Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data to answer the research
questions formulated for investigation in the present research study. Below are the
discussions and the tabulated results of the study.

Research Problem No. 1. What is the profile of the respondents of College of

Teacher Education in Zamboanga City State Polytechnic College in terms of: age,
gender and socio -economic status?

Table 1
Profile of the Respondents
f %
Age
41 and above 2 1.80
31-40 2 1.80
26-30 21 18.91
18-25 86 77.47
Sex
Male 17 15.31
Female 94 84.68
Socio-Economic Status
16,001 and above 13 11.71
10,001-16,000 10 9.00
5,001-10,000 41 36.93
3,000-5000 52 46.84
Total 111 100

The table 1 displayed the respondent’s profile; age, sex and socio-economic.
 The table 1 revealed that most of the respondents of the study were between the
ages, bracket of 18-25 years old, and this age bracket comprised of 86 or 77.47% of
total number of respondents. This implied that there were more respondents in the
younger age.

The age of the respondents influences the level of readiness in using ICT.
Regarding the use of technological devices, it has been observed that there are
significant differences between the different age ranges, which corroborates the findings
made by Cabero and Barroso (2016). This is in contrast to John (2015), who has stated
that middle-aged teachers have a higher level of ICT use than younger teachers. On the
other hand, it can be affirmed that age correlates negatively both with the use of Web
2.0 tools and with the use of learning management systems. This is confirmed by the
works of O’bannon and Thomas (2014), Vanderlinde et al. (2014) and Siddiq et al.
(2016).

It also revealed that majority of the respondent were female with the frequency of
94 or 84.68%. This implied that there were more female respondents than male. Some
studies state that sex has a significant impact on pedagogical digital competence.
Tondeur et al. (2016), said for instance, using a sample of 1138 university students from
Belgium, found that there were, indeed, gender-related differences, and stated that, in
general terms, women’s attitudes towards ICT are not as positive as those of men.

It also showed in table 1 that most of the respondents were bracket 3,000-5,000
monthly income comprising of 46.84%. The result were revealed that although some of
the respondents were having a monthly income of 5,001-10,000 with the percentage of
36.93%. This implied that most of the respondents belong to the low income. This result
supported by Jewitt and Parashar ( 2010), they found that providing low income families
with a laptop and internet connection appeared, from leaner’s feedback, to help to make
visible what they are learning and to create and support opportunities for parents and
learners to talk about what they were learning in households where this was not usual.
 Research Problem No. 2. What is the Readiness of Integrating Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in the classroom in terms of: Preparation of
Instructional Materials, Use of technology in Record Keeping, Learning Resources,
Progress Tracking, and Assessment of Learning Performance by Pre-service Teachers
of College of Teacher Education in Zamboanga City State Polytechnic College?

Table 2

Readiness in Preparation of Instructional Materials

A. Preparation of Instructional Materials Mean Interpretation

1. Creates teaching aids with the computer
such as tarpaper, printed picture and etc. 3.22 Sometimes
Ready
2. Print out notes and materials for my
3.36
students. Always Ready
3. Look for additional information through
3.35 Always Ready
related educational websites.
4. Prepares lesson plan using laptops and
personal computers. Sometimes
3.01
Ready

5. Prepares lesson using PowerPoint, video Sometimes

2.88
and other interactive technology. Ready
Sometimes
Grand mean 3.16 Ready

Legend: 3.26-4.00: Always Ready 2.6-3.25: Sometimes Ready 1.76-2.5: Ready 1.0- 1.75:Not Ready

The table 2 showed the respondent’s readiness in using ICT-based preparation

of instructional materials.
 Based on the table 2, the results revealed that the respondents got a low score
mean of 2.88 in preparing lesson using PowerPoint, video and other interactive
technology and which can be interpreted as sometimes ready. It also revealed that the
respondents got a high score mean of 3.36 in print out notes and materials for their
students and can be interpreted as always ready. The grand mean score of the
respondents readiness was 3.16 that can be generally interpreted as sometimes ready.

