INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
The Impact of Technology Instruction Training Workshop to School  
Heads of Ministry of Basic, Higher and Technical Education  
(MBHTE) In Sulu  
Nurhassan S. Sappayani  
Engineering Department, Sulu State College,Jolo Sulu Jolo Sulu Philippines  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100144  
Received: 04 November 2025; Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 03 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This study examined how school administrators in Sulu's Ministry of Basic, Higher, and Technical Education  
(MBHTE) were affected by a training workshop on technology instruction. Using a descriptive research design  
with purposive sampling, the study was directed by three specific questions and one hypothesis. Eighty  
MBHTE-Sulu school heads took part in the survey. A structured questionnaire that was given out during the  
training workshop at the Sulu State College Gym was used to gather data. The collected data was processed  
using statistical analyses such as frequency distribution, percentage, mean, standard deviation, t-test, and  
ANOVA.  
The results showed that the participants' comprehension of the advantages of technology, especially when  
using Google Classroom and Zoom for online classes, was greatly improved by the technology instruction  
training. This strengthened their belief in the value of these tools and gave them more authority as leaders in  
technology. Interestingly, the study did not find any discernible differences in the impact of the workshop  
among school heads according to their years of service, gender, or prior computer experience.  
In light of these findings, the superintendent of the schools division should plan additional training for teachers  
and school administrators that emphasizes computer skills and a variety of software programs. The study also  
emphasized how technology can be used as a teaching tool to enhance the curriculum and raise academic  
achievement and learning outcomes for students. A mixed-methods approach could be used in future studies to  
investigate the effects of technology instruction as well as the opinions of school administrators regarding the  
use of technology in the educational setting. Furthermore, a study determining appropriate technology training  
courses for elementary schools in the Sulu Division is suggested.  
Keywords: workshop,MBHT,technology Instruction,Division of Sulu  
INTRODUCTION  
Since education is a fundamental aspect of human life, it is a topic that is both highly relevant and popular in  
today's world. Students' performance is greatly impacted by high-quality education, and its impact is increased  
when it is coupled with contemporary technology. Nowadays, technology is an unavoidable part of daily life,  
changing the way people communicate, work, and learn. It has an impact in many fields, providing fresh  
approaches and making many difficult tasks easier. Many facets of life, including education, have significantly  
improved as a result of the integration of technology, making learning simpler and more effective.Learning and  
information sharing have become more interactive activities as a result of the incorporation of technology into  
education. According to Robbin Ghosh (2013), the biggest impact of technology on education is that it has the  
ability to open up minds—to change educational thought from a regional approach to a globalized thought.  
Easy access to information, easy storage of information, improved presentation of information, interactive  
education, and the simplification and enjoyment of imparting knowledge are all effects of technology on  
education.Since the advent of technology, teaching and education (learning) have also undergone significant  
change. Schools and other institutions have adopted technology after realizing its necessity. It has been easier  
Page 1805  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
for teachers to instruct and for students to learn since computers were introduced into classrooms. Education  
and instruction became more efficient with the advent of 4 technology (Robbin Ghosh, 2013).The Department  
of Education (DepEd) has mandated online classes for this school year 2020–2021 in order to reconcile the  
students due to pandemic of COVID-19. The challenges faced by school administrators in the Ministry of Basic,  
Higher, and Technical Education (MBHTE-Sulu) today differ from those faced by their predecessors, especially  
when it comes to the use of technology in teaching and learning. They must establish themselves as leaders in  
technology. However, the majority of MBHTE-Sulu school administrators are not exposed to new technology  
because they only participate in educational training on how to use online learning platforms like Zoom and  
Google Classroom. In order to achieve this, the School of Computer Science, Information Technology and  
Engineering (CSITE) at Sulu State College, Jolo, Sulu, has organized and offered a training workshop on the  
use of technology as a pedagogy to MBHTE school principals in Sulu. This training session focuses on  
understanding how to make the most of technology (such as Zoom and Google Classroom) to optimize online  
instruction and learning, and school administrators to optimize technology utilization. However, since this is the  
primary criterion for assessment, the impact of the training workshop must be determined when this new  
technology is utilized in online learning.  
