PHOTO HERE

TECHNOLOGICAL READINESS AND

PARTICIPATION
OF STUDENTS IN ONLINE CLASSES
Researchers
Jailah P. Reyes jailahreyes1799@gmail.com
Domingo C. Sanot Jr domingosanot30@gmail.com
Candy F. Santo candysanto846@gmail.com
 
 Overview
Overview

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Hypotheses

Theoretical Framework

Paradigm of the Study

Methodology

Results and Discussion

Summary of findings, conclusions and Recommendations

 Introduction
Introduction

Face to face classes Shift into a Flexible

COVID-19 emerges
disallow Learning
 Dr. Raul F. Muyong, SUC President III
Iloilo Science and Technology University
We fully support the direction of Chair J. Prospero
"Popoy" de Vera III on flexible learning and the
way forward for HEI’s".

CHED Chairman, Dr. J. Prospero deVera III (2021).

"From now on, flexible learning will be the norm. There is no going back to the
traditional, full packed face-to-face classrooms. The Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) has adopted a policy that flexible learning will continue in School Year 2021 and
thereafter”

STUDENT A
 Good internet connectivity
 Have a suitable gadgets
 Familiar with the online apps
STUDENT B
x Don’t have/unstable internet
connection
x Don’t have a suitable gadgets
x Not familiar with the online apps
 Theoretical
TheoreticalFramework
Framework

The study was anchored from:

2. Cognitive Flexibility Theory

1. Transactional Distance Theory (TD)

4. Theory of Connectivism
3. The Stimulus- Response

 Conceptual Framework
Independent Variable
Technological readiness
and participation in
online class in terms of :
 Internet Connectivity
 Types of Gadget Used
 Familiarity with Online
Application
 
 ConceptualFramework
Dependent Variable
Level of Technological Readiness
 Highly Mastered
 Mastered
 Moderately Mastered
 Slightly Mastered
 Not Mastered
Level of Participation in
Online Class
 Very High Participation
 High Participation
 Moderate Participation
 Low Participation
 Very low Participation
  Statementofofthe
 Statement theProblem
Problem
• Determine the level of technological readiness and participation
of BSED major in Science students enrolled in Online Classes of
Iloilo Science and Technology University Miagao Campus for the
Academic Year 2020-2021.
1. What is the level of technological readiness of the respondents as a whole and when
classified as to internet connectivity, types of gadget used and familiarity with online
application?
2. What is the level of participation of the respondents as a whole and when classified into
internet connectivity, types of gadget used and familiarity with online application?
3.Is there a significant difference in the level of technological readiness of the respondents
when classified into internet connectivity, types of gadget used and familiarity with online
application?
4. Isthere a significant difference in the level of participation of respondents when classified
into internet connectivity, types of gadget used and familiarity with online application?
 Hypotheses
Hypotheses

Based on the abovementioned statement of the problem, this

study tested the following null hypotheses:

1. There is no significant difference in the level of technological readiness of

the respondents when classified into internet connectivity, types of gadget
used and familiarity with online application?
2. There is no significant difference in the level of participation of the
respondents when classified into internet connectivity, types of gadget used
and familiarity with online application?
  Results
Resultsand
andDiscussion
Discussion

Level of Technological Readiness

A.1 Level of Technological Readiness of the students when
classified into Type of Internet Connectivity
Oberiri et al. (2018)
Internet Connectivity M SD Description
Postpaid Wi-Fi 5.00 - • Internet mobile data
Highly Mastered among college
Prepaid Wi-Fi 4.07 0.744
Mastered /university students has
Mobile Data 3.60 0.866 brought a profound and
Mastered diverse pool of
Piso Wi-Fi 3.33 0.577 knowledge
Moderately Mastered
Others (Pocket Wi- 3.50 0.707
Fi) Mastered
 Table 2
A.2 Level of Technological Readiness of the Students when classified
into Types of Gadgets Used

