Basic is on Capturing and

editing digital photos, movies or other graphics file while

their low mean value of 2.57 interpreted as Basic is on

using a spreadsheet/excel in making graphs. It shows that

both have a Basic skills and knowledge. They can do tasks

with assistance.
 In communicating, teachers mean value is 3.52 with a

rank 5 and interpreted as Intermediate while the students

got 3.37 mean value and ranked 5 with an interpretation as

basic. Under its aspects, teachers got a highest mean value

of 3.94 interpreted as Intermediate in sending and replying

information / opinions in social media and in a group chat

while they have low mean value of 3.28 interpreted as Basic

in looking for a contact person in google mail (gmail).

Students’ highest mean value of 3.84 interpreted as

Intermediate is sending and replying information / opinions

in social media and in a group chat and got low mean of 2.85

interpreted as Basic in attaching files in emails.

Based on the over all mean value and interpretation,

the teachers and students got 3.85 and 3.45 respectively and

interpreted as Intermediate for Teachers and Basic for the

students.

Based on the result above, the teachers’ digital

accuracy level is Intermediate in almost all of the aspects.

They have the knowledge and skills acquired on completing

tasks on accessing, managing, evaluating, integrating,

creating and communicating information using digital

technology. Whereas, the grade 4 to 6 level students mostly

have a basic knowledge on digital literacy. They need

assistance and guidance on completing most of the tasks.

Yet, the students’ experiences and learning can be used in

latter assignment. In which according to Sue Beers (2011),

learning is engaging and motivates students to continue to

learn. Educators’ goal should be to make the learning

process visible so that the students can reflect on their

own learning process and skills and improve them. To become

proficient and skillful learners and innovators, students

need to practice their thinking routines and processes

multiple times with different content. The study of Bouchard

(2014), Virtual Learning Environments permit student more

flexibility as they can learn at their own pace and on their

own schedules; however, teachers and administrators must be

proficient with the technology in order for it to be

effective.

LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN

TEACHING-LEARNING

The level of effectiveness of the use of Digital

Technology in teaching-learning were determined through a

TABLE 3: THE LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Parameters TEACHERS STUDENTS

 Mean Int Rank Mean Int Rank
Personalization 3.57 VE 1 3.09 E 1
Accessibility 2.79 E 4 2.99 E 3
Relevance 3.09 E 2 2.80 E 5
Efficiency 3.06 E 3 3.00 E 2
Performance 2.77 E 5 2.85 E 4
Overall 3.06 E 2.95 E

Legend:

Interval Interpretation (Int)

3.50 – 4.00 Very Effective (VE)

2.50 – 3.49 Effective (E)
1.50 – 2.49 Ineffective (I)
1.00 – 1.49 Very Ineffective (VI)

four point likert scale questionnaire and presented using

the mean, interpretation and the rank.

Table 3 shows the summary of the level of effectiveness

of the use of technology in teaching and learning along

personalization, accessibility, relevance, efficiency, and

performance.

In personalization, teachers got a mean value of 3.57

with an interpretation as Very Effective with a rank 1 while

the students mean value is 3.09 interpreted as Effective

with a rank 1. Teachers got the highest mean value of 3.67

interpreted as Very Effective in the parameter number 1 and

2 or that ICT allows students’ to be more creative and

imaginative and that the use of ICT helps students to find

related knowledge and information for learning. Teachers had

the lowest mean value of 3.33 interpreted as Effective in

parameter number 7 which states that the students’ are more

behaved and under control with the use of ICT. Students

highest mean value of 3.48 interpreted as Effective is on

parameter number 2 which states that the use of ICT helps

students to find related knowledge and information for

learning. The lowest mean value of 2.75 interpreted as

Effective is on the use of ICT encourages students to

communicate more with their classmates.

As a result, the teachers on intermediate grade of

Milaor Central School agreed that the ICT or Information and

communication technology is very effective on the students.

On the other hand, the students’ perception on the use of

digital technology to their learning is effective. They

agreed that with the use of technology they will learn more

effectively.

Under accessibility, teachers got 2.79 mean value and

interpreted as Effective with a rank 4 while the students

mean value is 2.99 with an interpretation as Effective and

ranked 3rd. On its aspects, teachers got a high mean value

of 3.33 with an interpretation as Effective in the parameter

number 4 that there is a computer lab in school in which

teachers can bring students there to watch educational

videos while they got low mean value of 2.33 interpreted as

Ineffective in parameter number 7 that states that all ICT

tools in school go to waste and less used by teachers.