Statement of the Problem  
The purpose of this study was to assess how a workshop on technology instruction training affected school  
heads in Sulu's Ministry of Basic, Higher, and Technical Education (MBHTE) during the 2020–2021 academic  
year.  
Specifically, this research sought to address the following questions:  
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents concerning:  
Gender  
Age  
Highest Educational Attainment  
Years in service as a school head  
Technology training participation  
Level of computer experience  
2. How much influence does technology instruction training workshop have on school heads of the Ministry of  
Basic, Higher and Technical Education (MBHTE)?  
3. Do the Ministry of Basic, Higher, and Technical Education school heads' responses to the technology  
instruction training workshop differ significantly based on their gender, number of years of service as school  
heads, and degree of computer experience?  
Hypothesis:  
When data are grouped by school head's gender, years of service as a school head, and level of computer  
experience, there is no discernible difference in the impact of technology instruction training workshops among  
school heads of the Ministry of Basic, Higher, and Technical Education.  
Objectives of the Study  
This study was guided by the following objectives:  
1. To determine the demographic profile of the respondents, specifically their:  
Page 1806  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Gender  
Age  
Highest Educational Attainment  
Years in service as a school head  
Technology training participation  
Level of computer experience  
2. To evaluate the extent of the impact of technology instruction training workshop to school head of Ministry  
of Basic, Higher and Technical Education (MBHTE) in Sulu.  
3. To ascertain whether the impact of the technology instruction training workshop on school administrators in  
the Ministry of Basic, Higher, and Technical Education differs significantly based on their gender, number of  
years of experience as school heads, and degree of computer proficiency.  
Theoretical Framework  
The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), created by Hall & Hord (1987), serves as the foundation for  
this study's analysis of the effects of technology training. Research on the phases of teachers' concerns as they  
advance in their competence and skill as educators gave rise to this model. Since its inception, CBAM has  
received broad acceptance and empirical support in the fields of education and educational psychology. Its use  
outside of these domains, however, seems to be less well documented. For researchers from a variety of  
development-related disciplines, this model has a lot of promise, especially when it comes to better  
understanding the change process that comes with implementing technology. As was previously mentioned, this  
research suggests that teachers play a critical role in both the development of technology and effective  
instruction; their readiness to adapt is essential to the successful use of technology.  
From their early schooling through their teacher preparation, a teacher's viewpoint on effective teaching is  
frequently firmly anchored in their own educational experiences (Tunks & Weller, 2009). These deeply rooted  
beliefs are often very enduring. Teachers must be persuaded of the benefits of technology integration for it to be  
successful, and their own altered habits and behaviors can best show this. Bringing about change entails  
modifications to beliefs, deeds, attitudes, and behaviors. We have chosen to use the CBAM model in this case,  
even though Rogers' (1983) theory of technology diffusion provides a strong framework for comprehending  
change processes. In addition to offering a theoretical framework, this model offers a useful perspective for  
carrying out our investigation and analyzing the results.  
Importantly, our research can concentrate on teachers as the main agents of change thanks to the CBAM model  
(Donovan, Hartley & Struder, 2007). Because of this, it is a great framework for developing programs for  
teacher training and development and for putting new policies into effect (Khoboli & O'toole, 2011). The use of  
the CBAM model has expanded significantly in recent years, especially in research on computer integration in  
the classroom (Newhouse, 2001). This is because, rather than concentrating solely on the availability of new  
tools, directing technology interventions effectively necessitates an understanding of teachers' unique needs and  
interests. According to Loucks and Hall (1979), the CBAM model views change as an individual endeavor in  
which people alter their behavior either proactively or in response to external stimuli. While results like  
improvements in student test scores are frequently given priority by policymakers and aid  
organizations,technological interventions, our study specifically seeks to comprehend the effects of head  
teachers' training in technology instruction.This training has brought to light a number of important ideas. First  
of all, school principals play a crucial role in raising awareness of the integration of technology in the classroom  
because they understand that each person's journey with technology is very unique. Second, the training focuses  
on improving principals' collaborative effectiveness with peers as well as their own personal growth in terms of  
attitudes and abilities..  
