Ligaya Q. Kasilag Technological Issue Research

TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING MATERIALS LIMITATIONS AND
TECHNOLOGY LEARNING PROCEDURE AMONG THE GRADE 5 AND

GRADE 6 STUDENTS OF SAN ROQUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the
College of Teacher Education
LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
San Pablo City Campus
Province of Laguna
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Major in General Education
LIGAYA Q. KASILAG
July 2021
ii
Republic of the Philippines

Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
APPROVAL SHEET
The thesis entitled " TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING MATERIALS

LIMITATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY LEARNING PROCEDURE AMONG THE
GRADE 5 AND GRADE 6 STUDENTS OF SAN ROQUE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL" was prepared and submitted by LIGAYA Q. KASILAG, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, is hereby recommended for approval and acceptance.
JOHN VINCENT ALIAZAS, MA

Thesis Adviser
---------------------------------------------------------
Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of _____.
ALLEN E. PASIA, MA DELON A. CHING, EdD

Member Member
CHESTER M. DEREQUITO, MAEd AERA JOYCE N. CIAR, LPT

Member Member
ROSE R. ANDRADE, MAEd

Research Coordinator
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the degree BACHELOR OF
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION requirements at the Laguna State Polytechnic
University, San Pablo City Campus.
EDILBERTO Z. ANDAL, EdD

Associate Dean, CTE
DELON A. CHING, EdD __________________________

Chairperson, Research & Development Date Signed
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION NO.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the following persons who

gave their valuable time and shared their learning and guidance to finish this
research:
DR. EDILBERTO Z. ANDAL, Associate Dean of the College of Teacher
Education, for his approval of the manuscript and for the provision to complete
the study;
MR. JOHN VINCENT C. ALIAZAS, research adviser, for his continuous
patience, time, effort, and support in guiding me throughout the conduct of this
study;
MR. ALLEN E. PASIA, subject specialist, for his effort, time and
assistance, especially in terms of the data and instruments;
DR. DELON A. CHING, statistician, for his time and effort in doing the
statistical treatment of the data gathered in the research.
MR. CHESTER M. DEREQUITO and MS. AERA JOYCE N. CIAR,
technical editor and English critic, respectively, for their continuous assistance in
the fine-tuning of the study;
To my ever-supportive guardians, Gonzalgo family, Martinez family, and
the Azucena family, for their never-ending love and support;
To all of my friends, classmates, BEED General Education, for tapping
each other‟s backs and believing that we will successfully finish this study;
To all the researchers cited in the bibliography that contributed a lot to
this manuscript;
To all my teachers and professors in Laguna State Polytechnic
University-San Pablo City Campus;
To those people who motivated and inspired me to keep on going until the
end. And most significantly, to our Lord Almighty for the guidance, blessings,
courage, patience, strength, determination, wisdom, and unconditional love.
LQK
iv
DEDICATION
Before anything else, I would like to thank my creator, Almighty God, for
making this study possible and giving me wisdom to continue this study even if I
sometimes feel like giving up because of the challenges; Thank you so much for
my family, who are always there to support me emotionally and financially. Most
significantly, I would like to dedicate this to my mother in heaven. You are my
inspiration and motivation to strive hard and finish this research; My friends,
classmates, best friends, and all the teachers and respondents of my research,
thank you very much. Without your advice and motivation, I wouldn‟t finish this
study; and also, to those who helped me gather the needed information, words
cannot express my gratitude to all of you; To all of my professors who guided me
and nurtured me to become the best person that I can be, I am so honored to be
mentored by all of you and words cannot express how much thankful I am for all
the hard work and effort that you've been giving me. Thank you very much to
everyone that I forgot to mention, and God bless us always and our beloved
country.
v
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the technological learning materials

limitations and technology learning procedure among the grade 5 and grade 6
students of San Roque Elementary School, affects the facilitation of learning and
students acquisition of knowledge, specifically to technology literacy, learning
materials limitations, and cognitive development. However, these studies
conclude that assisstance from all the stakeholders and also the local or national
government should give their support in this new kind of modality. In additional
studies, as previously noted, TPACK is essential to allowing teachers to
implement ICT in their teaching, as it enables teachers to select and use
hardware and software, identify the affordances (or lack thereof) of specific
features and use the tools in pedagogically appropriate and effective ways
(“TPACK in teacher education: are we preparing teachers to use technology for
early literacy?,” 2017). Therefore, to ascertain solutions for technological learning
materials limitations, and technology learning procedure, encouraging
collaboration and open communications between all the stakeholders must be
implemented.Thereby, asking for assisstance is essential, 40 students from
Grade 5 and Grade 6 participants are surveyed to determined what kind of
necessary solutions would provide encouragement to address the issue. The
results of the survey recognized that collaboration and assisstance between all
the stakeholders is the best strategy to resolve the technological learning
materials limitations and tehcnology learning procedure among the participants.
Providing strategies and alternative solutions that has a better connection with,
effect on, students‟ and teachers everyday lives, and the facilitation of learning
for the sake of quality education.
Keywords: Technological learning materials, technology learning procedure,

facilitation of learning, technology literacy, learning materials limitations.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE ......................................................................................i
APPROVAL SHEET ...........................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................................iii
DEDICATION .....................................................................................iiii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................viiii
Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction ........................................................................................1
Background of the Study ....................................................................4
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................8
Research Paradigm ...........................................................................9
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................10
Hypothesis .........................................................................................11
Scope and Limitations of the Study ....................................................11
Significance of the Study....................................................................12
Definition of Terms ............................................................................14
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature ..............................................................................16
Related Studies ..................................................................................20
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design ...............................................................................31
Respondents of the Study ..................................................................31
Sampling Technique ..........................................................................32
Research Instrument ..........................................................................32
Data Gathering Procedures ...............................................................34
Statistical Treatment of Data ..............................................................34
vii
Chapter 4: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Distribution of the respondents ..........................................................36
Organizations and Accessibility .........................................................37
Personalized Instruction .....................................................................38
Suitable Learning Materials................................................................39
Student Engagement .........................................................................41
Feedback Mechanisms ......................................................................42
Performance ......................................................................................44
Correlation of Independent Variables and Dependent Variables .......45
Chapter 5: SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary............................................................................................49
Findings .............................................................................................49
Conclusions .......................................................................................52
Recommendations .............................................................................53
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................55
APPENDICES
A. Approval Sheet ..................................................................................58
B. Survey Approval ................................................................................59
C. Survey Questionnaires.......................................................................60
CURRICULUM VITAE ..................................................................................67

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
Table 1: Distribution of the respondents.............................................36
Table 2: Organizations and Accessibility............................................37
Table 3: Personalized Instruction .......................................................38
Table 4: Suitable Learning Materials ..................................................39
Table 5: Student Engagement ...........................................................41
Table 6: Feedback Mechanisms ........................................................42
Table 7: Performance.........................................................................44
Table 8: Correlation of Independent Variables and Dependent Variables 45

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework ............................................................8
Figure 2: Research Paradigm .................................................................9

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Technology is not being used to support the kinds of instruction believed
to be most potent, despite an increase in computer access and technology
training (Teacher Technology Change, 2014). The researcher observed that
based on the new K to 12 curriculum standard, technology learning procedures
and technological learning materials are essential to enhance the new skills that
students should master or possess. We need to assess that development to fill
the gap that still exists inside and outside the Department of Education.
One of the most important things to notice is the limitation of technology
learning materials for students to use and develop their technological literacy in
education. These essential tools or equipment are vital and needed to process a
student‟s ability to learn digital and technical skills and their academic purpose.
The researcher cannot solve the whole issue, but it is essential to observe and
recognize the problem and find a way to resolve it.
Specialized learning materials are essential to acquire knowledge and
practice techniques and digital skills to make students familiar, productive, and
literate. All the stakeholders need to ensure that the students have access to this
new platform and equipment. Supposing that the technological learning materials
are insufficient and available for students to use in the actual technology learning
procedure, they cannot demonstrate the basic instruction to show if the students
learn and follow the instruction correctly and experience this new kind of
2
technological learning materials and how they can operate it. Additionally, if the
school cannot provide enough technological learning materials to the learner, all
stakeholder will be affected by the problem because that is the primary tool
needed to demonstrate, facilitate, and understand how this new equipment work.
Based on the study Assistance Provided By Private Entities To
Elementary Schools In San Pablo City, Laguna (Fabros, M. 2019). that the
researcher cited, the study emphasized the private sector and not the local
government or agency in the assistance provided by an organization or entities
and how the private sector can help facilitate and deliver the technological
learning materials needed by the students. The researcher observed that the
local government should be responsible for assisting and providing these new
learning materials for the students, especially those who live in rural or remote
areas because they can finance it. However, we cannot deny that sometimes, the
fund is not enough to provide these kind of technological learning materials
because they have other projects that need to be funded. The government and
school representatives have the power and position to do such things to provide
for their citizens, especially for children who need quality education. Specifically,
this issue is relevant in today‟s needs because of the pandemic situation where
students continue their learning by online or modular schooling where the
teacher use technological learning materials to facilitate learning, particularly for
the subject that needs the integration with this kind of equipment that is very
useful when the teacher demonstrating and giving instruction to the students to
develop their learning in technology literacy. After the critical evaluation of

3
previously cited related literature and study and the conceptual framework
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK, 2006), the
researcher decided to continue this research to analyze and gather the collected
data that will show how this phenomenon affects the students learning outcome
and interest.
When technological learning materials are not available or insufficient, the
possibility of learning deficiency will occur. That is why it is important to give
information about this particular issue. This study will impact the society,
students, teachers, parents, private and public sector, and all the stakeholders to
know how they can maximize all the resources and assistance they can give and
get from different individuals and organizations. It could also ensure the provision
of quality and global standard education and integrate this new technology, not
just in learning procedures, but also in different activities. Showing the students‟
ability to manipulate technological learning materials responsibly to give all the
students enough learning materials to use and knowledge to experience the
learning in the actual demonstration with interaction with the teacher, an
important process that the student needs to familiarize and experience to
thoroughly understand the different use of it and how this new technology
learning materials can easily use that will increase their capability and skills to be
technological and digital literate to enhance their knowledge in the subject matter
creatively and to develop better opportunities in life in the future.