Students’ highest mean value of 3.47 interpreted as

Effective is on parameter number 1 that the ICT facilities

in school are well-functioning and can be used while they

got low mean value of 2.18 interpreted as Ineffective in

parameter number 7 that all ICT tools in school go to waste

and less used by teachers.

The results show that according to the teachers, there

are well functioning facilities inside the school. As well

as to the students, accessible facilities, technical

support, computer lab, trainings and lessons on the use of

ICT is effective for their learning at school.

 In relevance, teachers got a mean value of 3.09 with a

rank 2 with an interpretation as Effective while students

got 2.80 with a rank 5 and interpreted as Effective.

Teachers got the highest mean value of 3.61 interpreted as

Very Effective in the parameter number 2 and 4 or that the

use of ICT helps teachers to improve teaching with more

updated materials and that ICT prepares students to live and

work in the 21st century in which tasks are performed

regularly using digital platforms and IT skills. Teachers

had the lowest mean value of 1.94 interpreted as Ineffective

in parameter number 7 which states that the classroom

management is out of control if ICT is used in teaching .

Students highest mean value of 3.57 interpreted as Very

Effective is on parameter number 1 which states that the use

of ICT improves the quality of teaching while the lowest

mean value of 1.82 is on parameter number 5 that students’

pay less attention when ICT is used in teaching.

With these results, the teachers and the students

expressed that the use of ICT prepares the students to work

for the new generation in which technological use is

abundant. It also improves the quality of teaching and helps

to have an updated materials. However they also said that

even without the use of ICT, the teachers will still give

their students an effective teaching. And both disagreed

that the students pay less attention and classroom

management is out of control when ICT is used, thus making

teaching and learning ineffective.

Under efficiency, teachers got a mean value of 3.06

with a rank 3 with an interpretation as Effective while

students got 3.00 with a rank 2 and interpreted as

Effective. On its aspects, teachers got a high mean value of

3.56 with an interpretation as Very Effective in the

parameter number 1 that the use of ICT helps to prepare

teaching resources and materials easier while they got low

mean value of 2.17 interpreted as Ineffective in parameter

number 7 that states that learning the different digital

skills consumes all the time of teachers unlike using Paper

and Pen method of teaching. Students’ highest mean value of

3.25 interpreted as Effective is on parameter number 3 that

teachers are given more time to learn and be comfortable

with the use of ICT in teaching while they got low mean

value of 2.51 interpreted as Ineffective in parameter number

6 that teaching time are not enough for the use of ICT for

teaching and learning purposes.

The results indicates that both the teachers and

students agreed that the use of ICT helps them to have an

easier preparation of teaching resources and learning

materials. But then, they said that the learning and

teaching time are not enough when using ICT. However, for

the teachers they disagreed that learning the digital skills

consumes all their time unlike paper and pen. On the other

hand, students consumes all their time in learning different

digital skills.

In performance, the teachers mean value is 2.77 with an

interpretation as Effective and ranked 5 while the students

got 2.85 mean value with a rank 4 and with an interpretation

as Effective. On its aspects, teachers got a high mean value

of 3.39 with an interpretation as Effective in the parameter

number 3 that the use of ICT improves the quality of

teaching while they got low mean value of 2.00 on both

parameter number 6 and 7 interpreted as Ineffective that

states that there is no difference of using the ICT or the

traditional method of teaching in the learning process of

the students and that the students’ learning is distracted

with the use of technology. Students’ highest mean value of

3.28 interpreted as Effective is on parameter number 4 that

ICT makes students concentrate more on their learning

resulting to higher achievements while they got low mean

value of 1.83 interpreted as Ineffective in parameter number

7 that students’ learning is distracted with the use of

technology.
 With these findings on the Performance aspect of

digital learning effectiveness, according to the teachers,

using ICT improves their performance on teaching with an

increasing achievements, they observe that integrating

technology to their lessons their students’ concentrate more

on learning, thus academic performance is getting higher.

Teachers opposed on the statement that without ICT their

students will have an excellent performance on learning,

that there is no difference on digital form of learning and

the traditional method and that their students are

distracted with the use of technology. For the students, the

use of ICT also improves their learning, having higher

achievements and concentration. Then they contradict that

technology is a distraction to their learning. Although,

some of them, believed that even without ICT they will have

an excellent performance and there is no difference if the

traditional method or the technological method of teaching

and learning.

Based on the overall mean value and interpretation, the

teachers got 3.06 and students got 2.95, and interpreted

both Effective. These results shows that the teachers and

students perceptions and practice on the usage of digital

tools inside the classroom will help them to improve their

learning and teaching process.

 In these results, it inferred to the article of

Buturian (2016), Technology in the classroom enables the use

of more interactive educational tools, which allows for a

dynamic learning experience that directly benefits students.