Page 1807  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Conceptual Framework  
Our conceptual framework is organized around the profile of the head teacher and is based on the theory that  
was previously discussed. This comprises independent variables like age, gender, years of experience as a head  
teacher, highest educational level, participation in technology training, and degree of computer experience. The  
effect of the technology instruction training workshop on school heads at MBHTE in Sulu is the dependent  
variable.  
The relationship among the variables is shown in figure 1 below.  
Significance of the Study  
The results of this study are significant to the following:  
1. School head. This study would inform the school head of the usefulness of technology and the positive  
impact of technology in online education. It enriches the development of his/her skills on how to use technology  
as instruction.  
2. Lecturer. This study would enhanced professional career development of the lecturer by imparting  
information about technology which can improve knowledge of school heads by providing access to more and  
better educational resources, introducing applications like Google classroom and zoom use for good teaching  
practice to online class, catalyzing trainer‒to‒school head collaboration and increasing camaraderie.  
3. Schools Division Superintendent. This study would gave encouragement to Schools Division Superintendent  
of MBHTE in Sulu to facilitate another training workshop for teachers regarding the importance of technology  
in education.  
4. For Future Researchers. The insights generated by this study can provide a foundational resource for  
subsequent research investigating related topics.  
Scope and Delimitation of the Study  
This study was conducted at the Sulu State College Gym in Walled City, Jolo, Sulu. Every Saturday in  
September 2020, school administrators from various elementary and junior high schools, primarily in Sulu  
Province, were quarantined for a technology instruction training workshop. The impact of Google Classroom  
and Zoom on technology instruction is the main topic of this training session for Sulu's Ministry of Basic,  
Higher, and Technical Education (MBHTE) school administrators. As a result, it is restricted to sharing research  
on the effects of technology instruction following the training session. Future researchers will have to deal with  
other issues that might be considered researchable.  
The delimitation of the study was also based on the study population. The study's population was restricted to  
the MBHTE heads of the chosen Sulu schools. Therefore, it is not possible to immediately extrapolate the  
study's conclusions to all school administrators across the province of Sulu. Purposive sampling was used to  
select this sample, and the results could only provide us with a general understanding and insight.  
Page 1808  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE  
The researchers have examined many of the previous studies and literature related to the subject matter; the  
following is a review of those studies.  
Effective integration of technology into schools is primarily a function of school climate and the leadership  
style of school leaders. According to Watts (2009), when school leaders encourage the use of technology and  
there is an open climate for its use, implementation is evident. Technology-literate leaders can provide better  
support for technology integration. Kistler noted that the most effective way to encourage technology is if  
administrators are themselves competent users of technology.  
Proper planning and strong principal leadership are also central to achieving educational goals through  
technology use. Oblinger and colleagues (2005) stated that school leaders should have a strategic vision for  
technology, knowing what is available and how it can be used in instructional settings. Principals play a  
significant role in guiding schools towards technologically rich learning environments by staying current with  
developments.  
To lead in the 21st century, administrators must be aware of technology's potential and instructional uses.  
Administrators are not only managers but also communicators and coordinators of school life. Their leadership  
must demonstrate vision, innovation, and cultivation of change, particularly in introducing new technology  
(Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Davis, 2008). By modeling the use of technology, administrators show teachers  
how it augments instruction, not replaces them.  
Effective leadership involves promoting a culture of innovation. Leaders who know about and are favorably  
disposed towards technology help teachers to use it to enhance teaching and learning. Their example and  
commitment motivate others in the school community. Administrators must be willing to invest time and  
energy to make technology a part of the teaching process, rather than an occasional tool (Noeth & Volkov,  
2004).  
However, the majority of educators still feel unprepared to incorporate technology into instruction in spite of  
its growing presence in education. Since digital technology is now a part of daily life, educators must teach  
students how to use technology effectively. Instructional strategies must evolve, and instructors must alter their  
previous paradigms and accept the new technology-based methodologies (Sprague et al., 1998; Bitner &  
Bitner, 2002).  
Professional development is central to equipping teachers to incorporate technology into teaching. Teachers  
must first learn about the tools, and then they must learn how to incorporate them into their instructional  
strategies. Development activities need to be ongoing, practice-based, and connected to curriculum goals. One-  
shot workshops with no follow-up support rarely lead to classroom practice changes that are maintained (Slavit  
et al., 2003; Dexter et al., 1999).  
