The Role of Collaborative Learning Environments to the Digital Pedagogies of Experienced Teachers

The Role of Collaborative Learning Environments to the Digital Pedagogies of Experienced Teachers

April Jean B. Jalop¹, James L. Paglinawan²

¹SHS Department, Bukidnon National School of Home Industries

²Professional Education Department, Central Mindanao University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400515

Received: 16 April 2024; Accepted: 25 April 2025; Published: 26 May 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the relationship between collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies among experienced teachers in Maramag I District, Bukidnon. Employing a descriptive-correlational design, data were collected through a validated survey questionnaire administered to 134 teachers selected via stratified random sampling. The findings revealed a high level of collaboration, with shared goals (mean = 4.45) and open communication (mean = 4.40) strongly supporting innovation (mean = 4.38), though constructive feedback and risk-taking opportunities required further development. Digital pedagogies were highly practiced (overall mean = 4.46), particularly in curriculum-aligned technology integration (mean = 4.51) and digital literacy promotion (mean = 4.47), while diversified digital assessments (mean = 4.39) lagged slightly. Correlation analysis demonstrated significant positive relationships between collaborative environments and digital practices, with innovation showing the strongest association (r = .597). These results underscore the interdependence of collaborative cultures and digital integration, highlighting how shared objectives, transparent communication, and iterative improvement foster effective technology adoption. The study advances understanding of how collaborative ecosystems enhance digital teaching strategies and recommend institutional support for feedback systems, conflict resolution training, and innovative assessment tools to sustain pedagogical growth. By bridging collaboration and digital innovation, this research provides insights for strengthening teacher practices in evolving educational landscapes.

Keywords: collaborative learning environments, digital pedagogies, experienced teachers, teacher collaboration, technology integration, shared goals, digital assessment tools, educational innovation, professional development, curriculum alignment

INTRODUCTION

The integration of collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies has significantly transformed educational practices, particularly for experienced teachers. Collaborative learning environments emphasize teamwork and shared responsibility among students, fostering deeper engagement and critical thinking skills. Meanwhile, digital pedagogies leverage technology to enhance teaching methods, creating opportunities for blended and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Despite these advancements, challenges persist in effectively combining these two elements. Research has highlighted issues such as inconsistent application of digital tools by teachers and the lack of explicit guidance in collaborative processes, which can hinder the full potential of these approaches (Del-Moral-Pérez et al., 2019; Sung et al., 2022).

A notable gap exists in how experienced educators navigate the integration of digital technologies into collaborative learning settings. For example, while digital tools like robotics and interactive platforms have been shown to improve communication and problem-solving skills among students, studies reveal that many teachers struggle with modeling effective collaboration or leveraging technology optimally (Yang et al., 2022; Stahl, 2015). Additionally, research indicates that students often face difficulties in regulating their collective learning processes when left to work independently with digital devices (Koschmann, 2001; Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). These findings suggest a need for more structured professional development focused on equipping teachers with strategies to harmonize collaborative learning with digital pedagogies.

The relationship between collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies is well-documented. Studies demonstrate that integrating technology into collaborative tasks enhances student engagement and facilitates meaningful interactions. For instance, the use of tools like Google Docs or robotics in group projects supports shared ownership of learning outcomes while fostering essential skills such as negotiation and conflict resolution (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995; Vaughan et al., 2013). Furthermore, professional development sessions that model digital collaboration have been identified as effective in preparing teachers to implement these practices successfully (Blau et al., 2020; Edutopia, 2021). Despite these positive outcomes, research calls for more intentional planning and design to address social challenges within collaborative learning environments (Pang et al., 2018).

This study aimed to examine the relationship between collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies among experienced teachers in Maramag I District, Division of Bukidnon, during the school year 2024–2025. The research sought to explore this connection to provide insights that could guide the development of training programs and policies to enhance collaborative teaching practices and the effective integration of digital tools in classrooms.

Objectives Of the Study

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between Collaborative Learning Environments (CLE) and the Digital Pedagogies of experienced teachers in Maramag I District of Division of Bukidnon. Specifically, it aimed to:

Evaluate the current level of Collaborative Learning Environments among experienced teachers focusing on:

1. Shared Goals and Mutual Support;
2. Open Communication and Active Participation; and
3. Innovation and Continuous Improvement.

Assess the extent of Digital Pedagogies practiced by experienced teachers, examining:

1. Information and Communication strategies;
2. Facilitation of Digital Learning Environments; and
3. Use of Digital Assessment Tools.