4
Background of the Study
The Division of San Pablo City Laguna has 63 public elementary schools.
Those public elementary schools cater to elementary education, consisting of 6
years of schooling, covering Grades 1 to 6 (Fabros, 2019). All of those public
elementary schools operate basically through their monthly funds and allowances
allocated to them, also known as Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
(MOOE). As defined by Llego (2015), the Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses are the allocated funds for public elementary and secondary schools.
The fund can be spent on activities and necessities that support learning
programs and help them maintain a safe and healthy environment in all public
schools. Without enough and sufficient funds, an organization cannot start
facilitation and integration to provide the necessary facility and materials needed
to operate an organization like public schools; without a fund, the system could
not effectively work. So, it is imperative to maintain enough funds to support the
needs of an organization, specifically the public school sector, to provide quality
education and global standard for the student to learn effectively and in a
transformative way. Teachers rely on a wide variety of online resources, with
Google, Pinterest, and Microsoft and any digital platform and application that the
teacher can use and access for educational purposes. The issue is not with the
fact that the resources are online. Such materials can be strong, and even
downloading materials for a single lesson can add supplemental value (Jackson
& Makarin, 2018). But providing high-quality materials to teachers and students is
not enough. Instead, the stronger instructional materials make a real difference in
5
providing quality education for students to maximize the resources and tools they
can use and facilitate. According to the report, the review of the evidence,
teachers report using a variety of instructional materials from a wide array of
sources like formal, published curricula or textbooks, and informal, online lessons
or digital interaction; self-developed and district-selected materials; and those
aligned to standards or not (Steiner, 2018). This means that the key
transformation or adaptation from formal to informal instructional materials
becomes wide and broad and needs to develop. The preservice teachers'
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) development was investigated concerning
integrating technology. Four components of PCK were adapted to describe
technology-enhanced PCK (TPCK). The study examined the TPCK of student
teachers in a multi-dimensional science and mathematics teacher preparation
program that integrated teaching and learning with technology throughout the
program (Niess, 2005). TPCK framework for teacher knowledge for technology
integration is called technological pedagogical content knowledge (originally
TPCK, now known as TPACK, or technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge). The development of TPACK by teachers is critical to effective
teaching with technology. The nature of technologies (both analog and digital) is
considered and how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy further complicates
teaching (Koehler & Punya Mishra, 2009). This framework described the
difficulties and successes of students and teacher students teaching with
technological learning materials and digital applications. Specifically, the journal
research proposes that the appropriate mindsets must change to include the idea
6
that "teaching is not effective without the appropriate use of information and
communication technologies (ICT) resources to facilitate student learning."
Implications are discussed in teacher education and professional development
programs (“Teacher Technology Change,” 2014). We can integrate both the
traditional and new kinds of teaching to produce a balanced strategy to be used
in facilitating learning because, as we all know, we need to develop first our
literacy in information and communication technologies to be able to know how to
use this kind of tools and equipment or any resources to facilitating a meaningful
student learning. To make these things possible, we need to communicate and
collaborate with the different sectors of our society by asking them for some
assistance through open communication and willingness to develop and integrate
adaptation of this new pedagogy in teaching. Education is a social responsibility.
Although it is primarily the government‟s accountability to ensure that public
schools are adequately equipped with the tools and facilities needed to provide
quality and relevant education and learning materials, private entities are very
much welcome to make contributions that would help address the inadequacies
that confront many of the public schools in the country (Fabros, 2019). The
community and the government should help each other to address some of the
limitations that the public schools are experiencing until now, for example, the
lack of textbooks and other traditional learning materials. Another important
learning material that we need to provide is the technological learning materials,
for example, computers, printers, and a projector that are very helpful to integrate
technology literacy to the students and capture the student's interest and
7
attention. But in real situations, our public schools failed to provide enough
technological materials for the student because of lack of funds, technology, and
equipment. In conclusion, the gap of all the related literature is that they don‟t
focus their study on the limitation. The lack of accessibility of the schools,
teachers, and most importantly, the students in this kind of technological learning
materials can affect education in the technology learning procedure. The
researcher observed in the previous study that their main concern is the
effectiveness, delivery, quality, assistance, and difficulties and successes of
student teachers teaching with technology. The previous study did not
emphasize the accessibility and availability of the technological learning
materials and how this new equipment can be effectively used in the integration
of learning. Their study forgot to include and mention the situation that most
students, parents, and schools cannot provide all these technological learning
materials. It has to be notified and take the necessary action to solve these
shortcoming and limitations. Students learn principally through interactions with
people (teachers and peers) and instructional materials textbooks, workbooks,
instructional software, web-based content, homework, projects, quizzes, and
tests (Chingos et al., 2012). Those instructional material exercises their influence
on learning directly as well as by influencing teachers' instructional choices and
behavior and it makes instructional materials all the more important (“EdReports,”
2020). The main goal of this study is to know why it is important to provide these
technological learning materials in facilitating technology learning procedures,
how it will affect the ability of the student to improve their performance,
8
engagement, and develop a new skill in digital literacy and technology learning,
and how the students integrate the new technological learning materials into their
learning experience and what technological learning materials are suitable for
students for technology learning procedures.
Theoretical Framework
Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) presents a
dynamic framework for describing teachers' knowledge required for designing,
implementing, and evaluating curriculum and instruction with technology (Niess,
2011). This framework can be implemented by the teachers and use that
particular theory to find an appropriate strategy to facilitate technology learning
for the students. Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler's (2006) TPACK
framework, which focuses on technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical
knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK), offers a productive approach to
many of the dilemmas that teachers face in implementing educational
technology (ed-tech) in their classrooms. By differentiating among those three
types of knowledge, the TPACK framework outlines how content (what is being
taught) and pedagogy (how the teacher imparts that content) must form the
foundation for effective ed tech integration. That order is important because the
implemented technology must communicate the content and support the
pedagogy to enhance students' learning experience (Kurt, 2018). TPACK is the
leading theory regarding ed-tech integration in facilitating technology learning
because of the absence of other sufficient theories. This could help the effective
implementation of technology in the classroom that demands different

9
approaches to integrating educational technology to facilitate digital learning and
innovate new teaching styles and technology learning procedures.
Figure 1: Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK, 2006)
Research Paradigm
Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Technological Learning Technology learning
Materials Limitations procedure
a. Organization and a. Student Engagement
Accessibility b. Feedback Mechanisms
b. Personalized Instruction c. Performance
c. Suitable learning
materials
Figure 2: Research Paradigm

10
Statement of the Problem
This study aims to describe the limitations of technological learning
materials and procedures among the Grade 5 and Grade 6 students of San
Roque Elementary School.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 age;
1.2 sex; and
1.3 grade level?
2. What is the perception of the student-respondents on the limitation in
using technological learning materials in terms of:
2.1 organization and accessibility;
2.2 personalized instruction; and
2.3 suitable learning materials?
3. How can the technology learning procedure be described in the learning
process when it comes to:
3.1 student‟s engagement;
3.2 feedback mechanisms; and
3.3 performance?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the limitations in using
technological learning materials and the assessment of technology
learning procedures?
11
Hypothesis
The study posits that there is no significant relationship between the
limitations in using technological learning materials and the assessment of
technology learning procedures.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The study focused on the technological learning materials limitations and
technology learning procedures among the Grade 5 and Grade 6 students of San
Roque Elementary School. Likewise, it tends to find out how it can affect the
students' ability to improve their skills in digital literacy, student engagement,
feedback mechanism, performance, and in following instruction and technology
learning procedure. To acquire and sustain the technological learning materials,
we need to provide the specific and suitable equipment that the teachers will be
using to integrate technology into the subject matter. For example, the
accessibility of the internet, the availability of the technology learning materials,
and the integration of the instruction and learning procedure that the student may
follow. It is important to observe the limitations in terms of providing suitable
technological learning materials for the student to experience the actual
demonstration of the technology learning procedure. The study is limited to
conduct of an actual interview because of health protocol that affects the way the
researcher conducts the study. It may help the researcher to observe the actual
emotions and reactions of the respondents to the survey questions. Whether the
respondents are interested or not, and knew if they had poor or no internet
connectivity. Majority of the researcher respondents cannot access internet

12
connection that affects their immediate response to the survey questions.
Although some students had their own gadgets that they can use to participate in
the study, others are just borrowed it from their relatives or friends. Students lack
of interest and time also affect the study because of their modules and the
platform used specifically in online settings. The lack of knowledge of the
respondent on how to respond in Google Forms also affects the survey gathering
of data.
Significance of the Study
This study would give important information that will help the following
groups of people;
Students. The research could help the student develop their digital
literacy skills and experience and be familiar with any digital equipment and
application platform available in their class. It could give them awareness of the
importance of having enough technological learning materials and enhancing
their learning style or capability to improve their skills and knowledge on how
they can integrate this kind of technology into their learning.
Teachers. The study could show how to integrate teachers' skills in
facilitating learning using this technological learning materials and any
technology platform to be globally competitive, resourceful, and provide quality
education to their students. It can attract the student's attention on how they can
integrate their digital literacy in facilitating learning using the technological
learning materials on their activities in actual learning through the technology
learning procedure. Collaboration with peers, colleagues, and the community to

13
have open communication to enhance and adapt technological learning materials
can be exercised to better facilitate technology learning procedures.
Schools. The research could identify the kind of technological learning
materials they need to appropriately provide for their student and how the school
can sustain and maintain those equipment or learning materials. The result can
help find alternative resources and seek financial help and assistance to any
public or private sector to provide enough technological learning materials to
facilitate the technology learning procedure. This could also establish
coordination among the community, parents, students, schools, and especially
the local and national government and private sector.
Society. This study could show information to secure a conducive learning
environment for all students and adapt the new curriculum, the K to 12 curricula
with the integration of technology in learning procedures and to protect the
interest of the school and the students and all the stakeholders. It could also help
provide appropriate and suitable guidelines to be followed by the students,
teachers, and even the school, parents, and the community on how to be a
responsible user of the technological learning materials to make sure that the
technological tools are productively used in the integration and facilitation of
technology learning procedure.