Using technology in the classroom gives its flexibility and

adaptability to differentiated learning. And the study of

Debevec, Yau Shih, and Kashyap, showed that the majority of

students appear to be integrating the technology offered by

the instructor into their course preparation and study

routine. And the result of an interaction between the

technology and standard/traditional preparation methods, he

suggested that attendance and exam performance was highest

among students who were more reliant on technology for class

preparation and exam preparation.

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE

USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE TEACHING-LEARNING AND

DIGITAL LITERACY SKILLS OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

In determining the significant difference in the level

of effectiveness of the use of digital technology in the

teaching-learning and digital literacy skills of students

and teachers, ANNOVA was computed through the scores of two

groups.
 Table 4A shows the Test of Significant difference in

the level of effectiveness of technology in teaching and

learning along aspects and between groups.

Among Aspects. Among aspects the computed F-value

(2.119) was found less than the critical F-value (6.388 at

5%). This means that there is no significant differences

among aspects of the level of effectiveness of technology in

teaching and learning.

The findings implied that all aspects of the level of

effectiveness of technology in teaching and learning are

congruent to each other. It means that each aspect is

important to determine the level of effectiveness.

Among Group of Respondents. Among groups of

respondents, the computed F-value of 0.796 is less than its

corresponding critical F-value (21.198, 1%). The results

indicates that there is no significant differences in the

response of the two groups of respondents. The results shows

that the respondents have similar perception on the level of

effectiveness of technology in teaching and learning.

 Table 4A: TEST OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF
EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING AND LEARNING ALONG
ASPECTS AND BETWEEN GROUPS

ANOVA
Source Inter
Sum of Mean F- P- F F
of d -pre-
Square Squar valu valu crit crit
Varia- f tatio
s e e e (5%) (1%)
tion n
Aspect 2.11 0.24 15.97
0.322 4 0.081 6.388 NS
s 9 3 7
0.79 0.42 21.19
Groups 0.030 1 0.030 7.709 NS
6 3 8
Error 0.152 4 0.038

Total 0.504 9
 Table 4B shows the Test for significant difference in

the level of digital literacy skills along aspects and

between groups.

Among Aspects. Among aspects the computed F-value

(7.500) was greater than the critical F-value (5.050 at 5%).

This means that there is significant differences among

aspects in the level of digital literacy skills.

The findings implied that the level of digital literacy

skills of teachers and students among aspects are different.

Teachers are more equipped with the skills in digital

literacy than students.

Among Group of Respondents. Among groups of

respondents, the computed F-value of 22.050 is greater than

its corresponding critical F-value (16.258, 1%). The results

indicates that there is highly significant differences in

the response of the two groups of respondents. The results

suggests that the digital skills of the teachers was high

compared to the students.

Table 4C shows the post-hoc test for the significant

difference among aspects.

 Table 4B: TEST OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF
DIGITAL LITERACY SKILLS ALONG ASPECTS AND BETWEEN GROUPS

ANOVA
Source Inter
F F
of d P- -pre-
SS MS F crit crit
Varia- f value tatio
(5%) (1%)
tion n
Aspects 0.830 5 0.166 7.500 0.023 5.050 10.967 S
Groups 0.488 1 0.488 22.050 0.005 6.608 16.258 HS
Error 0.111 5 0.022

Total 1.429 11

Another statistical method used was Post HOC Test to

determine the difference between each aspects for the

digital accuracy of teachers and students. It was shown on

Table 4C the comparisons between aspects. The difference

between managing and accessing information of teachers and

students, managing and integrating information, managing and

evaluating, managing and communicating, accessing and

integrating, accessing and evaluating, accessing and

communicating, integrating and evaluating, integrating and

communicating, evaluating and communicating, evaluating and

creating, and communicating and creating information were all

interpreted as non-significant. These mean that any among

mentioned aspects of skills do not differ on each other. Any

skills of one aspect acquired by the teacher or students the

other aspect will also follow.

However, there are aspects of skills such as managing and

creating, accessing and creating, and integrating and creating

information through digital tools by the teachers and students

have the significant difference among each other. It means that

if the teacher or student do not acquired the skills on one

aspect, they can still perform the other.