The results implied that the readiness of the respondents in using ICT-based in
preparing of instructional materials in the classroom were not regularly make use of and
this means that their readiness was not ready in integrating ICT-Based in the
classroom. This result was not surprising since most of the respondents belong in the
low income as shown in table 1 which they cannot provide some of the instruction
materials especially the laptop and because of the absent and the availability of the
some instructional materials the respondents still using the traditional method.

As justified by Khan, Hasan, and Clement (2012) the effectiveness of using ICT
requires the availability of equipment, supplies of computers and their proper
maintenance including other accessories. They asserted that implementing ICT
demands other resources, such as computers, printers, multimedia projectors,
scanners, etc., which are not available in all educational institutions especially among
public schools in the Philippines.
 Table 3

Use of Technology in record keeping

B. Use of Technology in record keeping Mean Interpretation

1. Creates students profile.

2.99 Sometimes Ready

2. Tracks records of student achievement.

3.02 Sometimes Ready

3. Input data and information on academic

performance. 3.13 Sometimes Ready

4. Compute grades using excel.

3.21 Always Ready

5. Encode/retrieve information of student.

3.21 Always Ready

Total 3.11 Sometimes Ready

Legend: 3.26-4.00: Always Ready 2.6-3.25: Sometimes Ready 1.76-2.5: Ready 1.0-1.75: Not Ready

The table 3 showed the readiness of the respondents in integrating ICT-Based use of
technology as record keeping.

As result revealed in table 3, the respondents got a lower score mean of 2.99 in creating
students’ profile and can be interpreted as sometimes ready. It also revealed that the respondents
got a higher score mean of 3.11 in computing grades using excel and encoding/retrieving
information of student and which can be interpreted as always ready. The overall readiness of the
respondents got a score mean of 3.11 and which generally can be interpreted as sometimes ready.

The result implied that the respondents’ readiness in integrating ICT-based use
technology as record keeping in the classroom were not ready which means the respondents still
using manual in creating students’ profile, tracking records of student performance and input
data and information on academic performance. Although in computing grades in excel
and encoding/retrieving information of student the respondents were integrated ICT in
the classroom.

It was evident, as Yelland ( 2001 ) argued, that traditional educational environments do

not seem to be suitable for preparing learners to function or be productive in the workplace of
today’s society. She claimed that organization that do not corporate the use of new technologies
in schools seriously claimed to prepare their students for life in the twenty-first century.

Table 4
Learning resources
C. Learning Resources Mean Interpretation
1. Uses Google and other apps to
3.56 Always Ready
search relevant information.
2. Download an educational videos
3.55 Always Ready
in YouTube.
3. Uses Merriam apps to find
3.50 Always Ready
meaning of difficult words.
4. Uses an email to send and
3.11 Always Ready
receive documents/requirements.

5. Uses e-books/e-library for Sometimes

2.96
reference. Ready
 3.34 Always Ready
Grand mean
Legend: 3.26-4.00: Always Ready 2.6-3.25: Sometimes Ready 1.76-2.5: Ready 1.0-1.75: Not Ready

The table 4 showed the respondent’s readiness in integrating ICT in

classroom in term of learning resources.
Based on the table 4, the results revealed that the respondent’s readiness in
integrating ICT in the classroom in term of learning resources using Google,
YouTube and etc. was always ready and the mean was 3.56 which was the highest
mean. It was also revealed the readiness of the respondents in integrating ICT in the
classroom in term of learning resources using e-books/e-library for reference was
sometime ready and the mean was 2.96 which was the lowest mean. It was
revealed that the overall readiness of the respondents in integrating ICT in
classroom in term of learning resources was always ready and the grand mean was
3.34 (overall mean).
The results implied that the respondents readiness in integrating ICT in the
classroom in term of learning resources was always ready which means that those
learning resources were commonly used by the respondents. Although using e-
book/e-library for references their readiness were sometimes ready which implied
that the respondents may need seminar orientation and hands on using this learning
resources in integrating ICT in the classroom.

This results also supported by Begg ( 2000 ) found the one of the top barriers to
teachers’ use ICT in teaching students was lack of training.