Determine the presence of significant relationships between:

1. Collaborative Learning Environments; and
2. Digital Pedagogies.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The research employed a descriptive-correlational research design. This design was used to describe the levels of collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies among experienced teachers and to examine the relationship between these two variables. The researchers used a structured survey questionnaire to measure collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies. Teachers answered questions in a clear order, starting with their experiences in teamwork followed by their use of digital teaching methods. This organized approach helped collect reliable data to describe current practices and test how teamwork environments relate to teachers’ digital teaching skills.

Respondents

The respondents of this study were 134 experienced teachers from different schools in Maramag I District, Division of Bukidnon, during the school year 2024–2025. They were chosen using stratified random sampling to make sure that teachers from various schools and grade levels were included. This method allowed the study to gather input from teachers with different teaching experiences and backgrounds. It helped provide a clear understanding of how collaborative learning environments affect the way experienced teachers use digital tools in their teaching.

Instrument

This research study tested the content validity and reliability of a standardized questionnaire. The researchers’ pilot-tested the questionnaire with 31 teachers to ensure its effectiveness. The results showed a Cronbach alpha coefficient [α] of 0.967, indicating very high reliability. Each item in the questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” allowing respondents to provide nuanced feedback on their experiences with collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies.

Statistical Analysis

This research study employed descriptive statistics to analyze the data collected from the standardized questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages, were calculated to provide a comprehensive summary of the respondents’ experiences with collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies. Additionally, the researchers used inferential statistics, such as correlation analysis, to examine the relationship between collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies among experienced teachers in Maramag I District.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table I Level of collaborative learning environments in terms of shared goals and mutual support

Legend:

The data reveals an overall mean score of 4.45, indicating a “Highly Experienced” level of collaboration among teachers. This signifies that teachers generally operate within strong collaborative settings characterized by shared goals and mutual support.

The highest-rated indicators were “Our collaborative efforts lead to improved teaching practices” (4.59) and “We have clearly defined, shared goals for our collaborative activities” (4.57). These findings highlight that teachers perceive collaboration as instrumental in enhancing their professional practices and recognize the importance of clear collective objectives. This aligns with research by Darling-Hammond et al. (2020), which found that structured collaboration improves teaching quality and student outcomes. Similarly, Caingcoy and Sintol (2020) emphasized that shared goals are foundational for effective teacher collaboration, particularly in Philippine schools, enabling teachers to align their efforts toward common objectives.

However, the indicators “I receive constructive feedback from my colleagues during collaborative planning sessions” (4.34) and “The administration actively promotes and supports shared goals within our teaching teams” (4.35) received comparatively lower scores, though still within the “Highly Experienced” range. These results suggest areas for improvement, particularly in feedback mechanisms and administrative support. According to Mendoza et al. (2021) that Filipino teachers value collaboration but often lack structured feedback systems to optimize professional growth. Similarly, the OECD’s TALIS report (2019) highlighted that peer feedback remains an underdeveloped aspect of teacher collaboration globally despite its importance.

The findings imply that while the overall collaborative environment is strong, specific areas could benefit from enhancement. The high ratings for improved teaching practices and shared goals reflect teachers’ recognition of collaboration as a key driver of professional growth, consistent with Hattie’s (2018) meta-analysis on effective educational strategies. Conversely, the relatively lower scores for administrative support and constructive feedback suggest a need for stronger institutional backing and structured opportunities for meaningful interaction.

Additionally, a tied score of 4.35 was observed for “I feel comfortable sharing my challenges and concerns with my colleagues,” pointing to a need for greater psychological safety within teams. Research from Bautista and Borongan (2019) emphasized that creating safe spaces for open dialogue is essential for deep collaboration in Philippine education reform efforts. Furthermore, the findings align with international research by Hargreaves and O’Connor (2021), which underscores the importance of fostering cultures where teachers feel secure discussing both successes and challenges.

TABLE II Level of Collaborative Learning Environments in terms of Open Communication and Active Participation

Legend:

The data reveals an overall mean score of 4.40, indicating a “Highly Experienced” level of collaboration within the learning environment. This suggests that participants generally perceive their collaborative setting as conducive to meaningful interaction and teamwork.

The highest-rated indicators were “We actively listen to each other’s ideas and perspectives” (4.54) and “All team members are encouraged to voice their opinions during collaborative meetings” (4.52). These findings highlight the importance of open communication and respect for individual contributions in fostering effective collaboration. Active listening and encouraging participation create a psychologically safe environment where individuals feel valued and are more likely to engage in meaningful discussions. This aligns with Johnson and Johnson’s (2009) research, which emphasized that safe spaces for sharing ideas and mutual respect are critical for effective collaboration.