TABLE 4C: POST-HOC TEST USING TUKEY’S (HONESTLY SIGNIFICANT

DIFFERENCE) HSD TEST

ASPECTS MEAN
Managing 3.87
Accessing 3.86
Integrating 3.85
 Evaluating 3.70
Communicating 3.44
Creating 3.16

HSD
Mean value
Pairwise Comparisons Interpretation
Difference (α=0.05;
n= 2)
Managing vs. Accessing 0.01 Nonsignificant
Managing vs. Integrating 0.02 Nonsignificant
Managing vs. Evaluating 0.17 Nonsignificant
Managing vs. Communicating 0.43 Nonsignificant
Managing vs. Creating 0.71 Significant
Accessing vs. Integrating 0.01 Nonsignificant
0.6638
Accessing vs. Evaluating 0.15 Nonsignificant
Accessing vs. Communicating 0.42 Nonsignificant
Accessing vs. Creating 0.70 Significant
Integrating vs. Evaluating 0.15 Nonsignificant
Integrating vs. 0.41 Nonsignificant
Communicating
Integrating vs. Creating 0.69 Significant
Evaluating vs. Communicating 0.26 Nonsignificant
Evaluating vs. Creating 0.54 Nonsignificant
Communicating vs. Creating 0.28 Nonsignificant

Legend:

Mean Difference ≥ HSD value: Significant

Mean Difference < HSD value: Nonsignificant

POINT BISERIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT AND

LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN
TEACHING-LEARNING
 Table 5 shows the point biserial correlation between

digital environment and level of effectiveness of the use of

digital technology in teaching-learning.

Resources

The correlation between resources and personalization

showed a computed r-value of 0.061 which was less than the

corresponding critical r-values of 0.192 at 5% and 0.250 at

1% level of significance which revealed that the two was not

signficant. Same results as not significant in the computed

values between resources and accessibility (0.052),

resources and relevance (0.032), resources and efficiency

(0.164), resources and performance (0.044), and the over all

results (0.097).

This implied that resources does not affect the level

of effectiveness of the use of digital technology. This was

concluded in the research of D’ Angelo, he stated, results

suggest that students do not always see that technology

benefits their learning.

Support

The point-biserial correlation coefficients of support

 Table 5: CORRELATION BETWEEN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT AND LEVEL
OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN
TEACHING-LEARNING

LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF DIGITAL

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
ENVIRONMEN Persona Access
Releva Effici Perfor Overal
T lizatio ibilit
nce ency mance l
n y
Resources 0.061 0.052 0.032 0.164 0.044 0.097
Support 0.032 -0.023 -0.047 -0.011 -0.095 -0.036
Hardware,
Software 0.252** -0.122 0.249* 0.187 0.178 0.204*
and System

Critical r-value at 5%: 0.192 *Significant

Critical r-value at 1%: 0.250 **Highly Significant
with personalization, accessibility, relevance, efficiency,

performance, and overall level of effectiveness of the use

of digital technology in teaching and learning were 0.032,

-0.023, -0.047, -0.011, -0.095, and -0.036, respectively.

The absolute values of these coefficients are all less than

the critical r-value of 0.192, at 5% level of significance.

This means that support is not significantly

correlated with all the aspects mentioned. An article of in

Eaton (2016), which stated that the education dialogue in

today's world is not about how much schools are spending on

technology but, in many ways, about how they are thinking to

drive change. He said that the schools depends their support

on the knowledge and skills of the teachers to use

technology for teaching their learners. Thus, even without

technology they can teach their students.

Hardware, Software and System

The point-biserial correlation coefficients of

software, hardware, and system with personalization,

efficienct and overall level of effectiveness of digital

technology in teaching and learning were 0.252, 0.244, and

0.204, respectively. These values are all greater than the

critical r-value of 0.192, at 5% level of significance.

 This means that software, hardware, and system are

significantly correlated with personalization, efficiency,

and overall level of effectiveness of the use of digital

technology in teaching and learning. This implied that third

aspect of Digital resources affects the level of

effectiveness. Which was concluded to this article of Laping

(2016) that free educational tools are easier and faster to

use than traditional tools. It could help teachers

accelerate the teaching and learning process in the

classroom, for example are the new Microsoft free

educational applications. And to the study of Virtual

learning can enhance and classroom learning with chat rooms,

blogs, video files, PowerPoint presentations, and email.

These technologies can provide remediation or supplemental

teaching, combine classroom and off-site learning, or allow

students to learn entirely off-site. Virtual Learning

Environments permit student more flexibility as they can

learn at their own pace and on their own schedules.

(Bouchard, 2014)

PEARSON‘S PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN LEVEL OF

DIGITAL LITERACY AND LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING-LEARNING

 Table 6 presents the result of the relationship between

level of digital literacy and the level of effectiveness of

the use of digital technology in teaching-learning, using

Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient test.

Different aspects of digital literacy were correlated with

different aspects of the effectiveness of the use of digital

technology in teaching-learning.

