Table 11: Correlation Analysis Showing the relationship of Independent Variables

to Teachers’ Performance
Indicators Correlation Coefficient Probability
(r)
Digital Competence (over-all) .262 .000
Professional Engagement .321** .000
Digital Resources .234** .000
Teaching and Learning .233 .000

Evaluation .181 .004

Learning Support .183 .003

Facilitating Learners’ Digital .148 .019

Competence
Organizational Commitment (over-all) .162 .010
Affective Commitment .146 .021
Continuance Commitment .025 .693
Normative .184 .003
**-significant at p<0.05 ns- not significant

The table above shows that there has been a weak correlation amongst the
variables. Digital Competence has a greater correlation coefficient than
Organizational Commitment with R-values .262 and .162 respectively. However, as
observed, despite the weak correlation, the relationship is still statistically significant.
This may be attributed to the fact that Digital Competence and Organizational
Commitment are determined by various sub-factors which can be considered a
significant determinant but only partial ones. Additionally, the sample size is
sufficiently large which can also contribute to the outcome in terms of p-value.

Among the sub-variables under digital competence, professional engagement

under professional engagement manage to sum an average of .321** and has a
stronger significant relationship than other sub-variables. However, this is still
considered weak. Digital related teacher collaboration with colleagues is a critical
aspect of school quality on the process level and has been identified as a
prerequisite for the successful adoption of digital media in schools and classrooms
(Drossel, 2017).

In Mindanao, that though there are computers and other digital devices
available, it is that not being used. Thus, even if it is seen that teacher practice their
digital skills outside of the school, it is not practiced. The digital technologies for
education projects cannot reach rural schools due to a lack of telecommunications
and, in some cases, energy. This may explain such relationship between the
performance of the teachers and digital competence (Castillo, 2017).

The usage of digital tools and devices is very important for professional
growth and engagement. It is seen that teachers can interact and communicate with
one another more easily when they use technology and have the flexibility to
communicate when they choose. Because it allows teachers to have constant
communication and share ideas to help their pupils, this feature of technology helps
teachers to have extra time in the day to cooperate with their colleagues (Jones,
2021). However, results on the table, though significant is still weak.

Among the sub variables listed, continuance commitment, listed under

organizational commitment, got .025, has the weakest relationship towards teacher’s
performance. This may be interpreted that the need to stay in the organization
doesn’t directly affect their performance as teachers. Adnan et al. (2018) discussed
on their literature among the three components of organizational commitment,
continuance commitment is negative related to the performance of an employee,
which in the case of this study is the teacher. This is also supported by study made
by Tutei et al. (2017), where they concluded that continuance commitment has a
weak negative relationship between towards the employee performance.

In addition, Werang & Agung (2017) discussed that the degree of

performance of these instructors improves as their organizational commitment
grows. As a result, when teachers are devoted to their company and organization,
they will perform at a greater level. Amora (2016) finds a similar result in her
research. She stated that the teachers’ organizational commitment increases, their
level of performance is also strengthened. This follows that when employees are
committed to their employer and organization, they will deliver higher levels of
performance. Also Hero (2019) reiterated in his study that technology integration has
a tremendous impact on instructors' ability to improve and increase their teaching
performance of teacher who teacher Social Studies.

Given the result on table 11, we therefore reject the first null hypothesis in the
study that states “there is no significant relationship among digital competence, level
of commitment and teacher’s performance”

Table 12 presents the extent of the effect of each sub variables towards the
teachers’ performance.

Table 12: Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error
R Square of the
Estimate
Professional Engagement .321a .103 .100 .42719
Normative Commitment .367b .134 .127 .42053
a. Predictors: (Constant), PROF_ENG
b. Predictors: (Constant), PROF_ENG, NORM_COMM
c. Dependent Variable: IPCRF

This table shows the R values of the predictors namely professional

engagement and nominal commitment. Amongst the variables these two have
positive relationships towards teachers’ performance. As observed, 10.3% of the
variability of teacher’s performance is explained by professional engagement and
13.4% of the variability is explained by the combination of professional Engagement
and Nominal Commitme

Table 13: ANOVAc

Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
1 Regression 5.268 1 5.268 28.866 .000a
Residual 45.806 251 .182
Total 51.074 252
2 Regression 6.863 2 3.432 19.405 .000b
Residual 44.211 250 .177
Total 51.074 252
a. Predictors: (Constant), PROF_ENG

b. Predictors: (Constant), PROF_ENG, NORM_COMM

c. Dependent Variable: IPCRF

 This table shows and tests the overall regression model’s fitness for the data.
The table above reveals that professional engagement and the combination of
professional engagement and Normative Commitment, statistically significantly
predict the teachers’ performance. The first model has F(1, 251)=28.866 and the
second model, F(2, 250)=19. 405. Hence the regression models are good fit of the
data.

Table 13: Coefficients

Model Unstandardized t Sig.
Coefficient
B
(Constant) 3.733 32.393 .000
Professional .196 5.373 .000
Engagement

(Constant) 3.097 12.906 .000

Professional .194 5.389 .000

Engagement
Normative .189 3.004 .003
Commitment
Dependent Variable: IPCRF

As seen in the unstandardized coefficients, the dependent variable which is

teachers’ performance varies with the independent variables. In the first model, for
every increase in the professional engagement of the teachers, there is a
corresponding increase in their performance which is equal to 0.196. Similarly, in the
second model, 0.194 and 0.189 of teachers’ performance are attributed to the
independent variables. The t-table with the sig, column, it can be observed that all
variables are statistically significantly different from zero.

Table 14: Excluded Variables

Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation
1 Digital Resources .010a .116 .907 .007
a
Teaching And Learning .071 .966 .335 .061
Assessment .053a
.795 .427 .050
 Empowering Learners .057a .867 .387 .055
Facilitating Learners
.027a .420 .675 .027
Digital Competence
Affective Commitment .114a 1.901 .059 .119
Continuance
.025a .424 .672 .027
Commitment
Normative Commitment .177a 3.004 .003 .187

2 Digital Resources -.020b -.237 .813 -.015

Teaching And Learning .067b .926 .356 .059
Assessment .065b
.993 .322 .063
Empowering Learners .067b 1.024 .307 .065
Facilitating Learners
.032b .503 .615 .032
Digital Competence
Affective Commitment .056b .886 .377 .056
Continuance
-.021b -.342 .733 -.022
Commitment