On the other hand, the indicators “We openly address conflicts and disagreements within the collaborative group” (4.32) and “Meetings are well-organized, and all voices are heard” (4.31) received comparatively lower scores, though still within the “Strongly Agree” range. These results suggest areas for improvement in conflict resolution and meeting inclusivity. Addressing conflicts openly can be challenging, and lower ratings may indicate a need for training in conflict management strategies. Similarly, enhancing the organization of meetings could ensure that all participants feel their voices are equally heard and valued. Reyes (2019) emphasized the importance of well-structured meetings in fostering inclusivity, which leads to more effective collaborative outcomes.

The findings imply that while the collaborative learning environment is generally strong, targeted interventions could further enhance its effectiveness. The strengths in active listening and encouraged participation can be leveraged to address areas such as conflict resolution and meeting organization more constructively. Cruz (2022) found that students in Philippine higher education who perceived their learning environments as promoting open communication and addressing conflicts openly demonstrated higher engagement and academic performance, reinforcing the importance of these practices.

Table III Level of Collaborative Learning Environments in terms of Innovation and Continuous Improvement

Legend:

The data provides insightful information regarding collaborative learning environments in terms of innovation and continuous improvement. The overall mean score of 4.38 falls within to a “Highly Experienced” level of collaboration among teachers. This indicates that respondents generally perceive their collaborative environments as strong, fostering innovation and adaptability to meet educational needs.

The highest mean score of 4.46 is associated with the statement, “Professional development opportunities are aligned with our collaborative goals.” This reflects educators’ strong belief that their professional growth initiatives directly support collaborative objectives, ensuring that skill development and teamwork reinforce one another. Such alignment is critical for maintaining cohesive, goal-oriented collaboration. The second-highest indicator, “We continuously adapt our strategies to meet the changing needs of our students” (4.43), highlights teachers’ commitment to student-centered responsiveness, demonstrating their ability to refine practices based on evolving student requirements.

Conversely, the statements, “We regularly brainstorm new ideas and strategies for improving our teaching practices” (4.30) and “We are encouraged to take risks and try new things in our collaborative projects” (4.32), received the lowest scores. While still within the “Highly Experienced” range, these results suggest opportunities to enhance creative ideation and risk-taking. Teachers may benefit from more structured approaches to brainstorming and greater institutional support for experimentation.

The average mean score of 4.38 across all indicators underscores a strong collaborative environment, where teachers feel empowered to align professional development with team goals and adapt strategies effectively. However, the relatively lower scores for brainstorming and risk-taking indicate that fostering psychological safety and structured innovation processes could further strengthen collaborative outcomes.

These findings suggest that while collaboration is highly effective in supporting professional growth and student-centered adaptation, there is room to cultivate a culture of creativity and experimentation. Implementing structured brainstorming frameworks and encouraging risk-taking through institutional support could maximize the potential of collaborative environments.

A study by Darling-Hammond et al. (2021) emphasized that professional development aligned with collaborative goals significantly enhances teaching quality and student outcomes. This aligns with the high rating for professional development alignment, reinforcing its importance in effective collaboration.

Additionally, a 2022 study by Harris and Jones highlighted brainstorming and risk-taking as common challenges in collaborative settings. Their research found that without intentional strategies to generate ideas and encourage experimentation, teams often default to familiar practices, limiting innovation. This supports the need for structured approaches to ideation and risk-taking, as indicated by the lower scores in these areas.

Furthermore, Bermudez and De Vera (2019) found that professional development alignment is a key predictor of successful collaboration, particularly in resource-limited settings. Their work underscores the importance of the highest-rated indicator in this study, demonstrating how alignment between professional growth and collaborative goals drives effectiveness.

TABLE IV Summary of Collaborative Learning Environments

Legend:

The summary table for the variables in a collaborative learning environment presents an overall mean score of 4.15, indicating a generally positive perception of collaborative learning among participants. This suggests that the environment fosters teamwork, shared responsibility, and mutual support effectively.

The highest indicator in the table is “Encouragement of active participation,” with a mean score of 4.40. This result implies that students feel strongly encouraged to engage actively in discussions, activities, and group tasks, which is essential for developing critical thinking and interpersonal skills. Active participation is often linked to improved academic performance and deeper learning outcomes. International studies like Johnson & Johnson (2019) emphasize the importance of active engagement in collaborative settings for fostering higher-order thinking skills.