The correlation coefficient of digital literacy along

accessing with personalization, accessibility, relevance,

efficiency, performance and the overall results were 0.256,

0.051, 0.328, 0.317, 0.244, and 0.328, respectively. All

these values, except the second one, were all greater than

the critical r-value of 0.250 at the 1% level of

significance. This means that there is a highly significant

correlation between the digital literacy along accessing and

the following aspects of effectiveness of the use of

technology: personalization, relevance, efficiency and

performance.

Along managing, the correlation coefficient of

digital literacy with personalization, accessibility,

relevance, efficiency, performance and the overall results

were 0.457, 0.154, 0.483, 0.449, 0.371, and 0.530,

respectively. All these values, except the second one, were

Table 6: CORRELATION BETWEEN LEVEL OF DIGITAL LITERACY AND LEVEL
OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING-
LEARNING

LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF DIGITAL

LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY
DIGITAL Persona Access
Relevan Efficie Perform
LITERACY lizatio ibilit Overall
ce ncy ance
n y
Accessing 0.256** 0.051 0.328** 0.317** 0.244* 0.328**
Managing 0.457** 0.154 0.483** 0.449** 0.371** 0.530**
Evaluating 0.405** 0.191 0.428** 0.355** 0.352** 0.480**
Integrating 0.283** 0.118 0.305** 0.291** 0.258** 0.347**
Creating 0.336** 0.084 0.424** 0.418** 0.333** 0.437**
Communicati
0.332** 0.234* 0.460** 0.326** 0.329** 0.465**
ng
Overall 0.390** 0.167 0.454** 0.406** 0.362** 0.491**

Critical r-value at 5%: 0.192 *Significant

Critical r-value at 1%: 0.250 **Highly Significant
all greater than the critical r-value of 0.250 at the 1%

level of significance. This means that there is a highly

significant correlation between the digital literacy along

managing and the following aspects of effectiveness of the

use of technology: personalization, relevance, efficiency

and performance.

The correlation coefficient of digital literacy along

evaluating with personalization, accessibility, relevance,

efficiency, performance and the overall results were 0.405,

0.191, 0.428, 0.355, 0.352, and 0.480, respectively. All

these values, except the second one, were all greater than

the critical r-value of 0.250 at the 1% level of

significance. This means that there is a highly significant

correlation between the digital literacy along accessing and

the following aspects of effectiveness of the use of

technology: personalization, relevance, efficiency and

performance.

Along integrating, the correlation coefficient of

digital literacy with personalization, accessibility,

relevance, efficiency, performance and the overall results

were 0.283, 0.118, 0.305, 0.291, 0.258, and 0.347,

respectively. All these values, except the second one, were

all greater than the critical r-value of 0.250 at the 1%

level of significance. This means that there is a highly

significant correlation between the digital literacy along

managing and the following aspects of effectiveness of the

use of technology: personalization, relevance, efficiency

and performance.

Along creating, the correlation coefficient of digital

literacy with personalization, accessibility, relevance,

efficiency, performance and the overall results were 0.336,

0.084, 0.424, 0.418, 0.333, and 0.437, respectively. All

these values, except the second one, were all greater than

the critical r-value of 0.250 at the 1% level of

significance. This means that there is a highly significant

correlation between the digital literacy along managing and

the following aspects of effectiveness of the use of

technology: personalization, relevance, efficiency and

performance.

The correlation coefficient of digital literacy along

communicating with personalization, accessibility,

relevance, efficiency, performance and the overall results

were 0.332, 0.234, 0.460, 0.326, 0.329, and 0.465,

respectively. All these values were all greater than the

critical r-value of 0.250 at the 1% level of significance.

This means that there is a highly significant correlation

between the digital literacy along accessing and the

following aspects of effectiveness of the use of technology:

personalization, relevance, efficiency and performance.

Overall, the correlation coefficient between digital

literacy and effectiveness of the use of technology was

0.491, which is higher than the critical r-value of 0.250 at

1% significance level. This means that there is a highly

significant correlation between the two variables.

In this study, the result appears that there is a

highly significant relationship on most aspects of digital

literacy of both teachers and students on the level of

effectiveness of usage of digital technology to learning and

teaching process inside the classroom. This means that if

one has the knowledge and skills on using digital tools for

learning, there will be a successful learning and teaching

development. This was assumed in the article of Alviar

(2016), who said that commonly available digital devices and

the Internet have made access to learning resources such as

learning management systems, online libraries, digital

media, etc. convenient and flexible for both teachers and

students. It has been posited that to make effective use of

technology for learning, one needs to have a certain level

of digital literacy. Digital literacy for learning is more

than just knowing how to operate the technology, but also

having the right information management and critical

thinking skills, as well as proper online behaviors.