Most effective is collaborative, hands-on professional development. Teachers learn by being able to observe  
technology in use in other teachers' classrooms so they can see its impact (Lieberman, 1995; White et al.,  
2002). This begins to change their beliefs and motivates them to use technology in their own practice.  
Online teaching can be enhanced using technology with digital tools like Google Classroom and Zoom. These  
tools support real-time communication, collaboration, interactive feedback, and paperless classrooms.  
Teachers, if effectively trained to utilize these tools, can make classrooms interactive and engaging for  
students.  
As teachers move through stages of tech integration, they begin using it not just as a tool, but as a vehicle for  
creating more sophisticated learning environments. Technology becomes an integral part of teaching that  
maximizes student engagement, achievement, and preparation for a technology-driven world (Mills & Tincher,  
2003; Miller, 2001).  
Page 1809  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Effective use of technology demands long-term and high-quality professional development. Teachers take  
three to five years and at least 80 hours of training to reach advanced stages of integration (Becker, 1994).  
Professional development commonly collapses due to a lack of content relevance, absence of follow-up, or  
ignoring teachers' personal needs (Mouza, 2002/2003).  
Studies have shown principals' involvement in promoting technology. Serhan (2007) found that trained  
principals were more supportive and ready to utilize technology at schools. Others, including Smith (2011) and  
Bobbera (2013), found principal leadership and professional development to be positively influencing  
classroom technology utilization.  
Finally, research stresses that educators need focused, skill-level training and ongoing support. Crane (2005)  
and Pierson (2001) discovered that teachers want specific ideas for integrating tech, especially younger  
instructors who might be familiar with tools but not their instructional use. Through high-quality professional  
development, instructors become more confident and are more likely to use digital content, which positively  
affects student learning outcomes (USDOE, 2000).  
METHODOLOGY  
This chapter details the study's methodology, including the research design, the setting of the study, the  
identification and selection of respondents, the instruments used for data collection, the procedure for  
gathering data, and the statistical methods applied to analyze the findings  
Research Design  
This study utilized a descriptive research design, employing a survey questionnaire as the primary data  
collection instrument. As noted by Kelley (2003), descriptive research aims to characterize and explain  
existing phenomena, focusing on current conditions, relationships, prevailing opinions, ongoing processes,  
observable effects, or emerging trends. This approach was deemed most suitable for evaluating the impact of  
the technology instruction training seminar on school principals within the Ministry of Basic, Higher, and  
Technical Education (MBHTE–Sulu). The questionnaire was specifically designed to gather the necessary  
information for the study.  
Research Locale  
This study was conducted at Sulu State College Gymnasium, Walled City, Jolo, Sulu where selected school  
heads’ participants were confined for technology instruction training workshop.  
Respondents of the Study  
The respondents of the study were the selected school heads of MBTHE–Sulu during this school year 2020–  
2021. A total of 80 school head-respondents were selected 23 purposely from the total population (N=300) of  
the schools’ administrators of MBTHE in the Province of Sulu.  
Sampling Design  
For this study, purposive sampling was employed to select the school heads from MBTHE in the Province of  
Sulu. This technique was chosen because it allows researchers to specifically target individuals who possess  
the desired knowledge relevant to the study's objectives (Myrna G. Cruz, et al., 2013)."  
Research Instrument  
The instrument used in the study is the Survey Questionnaire. The Survey Questionnaire patterned and adopted  
from worked of Connie M. Crane (2005). This survey questionnaire used to set up the socio-demographic  
profile of the school heads-respondents but suitable changes was made in order to fit the present study. The  
said instrument, Part I, is used to determine the gender, age, highest educational attainment, years in service as  
school head, technology training participated, and level of computer experience of the school heads. The 20  
Page 1810  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
items from the survey questionnaire, Part II, are the statements possible impact of technology instruction  
training workshop to school heads of MBTHE in Sulu.  
Data Gathering Procedure  
1. The first step applied by the researchers for launching the questionnaire was, secured a permit from the Vice  
President for Academic Affairs of Sulu State College, Jolo, Sulu by presenting a request letter signed by the  
researchers.  