14
Definitions of Terms
Application platform. Any hardware operating system and all other
software applications a website-based application. For example, Microsoft Office,
Google classroom, Edmodo, Google, Facebook, and social media and
educational platform.
Assistance. An aid or support that the private sector and local
government give to the public schools, especially the technological learning
materials like computers, projectors, smart television, projector screen, printer,
and other educational gadgets and other learning materials needed to provide
the facilitation of learning.
Digital skill. The ability to use digital equipment and any software or
applications on website-based application.
Integration. The process of combining the technological learning
materials in facilitating learning, especially for the subject matter or lesson
needed to use this kind of equipment to improve teaching pedagogy.
K to 12 curriculum. The system is broken down into three stages;
elementary (Kindergarten to Grade 5), middle school (Grade 6 to 8), and high
school (Grade 9 to 12) to ensure the improvement of the Filipino student's skills
and to prevent the insufficient mastery of basic competencies.
Limitations. A hindrance or obstacle limiting the materials needed to
integrate technological learning materials into technology learning procedures.
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE). Allocated funds
for public elementary and secondary schools that can be spent and support
15
learning programs and necessities to sustain their learning environment. An
expenditure category to support the operations of government agencies.
Shortcoming. Failure and deficiency to meet the necessary standard and
accessibility in technological learning materials in the system.
Suitable. Right and appropriate technological learning materials and
procedures to a specific topic or lesson.
Technological learning materials. Devices, equipment, traditional
learning materials, or system that adapt the information during facilitating
learning to improve the process of effectiveness in learning.
Technology literacy. The ability to use any technological equipment in
responsible, safe, creative, effective, collaborative, and how to integrate and use
the technology is a right and appropriate.
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). A
theory that explains the knowledge that the teachers need to develop and teach
with their students and the effectiveness of technology integration to facilitate
learning in the student's attention and authentic learning experience.
Technology learning procedure. Serves as a learning process,
pedagogy, or method, instructions that engage students and learn with
technology interaction for effective, meaningful, and creative way.

16
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents a review of related literature and studies, both local
and foreign sources, which helped the researcher determine the gap in the
research.
Related Literature
According to Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt from their book, “Lesson from
the virtual classroom: The realities of online teaching second edition” (2013),
because of the changing nature of students today, economic pressures, and
rapid implementation of distance learning courses and programs, definitions of
what constitutes education and learning are changing too. A more collaborative
approach to learning, promoted by constructivist thought, can yield deeper
knowledge creation levels (Brooks &Brooks, 2000). The use of distance learning
technologies and more specifically, online learning have grown out of and
contributed to the changes occurring in education delivery. The change
stemming from the delivery of online classes in academic institutions is being met
with educators' support and some discomfort. Although the level of discomfort
may be decreasing for some, skepticism about the quality of online education
persists (Allen, Seaman, Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012).
Some students learn better in a course in which they can tract with the
professor in person. Others, however, thrive in an online environment and shy
students, for example, tend to feel liberated online, as do many international

17
students who are unsure of their spoken English (Maloney, p. 21). We continue
to hear similar opinions expressed today, and online learning has become
ubiquitous. As a result, the level of resistance described in 1999 has begun to
wane o some degree, and we see at least a willingness to try online teaching. A
very recent study, conducted by the Babson Survey Research Group (Allen et
al., 2012), indicates that instructors report being more pessimistic than optimistic
about online learning.
They are skeptical about learning outcomes from online courses and resist
teaching online. The study's authors speculate that the amount of time involved
with online teaching may or may not be fairly compensated, which is part of the
problem. To complicate the picture, new regulations for online and on-ground
programs have been issued by the U.S. Department of Education. These
regulations are meant to shorten the program's time for students, thus reducing
the financial aid debt required to complete a degree. Although technology has
been used as an adjunct to elementary and secondary teaching for a while,
virtual high schools and other virtual support services for school districts continue
to emerge, bringing with them the development of online teaching standards.
The delivery of online classes in the K-12 sector increases dramatically,
promoting a need for training or online teaching in teacher training programs.
Deubel (2008) reports that the demand for “virtual schooling” is increasing at a
rate of about 30% per year, and with that comes the need for experienced
teachers who can teach online. Watson and Kalmon (2006) report that as of
2006, there were 24 state-led virtual schools, with 12 more states in the process
18
of developing them. Like their higher education counterparts, teachers need
training in online work's theoretical, pedagogical, and technical foundations. They
also need to understand how to effectively facilitate an online class, including
practical discussion, managing learners, incorporating collaborative activities,
and conducting online assessments of student work.
According to an article titled, Materials Matter: Instructional Materials +
Professional Learning = Student Achievement (David Steiner, 2018). Several
research summaries over the last few years have brought attention to the impact
of high-quality instructional materials on student learning. The U.S. Department
of Education‟s What Works Clearinghouse, which produces summaries of
rigorous research, has identified several effective curricula with large effect sizes
on students‟ reading, math, and science learning (e.g., Borman, Dowling, &
Schneck, 2008; Hirschhorn, 1993; Smith et al., 1993; Zucker, Tinker, Staudt,
Mansfield, & Metcalf, 2008). Boser and colleagues (2015) examined six
elementary math curricula, each of which had a lower and a higher-quality
version. They found that switching from the lower- to the higher-quality product
would cause districts to incur “not much of a cost.” Prices do not vary widely
across products, with the most expensive product in the same government-
sponsored study costing only $13 per student more than the least expensive
product.
If anything, the higher-quality products tend to cost less. In some
instances, the most expensive curriculum was among the least effective, and the
least costly was the most effective (Boser et al., 2015). Among the less-
19
expensive curricula are available online in an open educational resources format.
In this instance, the basic curriculum is available for free downloading, with the
costs restricted to printing and, in some cases, to supplemental material. Yet
despite all this research, individual teachers self-select many of their instructional
materials. As a result, most students are taught at least in part through
idiosyncratic curricula that are not defined by school districts or states. Steiner
reports on his review of the evidence. Teachers report using various instructional
materials from a wide array of sources: formal, published curricula and informal,
online lessons; self-developed and district-selected materials; and those aligned
to standards or not (Steiner, 2017).
Teachers rely on a wide variety of online resources, with Google,
Pinterest, and Teachers Pay Teachers leading a list compiled by research
organization RAND (Opfer, Kaufman, & Thompson, 2016). The issue is not that
the resources are online such materials can be strong, and even downloading
materials for a single lesson can add supplemental value (Jackson & Makarin,
2018). Instead, the issue is that when teachers create their studies too much of
the time, students may not get the benefits of a fully sequenced, coherent
learning experience. Providing high-quality materials to teachers is not enough,
while more substantial instructional materials make a real difference. That
difference is magnified by matching it with professional learning.
Indeed, research suggests that over half of the possible impact of shifting
to a more robust curriculum is lost if the transition does not include a teacher
practice shift that explicitly supports the new materials (Taylor et al., 2015). One
20
can clearly infer that professional development that guides teachers to optimize
their use of new curricula must be an essential part of any instructional materials-
oriented school-level transitions. This is a positive step, but professional learning
on curriculum implementation shouldn‟t end when a teacher begins their first
classroom job. Teachers already on the job need the same skills to become
intelligent users of the curriculum materials provided by their districts or schools,
mainly because it‟s not uncommon for schools to change curricula. Using the
curriculum materials effectively includes distinguishing high and low-quality
materials, knowing how to analyze whether the materials align with achievement
standards, and practicing how to use and adapt materials in the classroom (Toon
& Jensen, 2017).
Related Studies
According to M. L. Niess (2005), emergence into the 21st century features
different tools, different communication, different information, and different work.
Given this shift, education must incorporate computer-based, electronic
technologies integrating learning with these technologies within the academic
subject areas. Learning subject matter with technology is different from teaching
that subject matter with technology. Few teachers have been trained to teach
their subject matter with technology. As a National Center for Education Statistics
survey found, only 20% of the current public school teachers feel comfortable
using technology in their teaching (Rosenthal, 1999). Mathematics and science
standards (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 2000; National
Research Council, 1996) point toward a scientifically and mathematically rich

21
curriculum where technology is an essential component of the learning
environment, not only in the curriculum but also in the instruction.
Similarly, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE,
2000a, b) developed new technology standards for students and teachers that
specifically confront teachers integrating technology throughout education.
Increased research attention to teachers‟ subject matter knowledge has focused
attention on how student teachers organize and inter-relate these subject matter
facts, concepts, and principles (Ball, 1991; Even, 1989; Kennedy, 1990;
Leinhardt & Smith, 1985; Marks, 1990; Tamir, 1988; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988).
A variety of different approaches for preparing teachers to teach with technology
have been proposed to move toward the other end of the continuum by (1)
integrating technology in all courses in the teacher preparation program to be
more supportive of the development of a technology-enhanced PCK and content-
specific applications and (2) requiring pre-service teachers to teach with
technology in their student teaching experience (Duhaney, 2001; Wetzel &
Zambo, 1996; Young et al., 2000). However, little research has been conducted
to identify how this more integrated approach supports developing a PCK that
integrates knowledge of technology with knowledge of the content and
knowledge of pedagogy a TPCK. Amending these components with technology
provides a framework for describing the outcomes for TPCK development in a
teacher preparation program: (1) an overarching conception of what it means to
teach a particular subject integrating technology in the learning; (2) knowledge of
instructional strategies and representations for teaching particular topics with