Table 5
i Progress tracking
D. Progress Tracking Mean Interpretation
1. Tracks students’ Academic Sometimes
2.54
progress/performance through apps. Ready
 2. Record information of students’ Sometimes
2.62
progress in database. Ready
3. Utilize Excel when computing grades Sometimes
2.99
foe accuracy. Ready
4. Tracks student’s behavioral records Sometimes
2.55
using apps. Ready
5. Facilitates class attendance through Sometimes
2.55
electronic seat plan. Ready
Sometimes
Grand mean 2.65
Ready
Legend:3.26-4.00:AlwaysReady 2.6-3.25:SometimesReady 1.76-2.5:Ready 1.0-1.75:Not Ready

The table 5 showed the respondent’s readiness in integrating ICT-

based progress tracking in the classroom.

The results revealed that the respondents got a lowest mean score of
2.54 in tracking student’s academic progress/performance through apps
and can be interpreted as sometimes ready. It also revealed that the
respondents got a high score mean of 2.99 in utilizing excel when
computing grades for accuracy and can be interpreted also as sometimes
ready. The grand mean score of the respondent’s readiness was 2.65 that
can be interpreted generally as sometimes ready.

The results implied that the respondent’s readiness in integrating ICT-

based progress tracking in the classroom were not commonly integrated
or not commonly used inside the classroom. The results also showed that
the respondents were weak in using the application in tracking the
progress of their pupils and may need also seminar orientation and hands on
in integrating ICT.
 As justified by Mark (2003), many instructional application provide

objectives means of assessment. They can also maintain records of individual progress

of each students and can assist teacher in identifying students weaknesses and in

determining measures that can be taken to address such as weaknesses.

Table 6
Assessment of learning performance

E. Assessment of Learning Performance Mean Interpretation

1. Utilize On-line quiz/activities such as
2.23 Sometimes Ready
Edmodo.
2. Evaluates learning performance using
application such as A+ Spelling Tests app. 2.21 Sometimes Ready

3. Check test paper using application such as

2.16 Sometimes Ready
Zip Grade
4. Creates questionnaire using Microsoft
3.29 Always Ready
Word.
5. Uses computer based-test to assess
3.51 Always Ready
learner’s performance.
2.48 Sometimes Ready
Total
Legend: 3.26-4.00: Always Ready 2.6-3.25: Sometimes Ready 1.76-2.5: Ready 1.0-1.75: Not Ready

The table 6 showed the readiness in using of technology as assessment of

learning performance by the respondents revealed.
 The results that respondents got a lowest mean score of 2.16 in checking test paper
using application such as zip grade and can be interpreted as sometimes ready. It also
revealed that the respondents got a higher score mean of in using computers based-
test to assess learner’s performance and can interpreted as always ready. The overall
readiness of the respondents got an overall mean score of 2.48 and can generally
interpreted as sometimes ready.

The results implied that the respondent's readiness in using of technology as

assessment of learning performance were not commonly used inside the classroom.
This means some of them didn't know how to use the application such as zip grade,
edmodo and spelling test app. As we observed, some of them are not really prepared
especially in using those interactive application since they did not exposed this
application in assessing learning performance. The respondents may need also
seminar orientation and hands on in integrating ICT.

This results support by Tondeur et al.,2012 should be implemented in the

teachers training programs to enable pre-service teachers to use ICT in education
competently and confidently. Besides, the use of Web 2.0 technologies should be
integrated into the curriculum of the programs to facilitate teaching and learning
process effectively.