2. After receiving the approved permission, the researchers presented the request permission to the Schools  
Division Superintendent of the Ministry of Basic, Higher and Technical Education (MBHTE) in Sulu Division  
before the survey was started in each selected respondent.  
3. Before the administration of the questionnaire, the researchers oriented the school heads-respondents on the  
direction and explained clearly some items so that correct and honest responses maybe obtain. There are 80  
school heads who serves as the respondents of the study. They answered the questions on the survey  
questionnaire distributed by the researchers. School head’s respondent was the one to determine the impact of  
technology instruction training workshop to him or her.  
4. When the task was duly accomplished, the questionnaire was retrieved, tabulated and were treated  
accordingly. It was submitted to the analysis of data assuming, that the collected data was normal, then it was  
interpreted and recommended based on the findings.  
Statistical Treatment of Data  
The collected data were analyzed using frequency and percentage to answer question number one (1). For  
question number two (2), mean and standard deviation were used to determine the level of the impact of  
technology instruction training workshop to school heads-participants and t-test and ANOVA were employed  
to answer question number three (3).  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIN  
This chapter presents the summarized results of the study on the impact of a technology instruction training  
workshop among school heads of the Ministry of Basic, Higher and Technical Education (MBHTE) in Sulu.  
The results are presented based on demographic profile, impact of the workshop, and the significant  
differences based on selected variables.  
Table 1. Demographic Profile of School Heads (n=80)  
Category  
Gender  
Variable  
Percentage (%)  
Male  
48.75  
51.25  
35  
Female  
Age  
30–40 years  
41+ years  
65  
Education  
Bachelor’s Only  
Bachelor’s + MA Units  
Master’s Degree  
18.75  
51.25  
25  
Page 1811  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Doctorate/Units  
≤2 years  
5
Years as Head  
20  
3–4 years  
43.75  
36.25  
43.75  
37.5  
18.75  
17.5  
53.75  
28.75  
5+ years  
Computer Training  
Computer Experience  
Basic Use  
Integration & Others  
None  
Beginner  
Intermediate  
Experienced  
Table 1 shows the demographic profile of 80 school heads. Most respondents were female (51.25%) and aged  
41 or older (65%). Over half held bachelor’s degrees with master’s units (51.25%), and 36.25% had served as  
school heads for 5 or more years. The majority had participated in basic computer training (43.75%) and  
identified themselves as intermediate users of computers (53.75%).  
A. Table 2. Summary of Impact Ratings  
Impact Area  
Mean  
4.69  
4.66  
4.60  
4.55  
4.33  
4.38  
4.35  
4.33  
Interpretation  
Strongly Agree  
Strongly Agree  
Strongly Agree  
Strongly Agree  
Agree  
Understanding tech benefits  
Improved tech knowledge  
Use of Zoom/Google Classroom  
Willingness to attend again  
Student achievement impact  
Leadership improvement  
Collaboration fostered  
Agree  
Agree  
Overall Weighted Mean  
Agree  
Table 2 summarizes the impact of the technology training workshop. Participants strongly agreed that the  
workshop improved their understanding of technology’s benefits and tools like Zoom and Google Classroom.  
The overall mean of 4.33 indicates a high level of agreement, suggesting the workshop positively influenced  
the school heads’ professional development and instructional leadership.  
Table 3. Impact by Gender  
Grouping Variable  
Gender  
Test Used  
t-test  
Computed Value  
1.068  
Critical Value  
2.024  
Interpretation  
Not Significant  
Page 1812  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Table 3 reveals no significant difference in workshop impact between male and female school heads (t=1.068  
< 2.024). This indicates that gender did not influence how participants perceived or benefited from the  
technology training.  
Table 4. Impact by Years of Service  
Grouping Variable Test Used  
Years in Service ANOVA  
Computed Value  
2.459  
Critical Value  
2.467  
Interpretation  
Not Significant  
Table 4 shows that the number of years served as a school head did not significantly affect the impact of the  
training (F=2.459 < 2.467). Regardless of experience level, all school heads equally benefited from the  
workshop.  