22
technology; (3) knowledge of students‟ understandings, thinking, and learning
with technology in a particular subject; (4) knowledge of curriculum and
curriculum materials that integrate technology with learning in the subject area
(Borko & Putnam, 1996, p. 690).
Preparing student teachers to teach with technology in science and
mathematics content areas offers a unique lens from which to investigate the
development of TPCK. The content knowledge of technology is both scientific
and mathematical. Teaching technology using demonstrations and labs/hands-on
activities is consistent with major pedagogical strategies in teaching mathematics
and science. Classroom management issues with technology are compatible with
classroom management issues in science and mathematics lab activities. Thus,
preparing teachers to teach with technology is compatible with many
programmatic experiences designed to develop PCK.
The integration of technology in the curriculum has been a newer shift in
the past ten years. The majority of their science and mathematics pre-college
and undergraduate education was a curriculum that did not necessarily embrace
learning with and about the technology. What program models support teachers
in gaining the skills, knowledge, and beliefs to teach different subjects with
technology? What are the essential skills, knowledge, and opinions? How does
TPCK change for other content areas? What experiences are critical to building a
TPCK? What technologies are essential? What support do student teachers
need as they practice teaching with technologies? Questions such as these will
continue to challenge teacher educators and researchers as they search to meet

23
the demands of the preparation of 21st century teachers, teachers with a
commitment to prepare today's students to live, learn, and work in tomorrow's
''increasingly complex and information-rich society‟‟ (ISTE, 2000a).
According to Peggy A. Ertmer and Anne T. Ottenbreit – Leftwich, the
professionals of the 21st century think and act differently than those of previous
centuries, due at least in part to the radically different tools they use to perform
their jobs. Teachers of the 21st century use roughly the same tools as those
before them (Cuban, 2001). It is time to shift our mindsets away from the notion
that technology provides a supplemental teaching tool and assume, as with other
professions, that technology is essential to successful performance outcomes
(i.e., student learning). To put it simply, effective teaching requires effective
technology use. Recent research, resulting from both large- and small-scale
efforts (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Project Tomorrow, 2008), suggests that we have
yet not achieved high levels of effective technology use, either in the United
States or internationally (Kozma, 2003; Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, &
Specht, 2008; Smeets, 2005; Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2007a).
Furthermore, if and when technology is used, it typically is not used to
support the kinds of instruction (e.g., student-centered) believed to be most
powerful for facilitating student learning (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck; 2001;
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008; Partnership for
21st Century Learning, 2007). No doubt, teachers have increased their personal
and professional use of computers (Project Tomorrow, 2008; van Braak,
Tondeur, & Valcke, 2004). In response to the Teachers Talk Tech survey (CDW-
24
G, 2006), 88% of the teachers reported using technology for administrative tasks,
whereas 86% reported using technology for communication tasks. As with other
professionals, we expect teachers to use technology in ways that extend and
increase their effectiveness. It is no longer appropriate to suggest that teachers‟
low-level uses of technology are adequate to meet the needs of the 21st-century
learner.
Using technology simply to support lecture-based instruction falls far from
recommended best practices (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Partnership for 21st
Century Skills, 2007; Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005). To achieve the kinds of
technology uses required for 21st-century teaching and learning (Lai, 2008; Law,
2008; Thomas & Knezek, 2008), we need to help teachers understand how to
use technology to facilitate meaningful learning, defined as that which enables
students to construct deep and connected knowledge, which can be applied to
real situations. Although “technology can make it quicker or easier to teach the
same things in routine ways,” it also makes it possible to “adopt new and
arguably better approaches to instruction and/or change the content or context of
learning, instruction, and assessment” (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007, p. 581). With
the No Child Left Behind Act (U. S. DOE, 2001) providing impetus, states are
now placing a strong emphasis on recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers.
In addition to possessing both content and pedagogical knowledge, recent
definitions of high-quality teachers include being able to support differentiated
instruction and data-based decision making, efforts that benefit immensely from
25
the use of new technology tools (Means, Padilla, DeBarger, & Bakia, 2009; Office
of Educational Technology, 2004; Patrick, 2008).
According to the U. S. DOE (2003), “Technology is now considered by
most educators and parents to be an integral part of providing a high-quality
education”. Issues of teacher change are central to any discussion of technology
integration. In general, when teachers are asked to use technology to facilitate
learning, some degree of change is required along any or all of the following
dimensions: (a) beliefs, attitudes, or pedagogical ideologies; (b) content
knowledge; (c) pedagogical knowledge of instructional practices, strategies,
methods, or approaches; and (d) novel or altered instructional resources,
technology, or materials (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991). When thinking about
technology as an innovation, Fisher (2006) cautioned against viewing technology
as an agent of change. Rather, he argued that teachers must assume this role.
Harris (cited in Brinkerhoff, 2006) noted that “using technology as a
„Trojan horse‟ for educational reform has succeeded in only a minority of K–12
contexts”. In general, teachers are hesitant to adopt curricular and instructional
innovations (Ponticell, 2003). This is especially true of technology innovations
because, unlike curricular changes (e.g., Everyday Math), which occur only
periodically, technology tools and resources are constantly changing (Straub,
2009). And although teachers might believe that technology helps them
accomplish professional and personal tasks more efficiently, they are reluctant to
incorporate the duplicate tools into the classroom for a variety of reasons,
including the lack of relevant knowledge (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007), low self-
26
efficacy (Mueller et al., 2008), and existing belief systems (Ertmer, 2005; Hew &
Brush, 2007; Subramaniam, 2007). Furthermore, the context in which teachers
work often constrains or limits individual efforts (Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007;
Somekh, 2008).
To use technology to facilitate student learning, teachers need additional
knowledge and skills that build on and intersect with those that Shulman (1986)
described. This additional knowledge has been conceptualized in a variety of
ways including (technological pedagogical content knowledge, TPCK; AACTE,
2008; Pierson, 2001), pedagogical technology integration content knowledge
(PTICK; Brantley-Dias, Kinuthia, Shoffner, DeCastro, & Rigole, 2007); and ICT-
TPCK (a strand of TPCK that specifically emphasizes relevant knowledge of
information and communication technologies; Angeli & Valanides, 2009). First,
teachers need knowledge of the technology itself. Lawless and Pellegrino assert
that “technological literacy has fast become one of the basic teaching skills”
(2007, p. 580). If teachers are going to prepare their students to be
technologically capable, they need to have, at the very least, basic technology
skills. However, knowing how to use technology hardware (e.g., digital camera,
science probe) and software (e.g., presentation tool, social networking site) is not
enough to enable teachers to use the technology effectively in the classroom.
If this were true, there would be little, if any, the gap between teachers‟
personal and instructional uses of technology. But knowing how to use the tools
is only the foundation. Teaching with technology requires teachers to expand
their knowledge of pedagogical practices across multiple aspects of the planning,

27
implementation, and evaluation processes. One approach, described by Mishra
and Koehler (2006), is that of a design-based program in which teachers develop
their technology skills in the context of their curricular needs. Educational reform
efforts have consistently purported student-centered practices as the most
effective way to prepare our students for the 21 st century (Voogt, 2008). These
reform efforts are based on a new definition of “good” teaching, facilitating
student learning by leveraging relevant ICT resources as meaningful pedagogical
tools. Implementing a further purpose of effective teaching requires teacher
knowledge change, teacher beliefs change, and teacher culture change.
Base on the Assistance provided by private entities in Elementary Schools
in San Pablo City, Laguna, Fabros (2019) mentions that limited school resources
and budget to sustain partnership emerged regarding issues relative to drawing
confidential assistance. Although it is primarily the government‟s accountability to
ensure that public schools are adequately equipped with the tools and facilities
needed to provide quality and relevant education, private entities are welcome to
make contributions that would help address the inadequacies that confront many
public schools in the country. Traditionally, Filipino families put a high premium
on having their members earn an education. Nowadays, the trend in education is
to develop innovative and globally competitive people who can meet the
demands of commercialization, industrialization, and development. Without
education, the world will be blind. The truths will be withheld and hidden behind
the walls of ignorance. Countless generations will be estranged from knowledge
and wisdom that only education can suffice.

28
They believe that having a better education opens opportunities to ensure
a promising future and eventually lift them out of poverty. Thus, they are willing to
make enormous sacrifices to send their children to school. Hence, the school has
to play a significant role in ensuring the quality of education that parents desire
for their children. Sad to say, despite the government‟s claim that it has been
increasing the budget for education, most public elementary schools in the
country are hardly coping with challenges and shortages like schools with
insufficient classrooms, limited learning materials, and no electricity and water
supply. These seem to be perennial problems of schools every year.
Thus, teachers and school administrators are forced to employ the so-
called creative means to accommodate the significant number of enrollees in
public schools every year. These include holding up to three classes and
conducting classes in storage rooms, multipurpose halls, and hallways. The
assistance may be provided in but is not limited to infrastructure, learning
support, health and nutrition, reading programs, technology support, direct
assistance, training and development, and assistive learning devices for special
needs students. Nowadays, private entities could help any school, which they
deem need much their assistance even if it does not belong to any of the twenty
poorest provinces in the country (retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph, July 19,
2019).
Inspired by its success and bringing the spirit of the Adopt-a-School
Program to the community level and maximizing civil participation and utilizing
local resources to improve public schools, DepEd launched the Nationwide

29
Maintenance Week, commonly known as Brigada Eskwela, as a unique project
under Adopt-a-School Program in May 2003.
Brigada Eskwela then brought teachers, parents, community members,
government employees, and the private sector every third week of May to work
together to repair, repaint, fix and mend broken facilities of public schools, and
get them ready for the school opening. The success of Brigada Eskwela since its
implementation simply showcases the Filipino‟s innate quality of volunteerism.
This particular project has also fostered financially endowed persons and
organizations' generosity to share their resources with those who are deprived
economically or materially. To intensify partnership with the private sector, the
government pushed through another offspring of the Adopt-a-School Program in
2012, the Public-Private Partnership (PPP). The PPP focused on intensive
infrastructure projects in the education sector to reduce classroom shortages.
Tilak (2016) claimed that PPP helps ease financial constraints, as the
private sector makes huge investments on its own under Public-Private
Partnership (PPP). Before adopting the K-12 reforms, Macha et al. (2018)
emphasized that elementary education was the only compulsory part of the basic
education cycle. The elementary school curriculum was recently revised and
included standard subjects like Filipino, English, mathematics, science, social
science, Philippine history and culture, physical education, and arts. However,
one notable and important change is that minority languages are now being used
as the language of instruction in the first years of elementary education in areas
where these languages are the lingua franca.