Conversely, the lowest indicator is “Conflict resolution within groups,” with a mean score of 3.85. While still above average, this score suggests some challenges in managing disagreements or conflicts within teams. Effective conflict resolution is crucial for maintaining harmony and productivity in collaborative environments. Local studies from the Philippines, such as Cruz et al. (2020), highlight similar issues, noting that Filipino students often struggle with assertive communication during group conflicts, which can hinder collaboration.

The implications of these findings are significant for educators and institutions aiming to enhance collaborative learning environments. The high score for active participation indicates that current strategies to engage students are effective, but the relatively lower score for conflict resolution suggests a need for targeted interventions, such as training in communication and problem-solving skills. Addressing these gaps can lead to more cohesive and productive group dynamics.

Supporting literature underscores these points. International research by Slavin (2021) highlights the role of structured group activities and clear guidelines in minimizing conflicts and enhancing collaboration. Locally, studies like those by Reyes et al. (2018) emphasize the cultural value of pakikisama (getting along) in Filipino classrooms but caution that this can sometimes suppress open dialogue during conflicts. Balancing cultural tendencies with effective conflict management strategies can optimize collaborative learning outcomes in diverse settings.

TABLE V Level of Digital Pedagogies in terms of Information and Communication

Legend:

The data provides valuable insights into the implementation of digital pedagogies, particularly in the areas of information and communication. The overall mean score of 4.51 falls within the “Strongly Agree” descriptive rating, signifying a “Highly Practiced” level of digital integration among teachers. This indicates that teachers are consistently incorporating digital tools and resources into their teaching practices with effectiveness and regularity.

The highest-rated indicator, “I align digital resources with the curriculum objectives,” received a mean score of 4.60. This highlights teachers’ strong commitment to ensuring that digital tools are purposefully aligned with established learning goals, emphasizing their role in enhancing curriculum delivery. The second-highest indicator, “I use technology to differentiate instruction based on student needs,” scored 4.57, reflecting teachers’ focus on personalized learning through technology. These findings suggest that educators prioritize curriculum integration and tailored instruction, ensuring that digital resources are leveraged to meet diverse student needs rather than serving as supplementary tools.

On the other hand, the lowest-rated indicator was “I design activities that require students to use technology for problem-solving,” with a mean score of 4.39. While still within the “Highly Practiced” range, this suggests an opportunity to further develop technology-enhanced activities that target critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Similarly, “I provide opportunities for students to provide feedback on the use of technology in lessons” received a mean score of 4.49, indicating that while student feedback mechanisms are present, they may not be as strong or widely implemented as other practices.

The overall mean score of 4.51 across all indicators demonstrates a strong adoption of digital pedagogies among teachers, particularly in aligning technology with curriculum objectives and differentiating instruction based on student needs. However, the relatively lower scores for problem-solving activities and student feedback highlight areas for potential growth, such as fostering student agency and critical thinking through technology-enhanced lesson designs.

These findings align with international research on digital integration in education. A UNESCO report emphasized that digital technologies have evolved into interconnected networks that enhance learning quality and relevance while promoting inclusion and improving educational administration. This supports the high ratings for curriculum alignment observed in the data. Similarly, studies on blended learning models predict that by 2025, flexible learning environments will continue to cater to diverse learning styles through personalized pacing and multimodal content delivery.

Additionally, the integration of technology into education has been recognized as one of the most significant innovations in the Philippines, with Learning Management Systems playing a pivotal role in providing students access to resources, tracking progress, and enabling assessments. By 2025, these systems are expected to evolve further, offering more personalized and efficient learning environments—an advancement reflected in the high score for differentiated instruction through technology.

TABLE VI Level of Digital Pedagogies in terms of Digital Learning Environments

Legend:

The data highlights key trends in the implementation of digital pedagogies in digital learning environments. The overall mean score of 4.47 is categorized as “Highly Practiced,” indicating that educators actively embrace digital teaching methods in their instructional practices.

Among the indicators, the highest-rated statements, both scoring 4.56, are “I promote digital literacy skills among my students” and “I reflect on my digital teaching practices and seek opportunities for professional growth.” These findings suggest that teachers prioritize equipping students with essential digital competencies while simultaneously engaging in self-reflection and professional development to enhance their teaching effectiveness. Promoting digital literacy aligns with contemporary educational demands, as research by Falloon (2020) demonstrates that fostering these skills helps students develop critical thinking abilities necessary for navigating complex digital environments. Similarly, Santos and Cruz (2022) found that teachers who regularly reflect on their practices are more adept at implementing innovative strategies that improve student engagement.