Table 5. Impact by Computer Experience  
Grouping Variable  
Test Used  
ANOVA  
Computed Value  
1.028  
Critical Value  
3.159  
Interpretation  
Computer Experience  
Not Significant  
Table 5 indicates that participants’ levels of computer experience (beginner, intermediate, or experienced) had  
no significant effect on their perception of the workshop's impact (F=1.028 < 3.159). All groups found the  
training beneficial.  
This research finding presents significant data about the demographic composition and technology exposure of  
school heads of the Ministry of Basic, Higher and Technical Education (MBHTE) in Sulu. Of the 80  
respondents, the gender distribution is somehow equal in terms of few differences between female and male  
respondents. Most of the school heads are above 41 years old, which means most of them belong to the more  
experienced category. Educationally, more than half hold a bachelor's degree with master's units, and many hold  
a master's or even a doctoral level of education. Service-wise years, most of them have been in administrative  
service for four years and above. Most of them have received basic computer training, while some have had  
exposure to specialized technology integration courses. However, 18.75% of the respondents have had no  
formal training but believe themselves to be computer literate. Regarding exposure to computers, more than half  
rated themselves as intermediate users, with few others as beginners or experts, reflecting a middle level of  
technological competence among the respondents.  
The second part of the study evaluated the impact of the technology instruction training workshop. The results  
indicated that the school administrators themselves concurred that the workshop significantly advanced their  
knowledge, skills, and attitudes in using technology. High mean scores indicate strong agreement that the  
training augmented their knowledge, more so of the benefits of technology, such as utilization of Google  
Classroom and Zoom. They also conceded that technology enhances collaboration, the students' engagement,  
and even leadership competencies. The majority of the respondents indicated enthusiasm to undertake future  
technology training as a sign of willingness to undertake continued professional development. Generally, the  
average weighted mean of 4.33 was reflective of high satisfaction with the training as well as its relevance to  
their professional roles. The findings validate that empowering school leaders to become technologically  
capable contributes to a culture of innovation and better instruction in schools.  
Lastly, the study ascertained whether perceived impact of the workshop differed significantly on the basis of  
gender, years of service, and computer experience. There were no significant differences in effect within these  
subgroups. Male and female administrators, administrators with different lengths of service and levels of  
computer experience, profited equally from the training. This indicates that the training was useful and  
transferable to all participants' context. Such findings affirm that well-designed and inclusive training programs  
are capable of yielding uniform results across various groups. It further points towards the necessity of  
enduring, fair access to technology-oriented professional development to school leaders in order to facilitate  
Page 1813  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
comprehensive integration of digital tools in the education sector. The congruence of findings between variables  
underscores the pivotal role of leadership in emulating and guiding successful technology integration in schools.  
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
This chapter synthesizes the key findings of the study, draws conclusions based on the accumulated results, and  
proposes recommendations to address the issues identified during the research process. The central aim of this  
work was to determine the impact of the technology instruction training workshop on school heads affiliated  
with the Ministry of Basic, Higher and Technical Education (MBHTE) in Sulu. Additionally, the study sought  
to uncover any significant variations in this impact when analyzed across different demographic factors,  
specifically the school heads' gender, tenure in service, and prior computer experience.  
Summary of Findings  
The demographic profile of the participating school heads indicated a majority were female, with most falling  
into the "41 years old and above" age bracket. Their educational attainment was predominantly a Bachelor's  
Degree, often supplemented with Master's degree units. In terms of service, the majority had served for five  
years or more. Regarding technology training, many participants had attended two previous training sessions,  
with some having participated in three to four. These trainings covered areas such as Basic Computer Use,  
Software Applications, Internet Usage, and Technology Integration, leading to an "Intermediate" rating for their  
experience level with technology.  
Verbally, the school heads "Agreed" that the technology instruction training workshop had a positive impact.  
Furthermore, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the impact of the technology  
instruction training workshop among the MBHTE–Sulu school heads when their responses were categorized by  
gender, years of service as a school head, or their level of computer experience.  