30
Globe provided 221 schools with unparalleled online connectivity to give
homeroom teachers access to limitless teaching and learning engagements
available on the Internet to improve their craft and make learning fun and
interesting for the pupils. The schools are also given a Globe Digital Laboratory
package containing netbooks/ tablets, mobile projectors, and WiFi dongles
(www.cebudailynews.inquirer.net, Retrieved April 10, 2019). Globe also launched
the GFS library, which offers over 1,000 educational e-books appropriate for K-
12 learning to benefit teachers and pupils. GFS Library.com is a web-based
platform that provides free and quick access to digital storybooks for children and
young adults and textbooks on core subjects such as Math, Science, English,
Filipino, Music, Arts, among others. The e-books may be opened via their
desktop, laptop, or mobile device using any essential e-book reader.

31
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology describes and explains the different procedures,
including research design, respondents of the study, research instrument, validity
and reliability, data gathering procedure, and statistical treatment and analysis.
Research Design
The quantitative research design is used for this study. It involves the
process of collecting and analyzing numerical data. It can be used to find
patterns and averages, make predictions, causal test relationships, and
generalize results to broader populations (Pritha Bhandari, 2020). The
quantitative research methods are sufficient to capture the trends and details of
the situation, such as technological learning materials limitations and technology
learning procedures among the Grade 5 and Grade 6 students of San Roque
elementary schools.
Respondents of the Study
This study's target population is 40 students through a combination of
Grade 5 and Grade 6 in San Roque Elementary School. The students‟ status
vary in terms of grade level, subjects, or modules taken pursued. Due to their
modular learning modality, students were referred by their Grade 5 and Grade 6
advisers depending on their availability. Recruiting of participants occurred
through the database of the available students.
Intentionally selecting individuals to respond to the survey from different
grade levels is to avoid participants who cannot access and respond immediately
32
to the study and the availability of gadgets and internet connections that they
need to answer the questionnaire. The idea is to purposefully select informants
who will best answer the research questions and who are “information-rich"
(Patton, 1990) persons. This is to ensure that the respondents can easily
understand and follow the instruction and know-how to access this kind of
platform taking the survey.
Sampling Technique
The primary technique for collecting the quantitative data will be random
sampling, referred to as probability sampling since the sampling process is
random and the law of probability can be applied. The sequence of a sampling
distribution is needed to interpret and evaluate the sample provided. It is the least
biased of all sampling techniques. There is no subjectivity. Each member of the
total population has an equal chance of being selected and can be attained using
random number tables.
Research Instrument
A panel of professors teaching at the Laguna State Polytechnic University
served as a guide to secure the content validity of the survey instrument. The
questionnaire consists of thirty questions organized into two sections in Google
Forms. The first section of the survey asks questions about the participant's
personal information in the optional name. The second section measures
participants‟ comfort and discomfort level and their rating with the limitations of
technological learning materials affecting technology learning procedure
experienced and what particular technology they usually use to integrate and
33
acquire learning. It helped provide additional data about the impact of related
institutional factors in organization and accessibility, personalized instruction,
suitable learning materials, student engagement, feedback mechanism, and
performance. The Likert scale questions were used in the survey to determine
students' feelings about their experiences and behaviors. They focus on how
selected factors have influenced participants‟ progress in facilitation and
integration of technological learning materials affecting technology learning
procedures.
The most popular Likert scale in any survey question is the scale of
agreement – disagreement. The participants choose the answer that best reflects
their own beliefs and opinion about the statement provided in the survey
questions. However, they delivered the information regarding the statement
provided based on the participant's experience, and the choice of “Not
applicable” (NA) is not included.
The survey instrument was utilized on the randomly selected participants
representing the Grade 5 and Grade 6 students of San Roque Elementary
School. The study's goal is to validate the instrument and test its reliability from
the eligible participants identified in the database. The survey results helped
establish stability, internal consistency reliability, and content validity of the
questionnaire.
34
Data Gathering Procedure
The study was conducted in a new normal online social setting, and the
topic does not fall in the sensitive category. The subject population is randomly
chosen by their respective adviser and responds through an online survey
questionnaire. The participants were asked for their consent to provide their
personal information and their permission to answer the survey. After securing
their permission the participants' information and responses were received
through database collecting. The researcher also asked the principal and other
faculty members to allow the researcher to conduct the study to Grade 5 and
Grade 6 students to be participants on the study.
While conducting the individual survey with the selected respondents, they
were assigned either numerical names or their real names in their descriptions
and report the results. The name protects the anonymity of participants in each
returned questionnaire to keep the responses confidential. Data was collected
using the standardized procedures, including the convenience and natural
approach to the existing individuals of participants and the instrument's reliability
and validity checks.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The data gathered was subjected to descriptive statistical analysis.
After the researcher collected the data, it was organized, and tabulated for
statistical analysis. The weighted mean was used to determine the level of
technological learning materials limitations and technology learning procedure
among the Grade 5 and Grade 6 students of San Roque Elementary School in
35
order to determine the importance and contribution of organization and
accessibility, personalized instruction, appropriate learning materials, student
engagement, feedback mechanisms, and performance on technological learning
materials and technology learning procedure among the students. Pearson
correlation was used to identify significant relationships between variables in
inferential statistics.
36
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the data gathered and the interpretation of findings.
These are presented in tables following the sequence of the research problem
regarding the technological learning materials limitations and technology learning
procedure among the Grade 5 and Grade 6 students of San Roque Elementary
School.
Table 1. Distribution of the Respondents
Grade 5 Grade 6
Age F % F %
10 2 10 -
11 12 60 3 15
12 6 30 17 85
Sex
Female 11 55 11 55
Male 9 45 9 45
The age range of the respondents from 10 to 12 years old is shown in
Table 1, with the majority of respondents belonging to the age range of 12 years
old with a total of 23 respondents, and the least number of respondents come
from the age of 10 years old with only two respondents coming from grade 5
students. In terms of gender distribution, both Grade 5 and Grade 6 students had
a similar distribution of respondents, with 11 girls and 9 boys, for a total of 20
respondents.
37
Table 2. Organization and Accessibility
Indication Mean SD Interpretation

1. My school seeks for help and 3.28 0.55 Strongly Agree
assistance from other
organization private or public
sector that is willing to help.
2. I can easily access the 3.20 0.52 Strongly Agree
website of our school to
acquire information and
communicate wih the teacher
to tell my concern.
3. I have any technological 3.15 0.48 Strongly Agree
learning materials that I can
use or borrow in learning.
4. I have sufficient internet 3.05 0.60 Agree
connection like wifi or data
that I can use in the
facilitation of learning.
5. My school provides necessary 3.00 0.75 Agree
and appropriate technological
learning materials to use in
our lessons.
Average 3.14 0.35 Strongly Agree
Legend: Strongly Agree 3.1-4, Agree 2.1-3, Disagree 1.1- 2, Strongly Disagree 0
–1
Table 2 shows that the respondents' school seeks help and assistance
from other private or public sector organizations that are willing to help. The
majority of the participants Strongly Agree with a mean of 3.28 and a standard
deviation of 0.55. Following that, respondents agreed with a mean of 3.00 and a
38
standard deviation of 0.75 that the school provided necessary and appropriate
technological learning materials to use in their lessons. Thus, the average score
of all respondents in terms of organization and accessibility and a data set's
dispersion relative to its mean. With a verbal interpretation of Strongly Agree, the
average mean is 3.14 and the standard deviation is 0.35. Other educational
resources include teaching, learning, and resource accessibility, and they are
freely available to anyone via the Website. Podcasts, digital libraries, textbooks,
and games are all critical components of learning infrastructure. It is critical to
ensure that open educational resources meet the same quality, dependability,
and accuracy standards as other educational resources available to students,
particularly in public schools and the private sector.
Table 3. Personalized Instruction

1. I got more interested in the
lesson when the teacher 3.45 0.60 Strongly Agree
personalized the instruction.
2. The personalized instruction
of the teacher is clear and
3.33 0.53 Strongly Agree
easy to follow and
understand.
3. The activities that are made
personalized by the teacher
are more creative and 3.25 0.67 Agree
attractive than the traditional
method.
4. Personal instruction is more
comprehensive, updated, and
39
based on present and real-life

situations.
5. My teacher uses and
integrates technological
3.18 0.50 Agree
learning materials in the
instruction of our lesson.
Legend: (3.26-4.0) Strongly Agree; (2.51-3.25) Agree; (1.76-2.50) Disagree; (1.0-
1.75) Strongly Disagree
The table above shows that students get more interested in the lesson
that the teacher personalized the instruction with and is interpreted as Strongly
Agreed with a mean of 3.45 and a standard deviation of 0.60. On the other hand,
with a mean of 3.18 and a standard deviation of 0.50, respondents find the
teacher who uses and integrates technological learning materials in lesson
instruction to be strongly agreeable. The general average of personalized
instruction is 3.29 and a standard deviation of 0.42 with a verbal interpretation of
Strongly Agree. Personalized instruction seeks to tailor learning to students'
interests, needs, strengths, and availability. Personalized education has a lot of
promise, but it also has some drawbacks. Teachers might not have enough
training to make this approach manageable to all students considering their
capacity and knowledge on how to use this kind of learning materials.
Table 4. Suitable Learning Materials

