Technical Support Availability and Academic Confidence on the Technological Overdependence of Teachers in Central Schools

This study determined the effect of technical support availability and academic confidence on the technological overdependence of teachers in central schools in the Division of Bukidnon for the school year 2025–2026. Specifically, it examined the levels of technical support availability, academic confidence, and technological overdependence, as well as the relationships among these variables and the best predictor of technological overdependence. The study employed a descriptive-correlational research design involving 304 teacher-respondents. Data were gathered using a structured questionnaire adapted from established instruments, including the study of Joo et al. (2016) on technostress, the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), and the technostress model of Tarafdar et al. (2007). Technological overdependence in this study is operationally defined as excessive reliance on digital tools characterized by instructional disruption, pedagogical substitution, anxiety and stress, and diminished adaptability. Data were analyzed using mean, Pearson Product-Moment Correlation, and multiple regression analysis. Findings revealed that both technical support availability and academic confidence were high, while technological overdependence was moderate. Correlation analysis showed that technical support availability has no significant relationship with technological overdependence. In contrast, academic confidence has a significant negative relationship, indicating that higher academic confidence is associated with lower technological overdependence. Regression analysis further revealed that instructional competence is the best predictor of technological overdependence. The study concludes that while technology is essential in instruction, teachers’ academic confidence—particularly instructional competence—reduces their tendency toward technological overdependence. However, due to the correlational nature of the design, causal relationships cannot be established. Future studies incorporating variables such as digital literacy and institutional support are recommended to provide a more comprehensive understanding of technological dependence.