Table 7
Summary
Readiness of Integrating Information Grand Interpretation
Communication and Technology in the
classroom in terms of: Mean
A. Preparation of instructional materials Sometimes
3.16
Ready
B. Use of technology in record keeping Sometimes
3.11
Ready
 C. Learning resources Always
3.34
Ready
D. Progress tracking Sometimes
2. 65
Ready
E. Assessments of learning performance Sometimes
2.48
Ready
Sometimes
Over all mean 2.95
Ready
Legend: 3.26-4.00: Always Ready 2.6-3.25: Sometimes Ready 1.76-2.5: Ready 1.0-1.75: Not Ready
The table 7 displayed the overall readiness of the respondents in integrating
ICT in the classroom.
As the result revealed in the table 7, the respondents got a lower grand mean
of 2.48 in integrating ICT-Base assessments of learning performance in the
classroom and can be interpreted as sometimes ready. It also showed that the
respondents got higher grand mean of 3.34 in integrating ICT-Based learning
resources and can be interpreted as always ready. The overall readiness of the
respondents got overall grand mean of 2.95 and can be interpreted generally as
sometimes ready.
The result implied that the readiness of the respondents in integrating ICT in
the classroom were not ready which mean during their practice teaching, they did
not integrate ICT in the classroom because those barriers and they were found
difficult in using ICT in the classroom since they were lack of training and may need
seminar orientation and hands on.
This result reinforced by Beggs (2000?) found that one of the top three
barriers to teachers’ use ICT in teaching students was lack of training. Recent
research in Turkey found that the main problem with the implementation of new ICT
in science was the insufficient amount of in-service training programs for science
teacher (Ozden, 2007).
 Research Problem No.3 Is there a significant difference in the readiness in
integrating information and communication technology (ICT) when data is group
according to profile?

One-Way ANOVA result on the readiness in integrating ICT in the classroom

according to age

Df Mean F Sig. Interpretation

Square
Between
3 .865 1.372 .255
Groups
PREPARATION OF
Within Groups 106 .631 Not
INSTRUCTIONAL
Significant
MATERIALS
109
Total
Between Not
USE OF 3 .285 .342 .795
Groups Significant
TECHNOLOGY IN
Within Groups 106 .832
RECORD KEEPING
Total 109
Between Not
3 .134 .273 .845
LEARNING Groups Significant
RESOURCES Within Groups 106 .491
Total 109
Between Not
3 .452 .464 .708
PROGRESS Groups Significant
TRACKING Within Groups 106 .974
Total 109
Between Not
3 .908 1.025 .385
ASSESSMENT OF Groups Significant
LEARNING Within Groups 106 .886
PERFORMANCE
Total 109

Table 8

As shown in Table 8, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated on

participants' readiness in integrating ICT in the classroom in terms of the five criteria
according to age. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of preparation of
instructional materials was not significant, F= 1.372, p = .255. The analysis of
respondents’ readiness in terms of use of technology in record keeping was not
significant, F= .342, p = .795. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of
learning resources not significant, F= .273, p = .845. The analysis of respondents’
readiness in terms of progress tracking was not significant, F= .464, p = .708. The
analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of assessment of learning performance was
not significant, F= .1.025, p = .385.
The results implied that there was no enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis
which implied that the readiness of the respondents have no significant difference when
data are grouped according to age.
This result also supports the findings established by Hassan Saleh Mahdi (2013)
that there is no significant difference in using ICT between the two groups of teachers
according to their age and experience.

Table 9
Significant Difference According to Sex

F T Df SIG Interpretation
Equal variances
3.624 1.782 108
PREPARATION OF assumed
.060
INSTRUCTIONAL Not Significant
Equal variances not
MATERIALS 2.169 30.385
assumed

USE OF Equal variances

.779 .678 108
TECHNOLOGY IN assumed .379
RECORD Equal variances not Not Significant
.673 23.994
KEEPING assumed
Equal variances .180 1.453 108 .673

LEARNING assumed
 Equal variances not Not Significant
RESOURCES 1.463 24.286
assumed
Equal variances
.134 1.096 108
PROGRESS assumed .715
TRACKING Equal variances not Not Significant
1.145 25.184
assumed
ASSESSMENT OF Equal variances
3.299 1.450 108
LEARNING assumed
PERFORMANCE Not Significant
.072
Equal variances not
1.644 27.618
assumed