1. Traditional learning materials
like books are still important
40
and needed to facilitate

learning.
2. Some of the important and
cheapest learning materials
are available in the house and
natural environment.
3. Computer and smartphones
are the most suitable among
3.25 0.44 Agree
any technological learning
materials.
4. The public and private sector
give their assistance to
provide necessary and 3.18 0.50 Agree
suitable learning materials to
facilitate learning.
5. Some students don‟t have the
capability and resources to
3.13 0.65 Agree
have suitable learning
materials.
Appropriate learning materials should be suitable for the student's age,
emotional and social development, and points of view or ability level to use this
type of technological learning materials. According to Table 4, traditional learning
materials such as books are still important and needed to facilitate learning, with
a mean of 3.63 and a standard deviation of 0.54, to which the respondents
strongly agree with. The final point is that some students lack the capability and
41
resources to access appropriate learning materials, with a mean of 3.13 and a
standard deviation of 0.65 and a verbal interpretation of Strongly Agree. With a
verbal interpretation of Strongly Agree, the average mean gained by appropriate
learning materials is 3.30 and a standard deviation of 0.30.
Table 5. Student Engagement

1. The technological learning
materials and technology
learning procedure help me to
be productive and adaptive to
new normal and changes in
schooling.
2. I am confident to do and
answer the following task and
3.23 0.66 Agree
instructions that the teacher
gave us to do.
3. I am more interested and
engage in those ativities with
3.18 0.50 Agree
the integration of technology
in them.
4. I am easily distracted by other
applications like virtual games 3.00 0.64 Agree
and social media.
5. I feel afraid every time that I
uesd technology in my task
because I‟m not used to it and 2.80 0.61 Agree
familiar with those kinds of
technology.
Average 3.12 0.29 Agree
42

The table above shows that with a mean of 3.40 and a standard deviation
of 0.50, respondents agree that the technological learning materials and
technology learning procedure helps students be productive and adaptive to a
new normal and changes in schooling. On the other hand, the participants were
afraid every time they used technology in their task because they were unfamiliar
with it, having a mean of 2.80, a standard deviation of 0.61, and a verbal
interpretation of Agree. With a verbal interpretation of Strongly Agree, the
respondents Agree with Student Engagement with an average mean of 3.12 and
a standard deviation of 0.29. Student engagement necessitates active learning in
which students participate in class rather than simply sitting quietly and listening
to the teacher or facilitator. A study found that involving students in the learning
process improves their attention and focus on the lesson, motivates them to use
higher-level critical thinking skills, and promotes meaningful learning
experiences.
Table 6. Feedback Mechanisms

1. I get positive feedback from my parents
and teacher because I used technology to
learn to do activities and be responsible
for using it.
2. I communicate with the teachers and my
3.15 0.62 Agree
classmates to express my thoughts and
43
comments or answer on a specific topic.

3. My classmate criticized me in terms of
grades because of the biased internet 2.43 0.71 Agree
connectivity.
4. I get negative comments in terms of
2.35 0.74 Agree
punctuality, honesty, and cheating.
5. I get a negative impact in terms of my
behavior towards how I used technology 2.30 0.69 Agree
in recreation compare to learning.
As seen above, the respondents agreed on the feedback mechanism with
an average of 2.71 and a standard deviation of 0.30. According to the
respondents, they receive positive feedback from their parents and teachers
because they can use technology to learn and do the activities assigned to them
and be responsible for using it, with a mean of 3.30 and a standard deviation of
0.61 a verbal interpretation of Strongly Agree. Finally, there is a negative impact
on student‟s behavior in terms of how they used technology in recreation versus
learning, with a mean of 2.30 and a standard deviation of 0.69. Positive feedback
mechanisms and negative feedback mechanisms are the two types of feedback
mechanisms. Positive feedback mechanisms are those in which the initial
stimulus is reinforced by the response, such as praising students and rewarding
them if they receive a higher score on their activity. Negative feedback
mechanisms produce a response that is polar opposite to the positive feedback
mechanism's initiating stimulus. This is the negative reaction of the student's

44
parents or teachers to the outcome of their actions, whether related to study or in
behavioral pattern.
Table 7. Performance

1. I feel more motivated and excited to
perform my task when I need to
Agree
integrate technological learning 3.23 0.58
materials into learning procedures or
any task.
2. I became more productive and can
easily integrate the technology on the
instruction of the teacher to make 3.20 0.46 Agree
learning more creative and innovative
base on the tend.
3. I am actively participating and
attending regularly to the online class 3.05 0.71 Agree
and do my task collaboratively.
4. Sometimes I pass my activity late
and not complete because of a lack
of understanding of the instruction, 2.90 0.71 Agree
poor internet connectivity, and lack of
technological learning materials.
5. I am lack confidence to participate in
any activity because of a lack of
technology learning materials and 2.83 0.71 Agree
understanding of technology learning
pocedures.
45
Table 7 displays the students' performance in terms of how they use
technological learning materials. The respondents find it agreeable with an
average mean of 3.04 and a standard deviation of 0.34. The respondents
strongly agree with the outlooks of the respondents motivation and excitement to
perform thier task when they need to integrate technological learning materials
into learning procedures or in any task with a mean of 3.23 and a standard
deviation of 0.58. The lack of confidence to participate in any activity got an
interpretation of agree because of the limitations and lack of technology learning
materials and understanding of technology learning procedures with a mean of
2.83 and a standard deviation of 0.71. Performance is defined as a formal and
productive procedure and skills to measure on student work and results based on
their task responsibilities the goal of this entire process of performance is to
improve the way a students understanding and critical thinking, collaboration, or
an organization functions, to achieve higher levels of satisfaction.
Table 8. Correlation of Independent Variables and Dependent Variables
Limitations in Using Student's Feedback Performance

Technological Learning Engagement Mechanisms
Materials
Personalized Instruction .520** -.052 .306
Suitable Learning Materials .515** -.068 .197
Organization and Accessibility .355* .104 .178

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
46
Table 8 shows the test for a significant relationship between the
respondents' technological learning material limitations and their technological
learning procedure. In terms of student engagement, personalized instruction
obtained a significance level of .520**, which is a moderately positive correlation
and higher than the assumed level of significance of 0.01 level, and feedback
mechanisms obtained a significance level of -.052 negligible correlation, while
performance obtained a significance level of .306 low positive correlation
indicator.
It only demonstrates that the limitations in using technological learning
materials in terms of personalized instruction in students engagement has a
positive effect in terms of students active participation in facilitation of learning
because the respondents are attracted to technology and want to experience it in
real life and be literate in the use of technological learning materials. While
personalized instruction in feedback mechanisms shows that it has no effect on
students' development and learning, feedback, whether positive or negative,
cannot measure students' knowledge and skills. In terms of personalized
instruction in student performance, the study found that it positively affects
students' actual demonstration of learning and makes doing their tasks or
activities much easier.
The study shows that in terms of suitable learning materials in students'
engagement, it has an important and necessary impact in students learning this
is the tools students need to acquire learning. Suitable learning materials indicate
a significance level of .515** moderate positive correlation in students

47
engagement while feedback mechanisms shows a significance level of -.068 a
negligible correlation and performance got .197 also a negligible correlation. On
the other hand, both suitable learning materials in terms of feedback
mechanisms and performance had no significant effect in students technological
learning procedure and in acquisition of learning. It is because students can
receive feedback without any technological and suitable learning materials using
of verbal communication while, in performance even without those appropriate
learning materials students can be creative and apply real life situations to
acquire learning and what is available in the environment and in school.
In terms of organization and accessibility, the indicator obtained a
significance level of .355* a low positive correlation in terms of student
engagement; this only means that with the help and assistance of any
organizations, it may help the learners have enough technological learning
materials that are appropriate in technology learning procedure and to have
materials that may help them in the facilitating of learning. The organization and
accessibility of feedback mechanisms received a significance level of .104 a
negligible correlation, which only means that it has no effect on the students'
reaction to the basis for improvement, criticism, and the students' observation,
which may affect the integration of students' learning. While in performance
shows a significance level of .178 also a negligible correlation; shows that in the
performance of the students in accomplishing activities and assigned tasks,
organization and accessibility has no major affect in terms of the performance of
the students, which means that, while we need the connection between other
48
organizations and the availability of those technological learning materials,
students can find ways and alternative solutions into their deficiency and
limitation.
All of these indicators revealed a moderate to low positive correlation, as
well as a negligible correlation, between respondents' technological learning
material limitations and technology learning procedure. Because the assumed
levels of significance at 0.05 and 0.01 are used to determine the level of
correlation, the majority of the indicators showed negligible correlation, followed
by moderate to low positive correlation, all of which were insignificant.