Type of Gadgets Used M SD Description

Personal Laptop 3.56 0.866 Mastered

Ngampornchai and Adams (2016)

• The devices usually used Personal Desktop 5.00 - Highly Mastered

by the students to connect
to the Internet by the
students were smartphone
with (71 %) from the Android Cellphone Mastered
3.60 0.765
respondents response
 A.3 Level of Technological Readiness of the Students when
classified into Familiarity with Online Application

Familiarity with Online M SD Description

Application

Google Search 4.83 0.452 Very Familiar

(Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008)
Google Mail 4.61 0.732 Very Familiar
• Facebook has tools to support
Google Meet 4.70 0.551 Very Familiar
educational activities by facilitating,
interaction, collaboration, active Google Classroom 3.60 0.833 Moderately Familiar
participation and resource sharing in a
critical-thinking environment Facebook 4.96 0.205 Very Familiar

Messenger 4.96 0.205 Very Familiar

Moodle (VLE platform) 4.67 0.610 Very Familiar

  Level of Participation
B.1 Level of Participation of the Students when classified into Types of
Internet Connectivity

Internet Connectivity M SD Description Alshahrani et al. (2017

Postpaid Wi-Fi 5.00 - Very High Participation • The use of the internet has
a profound impact on
Prepaid Wi-Fi 4.07 0.651 High Participation students' academic self-
confidence, self-reliance
Mobile Data 3.77 0.608 High Participation and student lecturer
connectedness.
Piso Wi-Fi 3.33 1.100 Moderate Participation

Others (Pocket Wi-Fi) 3.50 .000 High Participation

 B.2 Level of Participation of the Students when classified into Types
Gadgets Used

Types of Gadgets Used M SD Description

Personal Laptop 3.89 0.782 High Participation

Fernandez (2018)
• The students were motivated
by the cell phone’s use in Personal Desktop 5.00 - Very High Participation
learning.
• Majority of the respondents
believed that mobile phone
usage in learning is very Android Cellphone 3.90 0.635 High Participation
effective
 B.3 Level of Participation of the Students when classified into
Familiarity with Online Application
Familiarity M SD Description
with Online
Application
Google Search 0.452 Very High
4.83
Participation
Google Mail 0.732 Very High
4.61
Participation
Google Meet 0.551 Very High
Heggart and Yoo (2018) 4.70
Participation
Google 0.833 High Participation
• Google Classroom and other Classroom 3.60
online learning platforms
Facebook 0.205 Very High
increased student participation 4.96
Participation
and learning and improved
classroom dynamics Messenger 0.205 Very High
4.96
Participation

Moodle (VLE 0.610 Very High

4.67
platform) Participation
 Differences in the Level of Technological Readiness in Terms of
Internet Connectivity, Type of Gadgets and Familiarity with Online
Application

Variable Description M(SD) F(68,1) p Description

Internet Connectivity 1.44 0.344 Not significant

Postpaid Wi-Fi 5.00

Prepaid Wi-Fi 4.07(0.799)
Mobile Data 3.68(0.806)
Piso- Wi-Fi 3.33(0.577)
Others 3.50(0.707)
Types of Gadget Used 2.161 0.123 Not Significant
Personal Laptop 3.56(0.866)
Personal Desktop 5.00
Android Cellphone 3.81(0.765)
Familiarity with Online
Application 3.205 0.078 Not Significant
Google Search 4.83(0.452)
Google Mail 4.61(0.732)
Google Meet 4.70(0.551)
Google Classroom 4.20(0.883)
Facebook 4.96(0.205)
 C.2 Differences in the Level of Participation in Terms of Internet
Connectivity, Type of Gadgets and Familiarity with Online Application

Variable Description M(SD) F(68,1) P Description

Internet Connectivity 1.008 0.371 Not Significant

Postpaid Wi-Fi 5.00

Prepaid Wi-Fi 4.07(0.651)
Mobile Data 3.68(0.608)
Piso- Wi-Fi 3.33(1.100)
Others 3.50(0.000)