Conclusions  
Based on the findings presented above, the following conclusions were drawn: The technology instruction  
training workshop have positive impact to school heads of Ministry of Basic, Higher and Technical Education  
(MBHTE) because it enriches their understanding the benefits of technology on how to use Google classroom  
and zoom which convinced them more the value of using it in online class in this time of pandemic. The school  
heads of MBHTE–Sulu agreed that the impact technology instruction training workshop improved their  
knowledge in using technology and collaboration among school heads increases with this training which make  
them as technology leaders. As Crane, C. M. (2005) suggest that principals must be leaders of technology in  
their mission and vision for their schools. Since the finding was no significant differences exist of the impact of  
technology instruction training workshop among school heads of MBHTE–Sulu when data are classified  
according to their gender, years in service as school head, and level of computer experience. Therefore, this  
training workshop has almost same level of influence to the school heads.  
Recommendations  
Based on the study's findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are proposed:  
1. The Schools Division Superintendent should facilitate further training for school heads and teachers on  
computer usage and various software applications.  
2. Additional training should be provided for school heads and teachers, focusing on the impact and  
integrating technology in classrooms, and how to leverage technology to support learning and enhance  
the curriculum.  
3. Professional development training should be initiated for school heads and teachers concerning the  
influence of technology instruction on student success.  
Page 1814  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Although this study's findings indicate no significant differences in the impact of the technology instruction  
training workshop among MBHTE–Sulu school heads when data are categorized by gender, years in service, or  
computer experience level, further quantitative and qualitative investigations are recommended.  
This study suggests for further exploration:  
1. A similar study on the impact of technology instruction and the perception of school heads on their role and  
responsibility for integrating technology in the classroom.  
2. A study should be conducted to investigate the appropriate technology training program for elementary  
schools in the Division of Sulu.  
REFERENCES  
1. R. Anderson and S. Dexter, “School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence  
and effect,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 49–82, 2005.  
2. K. Banuglu, “School principals’ technology leadership competency and technology coordinatorship,”  
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 208–213, 2011.  
3. H. J. Becker, “How exemplary computer-using teachers differ,” Journal of Research on Computing in  
Education, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 291–321, 1994.  
4. B. Kistler (as cited in Starr, 2001, p. 35), computer technology coordinator at Tuckahoe School,  
Southampton, New York.  
5. B. Beyerbach, et al., “From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Pre-  
service teachers’ changing perceptions of technology infusion,” Journal of Technology and Teacher  
Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 105–127, 2001.  
6. N. Bitner and J. Bitner, “Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success,” Journal of  
Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 95–100, 2002.  
7. R. L. Bobbera, “Developing the principal’s capacity to lead technology integration within the school: An  
action research study,” Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, 2013.  
8. I. H. Chang, “The effect of principals’ technological leadership on teachers’ technological literacy and  
teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 15,  
no. 2, pp. 328–340, 2012.  
9. H. Charp, “Technology integration in teaching and learning,” T.H.E. Journal, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 8, 2003.  
10. C. M. Crane, “Teacher perceived impact of technology on elementary classrooms and teaching,”  
Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Columbia, 2005.  
11. M. G. Cruz et al., Statistics and Probability Theory, Quezon City: Maxcor Publishing House, 2013.  
12. K. M. Culp, M. Honey, and E. Mandinach, “A retrospective on twenty years of education technology  
policy,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 279–307, 2005.  
13. P. T. K. Daniel and J. P. Nance, “The role of the administrator in instructional technology policy,”  
B.Y.U. Education and Law Journal, pp. 211–231, 2002.  
14. M. Davis, “The knowledge gap,” Digital Directions, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 15–17, Winter 2008. [Online].  
Available: http://www.edweekorg/dd/articles/2008/01/23/3leadership.h01.html?qs=Knowledge+Gap  
15. L. M. Desimone, A. C. Porter, M. S. Garet, K. S. Yoon, and B. F. Birman, “Effects of professional  
development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study,” Educational  
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 81–112, 2002.  
16. S. L. Dexter, R. E. Anderson, and H. J. Becker, “Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for changes  
in their teaching practice,” Journal of Research on Computing in Education, vol. 31, pp. 221–238, 1999.  
17. L. Donovan, K. Hartley, and N. Strudler, “Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-  
one initiative at the middle school level,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 39, no.  