49
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is represented in three sections. The first section contributes
to an overall summary of the study followed by the summary of findings and their
conclusions. After this are the recommendations for future research.
Summary
The study dealt with the relationship between the technological learning
materials and the technology learning procedure of public elementary school
students in San Roque Elementary School of the Division of San Pablo City,
Laguna province, from 2020 to 2021. The respondents were the 40 public
elementary students of San Roque Elementary School. The study used a
descriptive research method using the Likert scale survey questionnaire
produced by the researcher. These questionnaires were administered through
Google Form because of the consideration of the health protocol while
conducting this research. All of the procedures turn out to be possible because of
the assistance of the Principal and the Head Teachers. The data obtained were
treated statistically using the weighted average mean.
Research Findings
The data were analyzed and the following results were formulated in
accordance with the specific questions given under the statement of the problem.
1. The organization and accessibility covered assistance from other entities
whether private or public sector, accessibility of the website of the
respected school to acquire information and to communicate,

50
technological learning materials that are available and can be used by the
learners, sufficient internet connection whether wifi or data, and lastly, the
school provided appropriate technological learning materials to use in their
lesson. The respondents assessed the organizational and accessibility in
verbal interpretation of strongly agree that their school provides necessary
and appropriate equipments in facilitating learning.
2. For personalized instruction, all the indicators evaluated obtained mean
which are verbally interpreted strongly agree as general everage. It shows
that the students interest increase, discussions are easy to understand
and instructions or lesson is easy to follow.
3. Suitable learning materials covered the importance of traditional learning
materials to facilitate learning, and cheapest learning materials are
available in natural environment. Also, the suitable technological learning
materials are those digital equipments that public or private sectors
provided. Necessary assistance, suitable learning materials, capability,
and reliable resources must be applied. The general average mean got an
interpretation of strongly agree.
4. The respondents general average mean got an interpretation of agree.
Student engagement covered productivity and adaptability to the new
normal and changes in schooling particularly on what technological
learning materials suited with these kind of settings or modalities.
Confidence level to do task and instructions, integration of technology to
the interest and engagement of the learners. Lastly, issue in focusing and
51
distraction by many factors, and familiarity with new kind of technology as
a platform in acquiring knowledge.
5. The respondents agreed on feedback mechanisms covered positive
feedback between studensts, parents, and teachers. The students
communication between the teachers and colleagues criticized in terms of
grades, biased internet connectivity, negative comments in terms of
punctuality, honesty, and cheating. Lastly, negative impact in terms of the
behavior of the students between technology use in learning to
recreational purposes.
6. For performance, all the indicators evaluated earned verbal interpretation
of agree. These covered outlooks of the respondents to perform task,
integrating technological learning materials into learning procedures,
participants productivity, and the integration of technology on the
instructional base activities also the latest trend, active participation,
collaboration, and regular online class attendance.
7. The test of significant relationship between the technological learning
materials limitations and technology learning procedure of the
respondents reveals that the study posits that there is no significant
relationship between the limitations in using technological learning
materials and the assessment of technology learning procedures. These
indicators revealed a moderate to low positive correlation and a negligible
correlation, and the assumed level of significance basis of determining
level of correlation, and majority of the indicators manifested a negligible

52
correlation followed by moderate to low positive correlation between
technological learning materials limitations and technology learning
procedure all insignificant.
Conclusions
In light of the above-mentioned findings, the following conclusion were
drawn;
1. The technological learning materials limitations do not have effect on the
technology learning procedure among the Grade 5 and Grade 6 students
of San Roque elementary school. This is because the respondents always
experience the technological learning materials limitations in their learning
environment and the facilitating of learning, which covered areas in
organization and accessibility, personalized instruction, and suitable
learning materials as well as the indicators of student engagement,
feedback mechanisms, and performance under the technology learning
procedure. The students and teachers find alternative and possible
solution by asking for support and assistance from every entities on the
private or public sector and intensive work and collaboration are reflective
of a pleasant learning condition. Being creative and finding alternative
solution in some limitations and effective instruction with or without the
technological learning materials is the innovative and practical approach.
2. The suitable and sufficient technological learning materials for the student
to facilitate technology learning procedure has a positive effect on their
development of skills in digital literacy among the Grade 5 and Grade 6

53
students of San Roque elementary school. The respondents have
moderate personal stress level in some areas evaluated namely
personalized instruction in terms of student engagement, and in suitable
learning materials in student engagement indicators. It means that suitable
and sufficient technological learning materials are effectively useful in the
facilitation of technology learning procedure to make learning more
comprehensive, attractive, innovative, and technology oriented that can
make the facilitation of learning more easier.
3. Technological learning materials limitations and technology learning
procedure is not related to the following personal stress indicators;
personalized instruction in terms of feedback mechanisms, suitable
learning materials in terms of feedback mechanisms and in performance,
organization and accessibility in terms of feedback mechanisms and in
performance.
Recommendations
In view of the findings, and conclusions, the following recommendations
are hereby given:
1. Improvements of the technological learning materials and technology
learning procedure focusing on each variable must be made.
2. Suitable technological learning materials may be provided to all the
students to use in their study, task, demonstration, or activities.

54
3. Organization and accessibility assistance from the community whether
public or private sectors and provide sufficient internet connectivity, open
communication and collaboration between all the stakeholders.
4. The researcher recommend to make the study more reliable and valid by
having a larger number of respondents for the future study. This study
only had 40 respondents and the consistency of the data is vulnerable
when compared into the larger sample size of the respondent.
5. The result of this study showed a moderate to low positive correlation and
a majority of negligible correlation between respondents technological
learning materials limitations and technology learning procedure, similar
study in other schools, sections, and major using the same instrument is
recommended to other researcher to validate the results of the study and
other studies correlating to technological learning materials limitations and
technology learning procedure and other factors that cause stress to the
respondents are also recommended.
6. Communicate with a school personel that is related with this kind of study
or consult any succeeding studies that could bring broader information
about this kind of topic.

55
Bibliography:
Baseer Hussain. (2017, March 27). Applications Platforms and different types of
Software. Retrieved May 20, 2021, from Medium website:
https://medium.com/computing-technology-with-it-
fundamentals/applications-platforms-and-different-types-of-software-
28f0fc1ef075
Can you help me write a problem statement for my thesis? (2018, January 23).
Retrieved May 7, 2021, from Editage Insights website:
https://www.editage.com/insights/can-you-help-me-write-a-problem-
statement-for-my
thesis#:~:text=A%20problem%20statement%20is%20a,problem%2C%20
and%20provides%20a%20hypothesis.
Chingos, M., Russ, G., Whitehurst, Agodini, R., Buckley, J., Cook, T., … Tappen,
M. (2012). CHOOSING BLINDLY Instructional Materials, Teacher
Effectiveness, and the Common Core Getty Images. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/0410_curriculum_chingos_whitehurst.pdf
DepEd. (2019). sample Thesis. Retrieved May 10, 2021, from Slideshare.net
website: https://www.slideshare.net/xharmaine116/sample-thesis-
77906645
Dillard, J. (2021). 5 Most Important Methods For Statistical Data Analysis.

Retrieved September 11, 2021, from Bigskyassociates.com website:
https://www.bigskyassociates.com/blog/bid/356764/5-Most-Important-
Methods-For-Statistical-Data-Analysis
EdReports. (2020). Retrieved May 5, 2021, from EdReports website:

https://www.edreports.org/impact/why-materials-matter#s02/s02-2
Fabros, M. (2019). International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications

Assistance Provided By Private Entities To Elementary Schools In San
Pablo City, Laguna. Retrieved from https://www.ijarp.org/published-
research-papers/dec2019/Assistance-Provided-By-Private-Entities-To-
Elementary-Schools-In-San-Pablo-City-Laguna.pdf
https://www.facebook.com/topnotcherph. (2018, November 3). Significance of the

Study Samples | Writing Tips | TOPNOTCHER PH. Retrieved May 8,
2021, from TOPNOTCHER PH website: https://topnotcher.ph/writing-the-
best-significance-of-the-study/
In Need of Definition: How to Select Terms to Define in your Dissertation -

Statistics Solutions. (2018, October 23). Retrieved May 8, 2021, from
56
Statistics Solutions website: https://www.statisticssolutions.com/in-need-

of-definition-how-to-select-terms-to-define-in-your-
dissertation/#:~:text=One%20section%20that%20is%20often,those%20co
ncepts%20in%20your%20study.
Introduction to the Type 1 Error. (2021). Retrieved September 11, 2021, from
Investopedia website:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/type_1_error.asp
Jackson, K., & Makarin, A. (2018). Can Online Off-the-Shelf Lessons Improve
Student Outcomes? Evidence from a Field Experiment. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(3), 226–254.
https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170211
Koehler, M., & Punya Mishra. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/29544/
Kurt, S. (2018, May 12). TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Framework - Educational Technology. Retrieved May 9, 2021, from
Educational Technology website:
https://educationaltechnology.net/technological-pedagogical-content-
knowledge-tpack-framework/
Likert Scale Questions: Definition, Examples and How To Use | Pollfish. (2020,
March 3). Retrieved September 11, 2021, from Pollfish Resources
website: https://resources.pollfish.com/market-research/rating-scales-and-
likert-scales/
McCombes, S. (2019, April 23). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps and
Examples. Retrieved May 7, 2021, from Scribbr website:
https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/hypotheses/
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with

technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge Growth in Teaching with

Technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299–317.
https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.44.3.c
Ordinal Scale: Definition and Examples | QuestionPro. (2018, June). Retrieved

September 11, 2021, from QuestionPro website:
https://www.questionpro.com/blog/ordinal-scale/
57
Ordinal Scale: Definition, Characteristics, & Uses - Voxco. (2021). Retrieved

September 11, 2021, from Voxco website:
https://www.voxco.com/blog/ordinal-scale/
Pritha Bhandari. (2020, June 12). An introduction to quantitative research.

Retrieved September 11, 2021, from Scribbr website:
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-research/
Pritha Bhandari. (2021, January 18). Type I and Type II errors. Retrieved
September 11, 2021, from Scribbr website:
https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/type-i-and-type-ii-errors/
Standard Deviation. (2012). Retrieved September 19, 2021, from Nih.gov

website:
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/stats_tutorial/section2/mod8_sd.html
Statistical Treatment of Data - Explained & Example. (2020, September 8).