As shown in Table 9, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated on

participants' readiness in integrating ICT in the classroom in terms of the five criteria
according to age. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of preparation of
instructional materials was not significant, F= 3.624, p = .060. The analysis of
respondents’ readiness in terms of use of technology in record keeping was not
significant, F = .779, p = .379. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of
learning resources not significant, F=.180, p = .072. The analysis of respondents’
readiness in terms of progress tracking was not significant, F= .134, p = .715. The
analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of assessment of learning performance was
not significant, F= 3.299, p = .385.
The result implied that there was no enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis
which means that the readiness of the respondents have no significant difference when
data are grouped according to age.
As per cited by Frailon et al. (2014), there have been some large-scale studies
that reported no gender differences in computer literacy. ICILS (2013), identified two
countries, Thailand and Turkey, where there were no significance differences in
achievement.
 Table 10
Significant Difference According to Socio- economics

Df Mean Square F Sig. Interpretatio

n
Between
3 .371 .576 .632
Groups
PREPARATION OF
INSTRUCTIONAL Within Not
106 .645
MATERIALS Groups
Significant

Total 109
Between
3 .582 .707 .550
Groups
USE OF
TECHNOLOGY IN Within Not
RECORD 106 .823
Groups
KEEPING Significant

Total 109
Between
3 .488 1.014 .389
Groups

LEARNING Within Not

RESOURCES 106 .481
Groups
Significant

Total 109
Between
3 1.439 1.521 .213
Groups

PROGRESS Within Not

TRACKING 106 .946
Groups
Significant

Total 109
Between
3 2.534 3.018 .033
Groups

ASSESSMENT OF Significant
LEARNING Within
106 .840
PERFORMANCE Groups

Total 109

As shown in Table 9, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated on

participants' readiness in integrating ICT in the classroom in terms of the five criteria
according to age. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of preparation of
 instructional materials was not significant, F= 3.624, p = .060. The analysis of
respondents’ readiness in terms of use of technology in record keeping was not
significant, F = .779, p = .379. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of
learning resources not significant, F=.180, p = .072. The analysis of respondents’
readiness in terms of progress tracking was not significant, F= .134, p = .715. The
analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of assessment of learning performance was
not significant, F= 3.299, p = .385.
The result implied that there was no enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis
which means that the readiness of the respondents have no significant difference when
data are grouped according to age.
As per cited by Frailon et al. (2014), there have been some large-scale studies
that reported no gender differences in computer literacy. ICILS (2013), identified two
countries, Thailand and Turkey, where there were no significance differences in
achievement.

Table 10
Significant Difference According to Socio- economics

Df Mean Square F Sig. Interpretatio

n
Between
3 .371 .576 .632
Groups
PREPARATION OF
INSTRUCTIONAL Within Not
106 .645
MATERIALS Groups
Significant

Total 109
USE OF Between
3 .582 .707 .550
TECHNOLOGY IN Groups
RECORD Within 106 .823
KEEPING Groups Not
Significant
 Total 109
Between
3 .488 1.014 .389
Groups

LEARNING Within Not

RESOURCES 106 .481
Groups
Significant

Total 109
Between
3 1.439 1.521 .213
Groups

PROGRESS Within Not

TRACKING 106 .946
Groups
Significant

Total 109
Between
3 2.534 3.018 .033
Groups

ASSESSMENT OF Significant
LEARNING Within
106 .840
PERFORMANCE Groups

Total 109

As shown in Table 9, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated on

participants' readiness in integrating ICT in the classroom in terms of the five criteria
according to age. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of preparation of
instructional materials was not significant, F= .576, p = .632. The analysis of
respondents’ readiness in terms of use of technology in record keeping was not
significant, F = .707, p = .550. The analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of
learning resources not significant, F=1.014, p = .389. The analysis of respondents’
readiness in terms of progress tracking was not significant, F= 1.521, p = .213.
The result implied that there was no enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis
which means that the readiness of the respondents have no significant difference when
data are grouped according to socio-economic.
How the analysis of respondents’ readiness in terms of assessment of learning
performance was a significant, F= 3.018, p = .033. The result implied there was a
significant difference when date are grouped in terms of socio-economic which mean
that their socio-economic will be affected in teaching especially in integrating ICT in the
classroom.

As cited by Otula in kapenga (2007,) finds that effective provision of secondary

education is hampered by low parental socio economic status due to that they fail to
afford children’s basic need for schools.