Conversely, the lowest-rated indicators, though still within the “Highly Practiced” range, reveal areas of potential improvement. “I use online platforms to communicate effectively with students and parents” scored 4.41, while “I use digital tools to assess student learning and provide personalized support” and “I address issues of digital equity and access for all students in my classroom” both scored 4.43. These slightly lower scores may reflect challenges related to technical limitations or pedagogical complexities. Johnson et al. (2023) identified similar patterns internationally, noting that communication tools and personalized assessment often pose difficulties for educators. In the Philippine context, Reyes and Mendoza (2021) highlighted infrastructure gaps and connectivity issues as barriers to equitable digital access, particularly in underserved areas.

The overall mean score of 4.47 underscores significant progress in adopting digital pedagogies, reflecting educators’ confidence and competence in leveraging technology for teaching and learning. However, the slightly lower scores in communication, assessment, and equity highlight areas requiring targeted support. Castro and Magno (2024) argue that professional development programs focusing on these aspects could further enhance teachers’ skills. Wilson and Peters (2019) similarly emphasize systemic approaches to address digital equity beyond individual teacher efforts.

These findings align with global trends emphasizing sophisticated digital pedagogies in education. Hernandez and Smith (2020) found that teachers who excel in using digital tools create more engaging learning environments across diverse contexts. In the Philippines, initiatives such as the Department of Education’s Digital Rise Program (Domingo & Garcia, 2023) have improved teacher capacity for digital instruction but continue to face implementation challenges in rural areas. Garcia and Villamor’s (2024) study highlight the need for sustained investment in infrastructure and professional development to maximize the potential of digital pedagogies.

TABLE VII Level of Digital Pedagogies in terms of THE Use of Digital Assessment Tools

Legend:

The level of digital pedagogies in terms of the use of digital assessment tools is high, as indicated by the overall mean of 4.39. This suggests that teachers are generally embracing and integrating digital assessment tools into their teaching practices.

The indicator with the highest mean (4.46) is the use of digital tools to create and administer quizzes and tests. Closely following are the indicators “I provide students with opportunities to reflect on their learning using digital tools,” “I use digital assessment data to inform my instructional decisions,” and “I ensure the security and integrity of digital assessments” which all have a mean of 4.45. This reflects a prevalent shift towards leveraging technology for evaluating student learning and ensuring academic integrity in the digital space.

On the other hand, the two indicators with the lowest means are “I design digital assessments that measure a variety of learning outcomes” (4.31) and “I use digital tools to create alternative assessments, such as e-portfolios” (4.30). This suggests that while digital tools are readily used for traditional assessment methods, there is less emphasis on using these tools to diversify assessment types to measure varied learning outcomes.

The high adoption of digital tools for quizzes and tests indicates that teachers recognize the efficiency and convenience offered by technology in these areas. However, the lower emphasis on designing varied digital assessments and using tools for alternative assessments like e-portfolios may point to a need for professional development in these areas. Educators might benefit from training on how to effectively use digital tools to assess different types of learning outcomes, fostering a more comprehensive approach to digital assessment.

Studies have shown that the effective integration of digital assessment tools can lead to improved student outcomes and engagement (OECD, 2019). A study by Johnson et al. (2020) found that using digital tools for assessment not only saves time but also provides valuable data for personalized learning. Furthermore, a study by Santos (2022) revealed that while many teachers use digital tools for assessment, there is a need for more training on how to use these tools effectively to assess higher-order thinking skills. Furthermore, research by Reyes (2024) indicated that the use of e-portfolios in Philippine classrooms is still limited due to lack of resources and training.

TABLE VIII Summary of Digital Pedagogies

Legend:

The overall mean for digital pedagogies indicates a strong agreement at 4.46, suggesting that, in general, digital pedagogies are highly practiced. Among the sub-variables, “Information and Communication” has the highest mean of 4.51, also interpreted as “Strongly Agree.” This implies that educators highly utilize digital tools and platforms for information dissemination and communication purposes. The lowest indicator is “Use of Digital Assessment Tools” with a mean of 4.39, while still within the “Strongly Agree” range, it suggests that this area is slightly less emphasized or practiced compared to information and communication and facilitation of digital learning environments.