Retrieved September 11, 2021, from DiscoverPhDs website:
https://www.discoverphds.com/blog/statistical-treatment-of-
data#:~:text=Statistical%20treatment%20of%20data%20is,meaningless%
20numbers%20into%20meaningful%20output.
Steiner, D. (2018). The Learning Professional | www. 39(6). Retrieved from

https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/materials-
matter.pdf
Teacher Technology Change. (2014). Retrieved May 6, 2021, from Journal of

Research on Technology in Education website:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Thomas, L. (2020, May 20). Independent and Dependent Variables | Uses &
Examples. Retrieved May 7, 2021, from Scribbr website:
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/independent-and-dependent-
variables/
58
Republic of the Philippines

Province of Laguna
APPROVAL SHEET
The thesis entitled “TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING MATERIALS

LIMITATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY LEARNING PROCEDURE AMONG THE
GRADE 5 AND GRADE 6 STUDENTS OF SAN ROQUE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL” prepared and submitted by LIGAYA Q. KASILAG, in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, MAJOR IN GENERAL EDUCATION, is hereby recommended for
approval and acceptance.
JOHN VINCENT C. ALIAZAS

Thesis Adviser
-----------------------------------------------------------
Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of _____.
ALLEN E. PASIA, MA AERA JOYCE N. CIAR, MA

Member Member
CHESTER M. DEREQUITO, MAED DELON A. CHING, MAED

Member Member
ROSE R. ANDRADE, MAED

Research Coordinator
---------------------------------------------------------
Accepted and approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree BACHELOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, Major in GENERAL
EDUCATION at the Laguna State Polytechnic University, San Pablo City
Campus.
EDILBERTO Z. ANDAL, EdD
Associate Dean, CTE
DELON A. CHING, EdD __________________________

Chairperson, Research & Development Date Signed
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION NO.
59
Appendix B
Survey Approval
60
Appendix C
Survey Questionnaires
Technological Learning Materials Limitations and Technology Learning

Procedure Among the Grade 5 and Grade 6 Students of San Roque
Elementary School.
Name (Optional):__________________
Age:__________________________
Sex:
o Female
o Male
Grade Level:
o Grade 5
o Grade 6
School:_____________________
Instruction: Answer the following statement provided base on your own

experience, observation, and belief. Select and put a checkmark on the following
scale from Strongly Agree (4), Agree (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly Disagree (1)
that will best reflect your answers.
Organization and Accessibility

Statements Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree (3) (2) Disagree
(4) (1)
1) I have any technological
learning materials that I
can use or borrow in
learning.
2) My school provides
necessary and
appropriate technological
learning materials to use
61
in our lessons.
3) My school seeks for help

and assistance from other
organization private or
public sector that is
willing to help.
4) I have sufficient internet

connection like wifi or
data that I can use in the
5) I can easily access the

website of our school to
acquire information and
communicate with the
teacher to tell my
concern.
Personalized Instruction
(4) (1)
1) My teacher uses and
integrates technological
learning materials in the
instruction of our lesson.
2) I get more interested in

the lesson when the
teacher personalized the
instruction.
62
3) The personalized
instruction of the teacher
is clear and easy to follow
and understand.
4) The activities that are

made personalized by the
teacher are more creative
and attractive than the
traditional method.
5) Personal instruction is
more comprehensive,
updated, and base on the
present and real-life
situation.
Suitable Learning Materials

(4) (1)
1) Computer and
smartphones are the
most suitable among any
technological learning
materials.
2) Traditional learning
materials like books are
still important and needed
to facilitate learning.
3) Some of the important

63
and cheapest learning

materials are available in
the house and natural
environment.
4) Some students don‟t

have the capability and
resources to have any of
those suitable learning
materials.
5) The public and private

sector give their
assistance to provide
necessary and suitable
learning materials for the
Student Engagement
(4) (1)
1) I am confident to do and
answer the following task
and instructions that the
teacher gave us to do.
2) I am more interested and

engage in those activities
with the integration of
technology in them.
3) I am easily distracted by
64
other applications like

virtual games and social
media.
4) I feel afraid every time

that I used technology in
my task because I'm not
used to it and familiar
with those kinds of
technology.
5) The technological
learning materials and
technology learning
procedure helps me to be
productive and adaptive
to new normal and
changes in schooling.
Feedback Mechanisms
(4) (1)
1) I get positive feedback
from my parents and
teacher because I used
technology to learn to do
activities and be
responsible for using it.
2) My classmate criticized
me in terms of grades
because of the biased
65
internet connectivity.
3) I get a negative impact in

terms of my behavior
towards how I used
technology in recreation
compare to learning.
4) I get negative comments

in terms of punctuality,
honesty, and cheating.
5) I communicate with the

teachers and my
classmates to express my
thoughts and comments
or answer on a specific
topic.
Performance
(4) (1)
1) I am actively participating
and attending regularly to
the online class and do
my task collaboratively.
2) I am lack confidence to
participate in any activity
because of a lack of
technology learning
materials and
66
understanding of
technology learning
procedures.
3) I became more
productive and can easily
integrate the technology
on the instruction of the
teacher to make learning
more creative and
innovative base on the
trend.
4) Sometimes I pass my
activity late and not
complete because of a
lack of understanding of
the instruction, poor
internet connectivity, and
lack of technological
learning materials.
5) I feel more motivated and

excited to perform my
task when I need to
integrate technological
learning materials into
learning procedures or
any task.
67
Curriculum Vitae
LIGAYA QUINTELA KASILAG
BRGY. SAN JUAN SAN PABLO CITY,

LAGUNA, 4000
09501990196
ligayakasilag8@gmail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Age: 27
Birthday: August 05, 1994
Birthplace: San Pablo City District Hospital
Civil Status: Single
Gender: Female
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
Father’s Name: Nicanor G. Kasilag
Mother’s Name: Delia N. Quintela
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
TERTIARY: LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

Bachelor of Elementary Education
Major in General Education
San Pablo City, Laguna
2021-2022
SECONDARY: BUENAVISTA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL (ANNEX)

Magdalena, Laguna
2010-2011
ALTERNATIVE LEARNING SYSTEM ACCREDITATION AND EQUIVALENCY

(ALS A & E) TEST 2011-2012
68
PRIMARY: SAN JUAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

2007-2008
ONLINE TRAININGS AND SEMINARS ATTENDED:
 Certified Microsoft Innovative Educator

Completed: April 22, 2021
 Transform Learning with Microsoft Teams

 Use Power Automate to increase productivity

 Riding the Wakelet Wave!

 Countdown to successful family-teacher conferences

 Welcome to the learning path

 Teacher Tech Summit 2021

The following themes are;
o Designing learning for hybrid environments
o Engaging learners online
o How to create good digital content
o Assessing learning online
o Ensuring no-one is left behind in online learning
Completed: April 17, 2021 – Saturday
 General Assembly of 4th Year CTE Students and Parents

Completed: September 10, 2021
SKILLS:
o Ability to communicate both in written and oral

o Can speak English and Filipino
69
o Ability to use MS Word, MS Excel, Power Point and other

educational application also an internet explorer
o Composing and writing a short poem or story, culinary
AFFILIATION:
Futsal Varsity Player
REFERENCES:
Dr. Edilberto Z. Andal

Dean
College of Teacher Education
Prof. M.R. John Vincent C. Aliazas

Research Adviser
Hon. Mayor, Loreto “Amben” S. Amante

Municipal Mayor

Ligaya Q. Kasilag Technological Issue Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ligaya Q. Kasilag Technological Issue Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING MATERIALS LIMITATIONS AND

TECHNOLOGY LEARNING PROCEDURE AMONG THE GRADE 5 AND

Republic of the Philippines

The thesis entitled " TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING MATERIALS

JOHN VINCENT ALIAZAS, MA

ALLEN E. PASIA, MA DELON A. CHING, EdD

CHESTER M. DEREQUITO, MAEd AERA JOYCE N. CIAR, LPT

ROSE R. ANDRADE, MAEd

EDILBERTO Z. ANDAL, EdD

DELON A. CHING, EdD __________________________

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the following persons who

significantly, I would like to dedicate this to my mother in heaven. You are my

cannot express my gratitude to all of you; To all of my professors who guided me

The study was conducted to determine the technological learning materials

Keywords: Technological learning materials, technology learning procedure,

Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 4: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Chapter 5: SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CURRICULUM VITAE ..................................................................................67

Table 1: Distribution of the respondents.............................................36

Table 2: Organizations and Accessibility............................................37

Table 3: Personalized Instruction .......................................................38

Table 4: Suitable Learning Materials ..................................................39

Table 5: Student Engagement ...........................................................41

Table 6: Feedback Mechanisms ........................................................42

Table 8: Correlation of Independent Variables and Dependent Variables 45

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework ............................................................8

Figure 2: Research Paradigm .................................................................9

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Technology is not being used to support the kinds of instruction believed

to be most potent, despite an increase in computer access and technology

training (Teacher Technology Change, 2014). The researcher observed that

based on the new K to 12 curriculum standard, technology learning procedures

students should master or possess. We need to assess that development to fill

One of the most important things to notice is the limitation of technology

recognize the problem and find a way to resolve it.

Specialized learning materials are essential to acquire knowledge and

Based on the study Assistance Provided By Private Entities To

government or agency in the assistance provided by an organization or entities

fund is not enough to provide these kind of technological learning materials

students continue their learning by online or modular schooling where the

teacher use technological learning materials to facilitate learning, particularly for

develop their learning in technology literacy. After the critical evaluation of

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK, 2006), the

When technological learning materials are not available or insufficient, the

possibility of learning deficiency will occur. That is why it is important to give

ability to manipulate technological learning materials responsibly to give all the

students enough learning materials to use and knowledge to experience the

learning in the actual demonstration with interaction with the teacher, an

important process that the student needs to familiarize and experience to

creatively and to develop better opportunities in life in the future.

Background of the Study

Those public elementary schools cater to elementary education, consisting of 6

years of schooling, covering Grades 1 to 6 (Fabros, 2019). All of those public

allocated to them, also known as Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses

(MOOE). As defined by Llego (2015), the Maintenance and Other Operating

schools. Without enough and sufficient funds, an organization cannot start

needs of an organization, specifically the public school sector, to provide quality

transformative way. Teachers rely on a wide variety of online resources, with

teachers report using a variety of instructional materials from a wide array of

or digital interaction; self-developed and district-selected materials; and those