technostress, teacher self-efficacy, instructional competence

1. Abu Bakar, N. S., Maat, S. M., & Rosli, R. (2018). A systematic review of teacher’s self-efficacy and technology integration. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(8), 540–557. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i8/4611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adnan, M., & Boz, M. (2022). Post-pandemic educational technology: A boon or a bane? International Journal of Educational Research, 110, 102123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102123 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Almerino, J., Reyes, T., & Santos, L. (2022). Perceived technical support and teacher anxiety in digital instruction. Philippine Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 45–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Almerino, P. M., Abellana, D. P. M., & Ocampo, L. A. (2020). Assessing the level of readiness and acceptance of higher education faculty members in the Philippines towards technology-enhanced teaching and learning. Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 5(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Almerino, P. M., Ocampo, L. A., & Abellana, D. P. M. (2022). Technical support and teacher technostress: A Philippine perspective. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 51(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395221122375 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. American Psychological Association. (2023). APA dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Barni, D., Danioni, F., & Benevene, P. (2019). Teachers’ self-efficacy: The role of personal and job resources. Social Psychology of Education, 22(1), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9479-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Blau, I., Grinberg, R., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2023). From integration to dependency: Digital pedagogy and teacher flexibility. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, 103945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103945 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Burić, I., & Kim, L. E. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: An analysis using multilevel structural equation modeling. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cabaron, R. R. (2023). Influence of self-efficacy on teaching digital technology as perceived by maritime education faculty in the Philippines. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(5), 78–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Collie, R. J. (2021). COVID-19 and teachers’ somatic burden, stress, and emotional exhaustion: Examining the role of principal leadership and workplace buoyancy. AERA Open, 7, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Cruz, M. A. (2024). Collaborative professional development and teacher self-efficacy in Philippine secondary schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Department of Education (DepEd). (2023). National Learning Recovery Plan: Leveraging technology for learning (DepEd Order No. 013, s. 2023). Department of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Eballa, A. D., Montañez, E. D., & Eballa, E. A. (2023). Development and validation of the Teachers’ Professional Life Cycle Scale. International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 5(2), 130–143. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Eballa, M., Montañez, P., & Eballa, L. (2023). Institutional support and teacher job satisfaction in Philippine public schools. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 11(1), 34–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 3–15). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Farrell, C., & Marsh, J. (2023). Reliability engineering in educational technology support. Journal of Educational Administration, 61(3), 245–263. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Farrell, R., & Marsh, H. (2023). Reliability engineering for educational technologies: Preventive maintenance and predictive troubleshooting. Journal of Educational Technology Management, 5(1), 12–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Garcia, L., & Fernandez, R. (2024). Instructional fragility and digital reliance among Filipino teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(1), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Garcia, M., & Oducado, R. (2024). Technical support responsiveness and faculty satisfaction in Philippine higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 78–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Garcia, P., & Fernandez, R. (2024). Instructional fragility and overreliance on prepackaged digital resources: Evidence from the Philippines. Philippine Studies in Education, 6(1), 15–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Gavade, S., Sidotam, A., & Varanasi, P. (2023). Pandemic, hybrid teaching and sociotechnical support practices in low-income Indian schools. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 3125–3146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11234-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Guo, J., Pi, Z., & Wang, J. (2024). Teacher self-efficacy in digital environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 112–134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Guo, L., Pi, S., & Wang, Y. (2024). Teacher self-efficacy and contextual influences: A meta-analysis of interventions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, 103888. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Howard, L., Martinez, S., & O’Connor, P. (2021). Technostress and the professoriate: A post-COVID-19 chronicle. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(7), 1375–1390. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Howard, S. K., Curwood, J. S., & McGraw, K. (2021). Technology integration and the tragedy of the commons: Teacher technostress and the impact on pedagogical risk-taking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1723–1741. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Hwang, G. J., & Lee, H. Y. (2023). The paradox of smart classrooms: Technology richness and pedagogical poverty. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2), 567–589. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Inoncillo, F. A. (2024). Perceived learning management system effectiveness, teacher self-efficacy, and work engagement: Groundwork for an upskilling plan. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 11(3), 560–584. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018—Information technology—Service management—Part 1: Service management system requirements. ISO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. International Society for Technology in Education. (2023). Building teacher confidence in the digital age: ISTE standards in practice. ISTE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, N. H. (2020). The effects of secondary teachers’ technostress on the intention to use technology in South Korea. Computers & Education, 150, 103833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103833 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, N. H. (2023). Organizational support as a buffer against technostress: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107532. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Kim, L. E., & Asbury, K. (2020). “Like a rug had been pulled from under you”: The impact of COVID-19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 1062–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12381 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Kim, M., & Song, J. (2023). Subject matter expertise as a foundation for critical technology integration. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(2), 85–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Lazarides, R., Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2020). Teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy, perceived classroom management and teaching contexts from beginning until mid-career. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101346 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Li, L., & Wang, X. (2021). Technostress inhibitors and creators and their impacts on university teachers’ work performance in higher education. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00625-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Llego, M. A. (2023). On-site technical support as a barrier to effective technology use in Philippine public schools. Philippine Educational Review, 17(2), 101–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Macasio, J. (2022). Bridging the support gap: Technical personnel in Philippine schools. Foundation for Information Technology Education and Development Journal, 3(1), 14–27.* [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Mayantao, L. C., & Tantiado, R. Q. (2024). Teachers’ utilization of digital tools and confidence in technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 98(2), 45–62.* [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Mercado, J., & Ocampo, L. (2024). Digital substitution in Philippine classrooms: A mixed-methods study. Proceedings of the Philippine Education Research Conference, Manila. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Moore, M. G., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Ortega-Dela Cruz, C. J. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and work engagement in the new normal. The Philippine Educator, 45(2), 23–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Paller, M., & Quirap, L. (2024). Teachers’ resilience and self-efficacy: Predictors of adaptability in Cagayan de Oro City. Mindanao Journal of Education, 2(1), 40–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Paran, A. P., Abad, M. G., & Pacheco, R. A. (2023). Challenges in technology integration for elementary teachers. Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(12), 1–12. https://cognizancejournal.com/vol4issue12/V4I1212.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2019). Professional development for pedagogical confidence: Beyond technical training. Teacher Development, 23(4), 421–439. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Rodriguez-Barboza, A. (2022). Exploring technostress effects on teachers’ job performance: Evidence from Peru. Journal of Educational Technology Studies, 12(3), 211–229.* [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2022). Instructional technology coaches and the pedagogical integration of digital tools. Computers & Education, 181, 104407. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Selwyn, N. (2022). The future of the professor: Technology and the transformation of academic work. Learning, Media and Technology, 47(3), 321–335. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Tango, J. D., Lansangan, R. V., & Ancheta Jr., R. A. (2021). Unpacking the dimensions of technostress among teachers in the Philippines: A sequential exploratory study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(10), 1–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta – Techno eustress, techno distress, and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Timotheou, S., Nikiforidou, Z., & Pange, J. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education: A review of opportunities and challenges. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1247. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121247 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Trust, T., & Prestridge, S. (2021). The rise of teacher-powered professional development: Peer-supported technical networks. Professional Development in Education, 47(2–3), 225–240. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2020). Teacher efficacy: Two decades of reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99, 103255. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. UNESCO. (2018). ICT competency framework for teachers (Version 3). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Valencia, M. S. P., Garrucha, S. P., & Villalongja, S. S. (2023). Self-efficacy beliefs and teaching performance of practice teachers. PRISM Journal, 4(1), 12–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Wang, Q., et al. (2023). Understanding the impact of technostress on university teachers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2021). Teacher self-efficacy in the context of educational innovation. Educational Research Review, 34, 100400. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Zhang, H. (2025). The paradox of self-efficacy and technological dependence: Understanding digital reliance in the age of AI. Computers in Human Behavior, 153, 107289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.107289 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Zheng, X., & Wang, L. (2022). Digital burnout in K–12 teachers: From content curators to learning facilitators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 115, 103732. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study