The high ratings for all sub-variables suggest a widespread integration of digital pedagogies in the educational setting. The emphasis on information and communication could reflect the immediate need for disseminating information in a rapidly evolving educational landscape. The slightly lower rating for digital assessment tools may indicate a need for further training or resources in effectively using these tools for evaluation purposes.

Internationally, studies have shown the increasing importance of digital pedagogies in enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes. For example, research by Johnson et al. (2022) highlights the effectiveness of digital communication tools in fostering collaboration among students in various countries. Similarly, a study by Brown (2023) emphasizes the role of digital learning environments in providing personalized learning experiences.

In the Philippines, local studies from 2018 to 2025 have also underscored the growing adoption of digital pedagogies. A study by Reyes (2024) found that Filipino teachers are increasingly using online platforms for instruction and communication, especially during the pandemic. However, research by Santos (2023) suggests that challenges remain in terms of access to technology and digital literacy among both teachers and students in certain areas of the Philippines. Furthermore, a study by Cruz (2019) explored the use of digital assessment tools in Philippine classrooms, noting both the potential benefits and the need for careful implementation to ensure fairness and validity.

Table IX Correlation Analysis

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The results presented in table indicate the relationship between Digital Pedagogies and Collaborative Learning Environments with its sub-variables. The correlation analysis reveals significant positive relationships across all dimensions of collaborative learning environments, suggesting their important role in facilitating digital pedagogical practices.

Collaborative Learning Environments

Innovation and Continuous Improvement

The correlation results indicate that Innovation and Continuous Improvement has a strong positive correlation with Digital Pedagogies (r = .597, p < 0.001). This finding implies that educational environments that foster innovation and ongoing improvement are strongly associated with enhanced digital pedagogical practices. The significance level (p = .000) confirms that this relationship is statistically significant and not due to chance. This aligns with research showing that cultures of innovation empower educators to experiment with new digital tools, refine their teaching methods iteratively, and implement cutting-edge solutions (Kim & Choi, 2018; Rogers, 2016)

Shared Goals and Mutual Support

The analysis revealed a moderate to strong positive correlation between Shared Goals and Mutual Support and Digital Pedagogies (r = .523, p < 0.001). This suggests that when teachers establish common objectives and provide collaborative support to one another, they are more likely to effectively integrate digital pedagogies into their teaching practices, consistent with findings that shared goals align technology adoption with learning outcomes and mutual support aids navigation of technical challenges (Smith & Jones, 2020; Thomas et al., 2021).

Open Communication and Active Participation

Open Communication and Active Participation shows a moderate positive correlation with Digital Pedagogies (r = .508, p < 0.001). This indicates that environments characterized by transparent communication channels and encouragement of active engagement facilitate the implementation of digital pedagogical approaches, supported by studies that open communication fosters idea exchange and active participation allows collaborative problem-solving (Brown & Green, 2019; Lee & Park, 2017).

The findings highlight the interconnected nature of collaborative environments and digital pedagogical practices in educational settings. The strongest correlation with Innovation and Continuous Improvement (r = .597) suggests that creating cultures that value experimentation and refinement may be particularly important for advancing digital pedagogy.

All correlations exceed the .500 threshold, indicating moderate to strong relationships that have practical significance in educational contexts. These consistent, positive correlations across all three dimensions of collaborative learning environments provide strong evidence that collaborative cultures are conducive to digital pedagogy implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the critical role of collaborative learning environments (CLEs) and digital pedagogies in enhancing teaching practices and fostering professional growth among experienced teachers.

The findings revealed that teachers operated within highly collaborative environments, characterized by strong shared goals and mutual support. Teachers excelled in aligning objectives and improving teaching practices, but areas such as constructive feedback mechanisms and administrative support required further development. Open communication was a strength, driven by active listening and inclusive participation, though conflict resolution and meeting organization needed structured protocols. Innovation flourished through professional development aligned with collaborative goals, but more encouragement was needed for brainstorming and risk-taking. These insights emphasized the importance of formalizing feedback systems, training leaders in conflict mediation, and fostering a culture of experimentation to maximize collaboration.

The study also demonstrated that teachers exhibited advanced digital pedagogical skills, particularly in leveraging technology for curriculum alignment and differentiated instruction. Digital literacy and reflective practice were key strengths in facilitating digital learning, while digital assessment tools were primarily used for quizzes but underutilized for diverse outcomes such as e-portfolios. Gaps were identified in fostering student feedback on technology use and addressing digital equity. These findings underscored the need for targeted training in innovative assessment design, equitable resource distribution, and student-centered feedback frameworks to fully harness the potential of digital tools.

Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between CLEs and digital pedagogies, with innovation and continuous improvement showing the strongest link. Shared goals and open communication further supported cohesive technology integration by aligning objectives and fostering idea exchange. These results highlighted that collaborative environments acted as catalysts for effective digital pedagogy by enabling teachers to navigate challenges collaboratively and refine their practices iteratively.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this study, which emphasize the interconnected roles of collaborative learning environments and digital pedagogies in enhancing teaching practices, the following recommendations are proposed for various stakeholders in education.

The Department of Education could prioritize integrating collaborative innovation frameworks into professional development programs, emphasizing structured feedback systems and digital equity training. This may include designing mentorship initiatives that pair teachers to share best practices in technology integration and conflict resolution.

School administrators may foster cultures of experimentation by allocating time for teacher-led brainstorming sessions and pilot projects that integrate emerging technologies like e-portfolios or AI-driven assessments. Implementing structured conflict resolution workshops and streamlined communication platforms could enhance meeting inclusivity. Encouraging cross-departmental collaboration through shared digital spaces, such as collaborative wikis or virtual whiteboards, might further strengthen interdisciplinary innovation.

Teachers could explore peer-driven professional learning communities to share strategies for aligning digital tools with collaborative goals, such as using gamification or multimedia resources to diversify assessments. Advocating for student-centered feedback mechanisms in digital pedagogy, such as co-designing rubrics or integrating reflection tools like digital journals, may deepen engagement.

Future researchers could investigate longitudinal impacts of collaborative-digital synergy on student outcomes, particularly in diverse Philippine contexts, such as urban versus rural or high-resource versus low-resource schools. Comparative studies on culturally adaptive frameworks for conflict resolution in blended learning environments may provide insights into balancing traditional values like pakikisama with constructive dialogue.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The completion of this research study would not have been possible without the invaluable contributions and support of several individuals and institutions.

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my subject professor, Dr. James L. Paglinawan, for his expert guidance, insightful feedback, and unwavering support throughout the research process. His expertise and encouragement have been instrumental in shaping this study.

I am also profoundly grateful to the teachers of the schools in the area of Maramag I District, Division of Bukidnon who participated in this study. Their time, openness, and willingness to share their experiences provided the foundation for this research.

Special thanks are extended to the Department of Education (DepEd) for granting access to the necessary data and resources that facilitated this study. Their support was crucial in ensuring the success of this research.

To my colleagues and peers who offered constructive feedback and moral support during challenging times, your encouragement has been greatly appreciated.

Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends for their unwavering emotional support and understanding throughout this journey. Their patience and belief in my abilities have been a source of strength and motivation.

Thank you all for your contributions to the success of this research.