Types of Gadget 1.154 0.339 Not Significant

Personal Laptop 3.56(0.782)

Personal Desktop 5.00
Android Cellphone 3.81(0.635)

Familiarity with Online

Application 3.205 0.0163 Significant
Google Search 4.83(0.452)
Google Mail 4.61(0.732)
Google Meet 4.70(0.551)
Google Classroom 4.20(0.883)
Facebook 4.96(0.205)
  Conclusions
 Conclusions

In view of the preceding findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

• The BSED major in Science students are technologically prepared and ready in online
classes. Students must have the acceptance and awareness of this online education. In
this vein they must have the passion and dedication to become computer literate so that
they can maximize the use of technology.
• The strong relationships of attitude and at the same time, e-learning self-efficacy and
subjective norm to use this online classes were the strong predictors that this new
platform of learning environment will be viewed efficient and convenient.
• The BSED major in Science students are highly participative in their
online classes. This can be attributed that majority of the respondents own
a cell phone preferably the android cell phones.
• According to them, it is convenient, cost-effective, portable and can be
used to communicate anywhere as long as network connectivity is
available. 
• On the hand, the students acknowledge the more effective functions of
laptops and desktop however, it is less preferred because it is expensive.
 Recommendations
Recommendations
Based on the summary the findings and conclusions, the researchers
recommend the following:

Campus Administrator (Vice Presidents, Deans,

Department Chairperson
Commission on Higher Education

Policy Maker
Curriculum Planner
 Teachers Parents

Students Future researchers

 References
References

• Agboola I.O. Use of print and electronic resources by agricultural science students in Nigerian universities. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 2010;32(1):62–65. [Google Scholar]
• Ahlgali,Maher. 2008. User Acceptance of Prepaid Wireless Internet Technology (Guthrie College in UUM) As Case Study. Universiti Utara Malaysia. Thesis.
• Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays inhonor
of Robert Glaser . Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314-325.
Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no2/croxton_0614.pdf
• Damnjanovic, V., Jednak, S., &Mijatovic, I. (2015). Factors affecting the effectiveness and use of Moodle: students' perception. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4),
496-514.
• Fernandez, Simon, 2018. University Student’s Perspectives on Using Cell Phones in Classrooms - Are They Dialing up Disaster? The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, volume 17 issue 1.
• Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50, 906-914. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006
• https://edam.com.tr/estp
• Küsell. J, Martin.F, Markic S.(2020, October 31). University Students’ Readiness for Using digital Media in Online Learning- Comparison Germany and USA. Retrieved from
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
• Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students' computer-supported
collaborativelearning. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 487-509.
• Maxwell, N. G. (2007). From Facebook to Folsom Prison Blues: How banning laptops in the classroom made me a better law school teacher. Richmond Journal of Law &
Technology, 14(2).
• Mullons, Gloria D., (2017). Digitally Segregated Understanding Technology Readiness In Preparation For Higher Education Success.
Dissertations. 211. Retrieve from https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/211
• Ngampornchai, A., Adams, J. (2016). Student’s Acceptance and Readiness for E-Learning in Northeastern Thailand: International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education
• Oberiri Destiny, Apuke, O. D and Iyendo, T.O. 2018. University students' usage of the internet resources for research and learning: forms of
access and perceptions of utility. Heliyon. 4(12): e01052. doi: 10.1016/j/heliyon2018.e01052
• Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of transactional presence. Open Learning, 17(2), 121–137.
• Shuang G., Law K., Niu B. (2019) Investigating Self-directed Learning and Technology Readiness in Blended Learning. Gang et.al International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://creative.commons.org//license/byl4.01
• Souleles, N. (2012). Perceptions of Undergraduate Graphic Design Students on the Educational Potential of Facebook. Research in Learning
Technology,20.https://doi.org/10.340/rlt.v20i0.17490
• Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Wahab, A. (2020). Online and Remote Learning in Higher Education Institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 Pandemic. Retrieve from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/