3, pp. 263–296, 2007.  
18. R. Ghosh, “Impact of technology on education,” Victorious Kidss Educares, 2013.  
19. G. E. Hall and S. Hord, Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process, Albany, NY: State University of  
New York Press, 1987.  
20. K. Kelley, “Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research,” International Journal for  
Quality in Health Care, 2003.  
Page 1815  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
21. M. Khoboli and J. O’Toole, “The concerns-based adoption model: Teachers’ participation in action  
research,” Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol. 25, pp. 137–148, 2011.  
22. A. Lieberman, “Practices that support teacher development,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 591–  
596, 1995.  
23. S. F. Loucks and G. E. Hall, “Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based approach,” Paper  
presented at AERA, San Francisco, April 12, 1979.  
24. B. M. McKinley, “The relationship of faculty demographics and attitudes toward technology  
integration,” Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest, 2014.  
25. S. McLeod, J. Logan, and J. Allen, “Preparing school administrators to use and facilitate the use of  
information technology,” Presented at AERA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 2002.  
26. S. Mills and J. Tincher, “Be the technology: A developmental model for evaluating technology  
integration,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 382–401, 2003.  
27. S. E. Miller, “Technology: What’s it good for?” Learning & Leading with Technology, vol. 28, no. 6,  
pp. 42–45, 2001.  
28. L. Morrow, M. Barnhart, and D. Rooyakkers, “Integrating technology with the teaching of an early  
literacy course,” The Reading Teacher, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 218–230, 2002.  
29. M. Mouza, “Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development,”  
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 272–289, 2002/2003.  
30. NCES, “Public school teachers’ use of computers and the internet,” U.S. Dept. of Education,  
Washington, DC, 2000.  
31. C. P. Newhouse, “Applying the concerns-based adoption model to research on computers in the  
classroom,” Journal of Research on Computing in Education, vol. 33, no. 5, 2001.  
32. R. J. Noeth and B. B. Volkov, “Evaluating the effectiveness of technology in our schools: ACT policy  
report,” 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/school_tech.pdf  
33. D. G. Oblinger, J. L. Oblinger, and B. McNeely, “Educating the net generation,” EDUCAUSE, 2005.  
[Online]. Available: www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/  
34. M. Pierson, “Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise,” Journal of  
Research on Computing in Education, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 413–430, 2001.  
35. J. W. Richardson and S. McLeod, “Technology leadership in Native American schools,” Journal of  
Research  
in  
Rural  
Education,  
vol.  
26,  
no.  
7,  
2011.  
[Online].  
Available:  
http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/26-7.pdf  
36. B. Roach, “Educational technology in the classroom from the teacher’s perspective,” Doctoral  
dissertation, Fielding Graduate University, 2010.  
37. P. Rogers, “Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education,” Minnesota State Colleges and  
Universities, 1983.  
38. D. Serhan, “Schools principals’ attitudes towards the use of technology: United Arab Emirates  
technology workshop,” vol. 6, no. 2, p. 5, 2007.  
39. J. Slavit, B. Sawyer, and J. Curley, “Filling your plate: A professional development model for teaching  
with technology,” TechTrends, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 35–38, 2003.  
40. J. Slowinski, “Becoming a technologically savvy administrator,” Teacher Librarian, vol. 30, no. 5, pp.  
25–29, 2003.  
41. G. Smith, “Instructional technology leadership ability of the school principal and effective use of  
technology in the classroom,” Doctoral dissertation, Argosy University, 2011.  
42. D. Sprague, D. Kopfman, and P. Dorsey, “Faculty development in the integration of technology in  
teacher education courses,” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 24–28, 1998.  
43. J. Tunks and K. Weller, “Changing practice, changing minds: From arithmetical to algebraic thinking,”  
Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 72, pp. 161–183, 2009.  
44. C. D. Watts, “Technology leadership, school climate, and technology integration: A correlation study in  
K-12 public schools,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 2009.  
45. H. Wenglinsky, “Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student  
achievement in mathematics,” Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1998.  
46. G. White, B. Ringstaff, and L. Kelley, “Getting the most from technology in schools,” WestEd  
Publications, 2002.  
Page 1816  
www.rsisinternational.org