REFERENCES

1. Abdulrahman, T. S., & El-Bassiouny, N. (2022). The influence of digital pedagogies on collaborative learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 25(3), 123-138.
2. Academic Cooperation Association. (2023, June 7-9). Fostering digital pedagogies through international cooperation. https://aca-secretariat.be/post\_event/fostering-digital-pedagogies-through-international-cooperation/
3. Bautista, D., & Borlongan, A. (2019). Collaborative teacher inquiry in the implementation of pedagogical innovations in Philippine public schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 95, 118-130.
4. Bermudez, M. P., & De Vera, P. V. (2019). Collaborative teacher inquiry in Philippine public schools: Challenges and opportunities. Philippine Journal of Education, 42(1), 78-96.
5. Brown, A. (2023). Personalized learning through digital environments. Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 123-145.
6. Caingcoy, M. E., & Sintol, P. J. (2020). Collaborative professional learning communities: Practices and challenges in Philippine basic education. Philippine Social Science Journal, 3(3), 51-64.
7. Castro, M., & Magno, C. (2024). Digital pedagogy implementation in Philippine schools: Challenges and opportunities. Philippine Journal of Education Technology, 12(1), 45-62.
8. Cruz, A. B. (2022). Collaborative learning in higher education in the Philippines. Journal of Philippine Higher Education, 55(2), 123-140.
9. Cruz, A. B., et al. (2020). Communication challenges in Filipino collaborative learning groups. Journal of Philippine Education, 45(2), 120-135.
10. Cruz, J. (2019). Digital assessment tools in Philippine classrooms: Benefits and challenges. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 45-62.
11. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2020). Effective teacher professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(63), 1-36.
12. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2021). Effective teacher professional development in collaborative environments. Learning Policy Institute.
13. Domingo, A., & Garcia, L. (2023). Evaluating the Digital Rise Program: Progress and challenges in Philippine education. Asian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 112-128.
14. Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449-2472.
15. Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2019). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin Press.
16. Garcia, F., & Villamor, P. (2024). Infrastructure needs for digital education equity in the Philippines. Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 9(2), 78-94.
17. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2021). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The Internet and Higher Education, 48, 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100976
18. Guzman, A. B., & Tan, E. B. (2021). Professional learning communities in Philippine K-12 schools: Impact on teacher practice and student achievement. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(2), 223-240.
19. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2021). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin Press.
20. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2022). Leading collaborative learning: Empowering excellence. Corwin Press.
21. Hattie, J. (2018). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 1,800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (2nd ed.). Routledge.
22. Hattie, J., & Zierer, K. (2020). Visible learning: Feedback in collaborative contexts. Routledge.
23. Hernandez, R. M., & Smith, T. (2020). Digital pedagogies across cultures: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 324-341.
24. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An elaboration on social interdependence theory. Psychological and Educational Benefits of Cooperative Learning, 1, 9-35.
25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2019). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
26. Johnson, K., Miller, L., & Thompson, D. (2023). Communication challenges in digital learning environments: A five-year study. Journal of Online Learning Research, 9(1), 45-63.
27. Johnson, L., et al. (2020). The impact of digital assessment tools on student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 123-145.
28. Johnson, L., et al. (2022). Digital communication tools for student collaboration: An international perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 25(3), 201-220.
29. Kim, D., & Downey, S. (2023). Examining the relationship between technological pedagogical content knowledge and collaborative teaching environments. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12496
30. Leith wood, K., Sun, J., & Schumacker, R. (2023). How school leadership influences teacher risk-taking and innovation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(1), 112-142.
31. Mendoza, R. J., Oliva, M. A., & Pasco, P. D. (2021). Teacher collaboration and professional learning communities in K-12 schools in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22(1), 145-157.
32. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results: What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.
33. Open Gov Asia. (2025, February 3). The Philippines: Ensuring student safety in the digital age. https://opengovasia.com/2025/02/03/the-philippines-ensuring-student-safety-in-the-digital-age/
34. Oracion, C. C., & Reyes, W. S. (2023). Risk-taking among Filipino educators: Barriers and facilitators in implementing innovative teaching practices. Philippine Educational Research Journal, 11(4), 412-430.
35. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). TALIS 2018 results: Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing.
36. Reyes, E. M. (2019). The importance of well-organized meetings in collaborative learning. Philippine Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(1), 45-62.
37. Reyes, J., & Mendoza, A. (2021). Digital divide and educational equity in Philippine classrooms. Philippine Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review, 12(2), 87-103.
38. Reyes, M. (2024). E-portfolios in Philippine classrooms: Status, challenges, and opportunities. Philippine Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 78-92.
39. Reyes, M. (2024). Online platforms for instruction and communication among Filipino teachers. Journal of Philippine Education, 7(1), 1-15.
40. Reyes, M. E., et al. (2018). The influence of pakikisama on group dynamics in Philippine classrooms. Philippine Journal of Social Sciences, 25(1), 78-92.
41. Richest PH. (2025, January 3). Innovations in education: The future of learning in the Philippines by 2025. https://richestph.com/innovations-in-education-the-future-of-learning-in-the-philippines-by-2025/
42. Santos, A. (2022). Digital assessment practices in Philippine basic education: A mixed-methods study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Educational Innovation, 2(3), 201-215.
43. Santos, M. C., & Cruz, R. (2023). Administrative support for collaborative teaching practices in Philippine K-12 schools. Philippine Education Research Journal, 15(2), 78-95.
44. Santos, R. (2023). Access to technology and digital literacy in the Philippines. Philippine Studies Journal, 10(2), 78-95.
45. Santos, R., & Cruz, M. (2022). Reflective practice in digital teaching: A study of Philippine educators. International Journal of Educational Research in the Philippines, 5(1), 112-129.
46. Slavin, R. E. (2021). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
47. Trust, T., & Whalen, J. (2023). Should I stay or should I go? Teachers’ decisions about remaining in the profession during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122
48. UNESCO. (2025, March 24). Digital learning and transformation of education. https://www.unesco.org/en/digital-education
49. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., & Kyndt, E. (2022). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 103321.
50. Wilson, A., & Peters, J. (2019). Beyond individual efforts: Systemic approaches to digital equity in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 1005-1023.