Teacher Attributes and Technology Integration in Instructional Management: Benefits and Barriers

This study examined the integration of technology in instructional management among teachers in the Lagonoy South District, focusing on teacher attributes, school contextual factors, extent of technology use, perceived benefits, and encountered barriers.
A descriptive-correlational design was used, with data gathered from teachers in mainland and coastal schools. Descriptive and correlational statistics were employed in data analysis. Findings showed that most respondents were young to middle-aged, predominantly female, and held bachelor’s degrees, with some pursuing graduate studies. Participation in technology-related training was moderate. Most teachers were assigned in large mainland schools with high student populations and had access to basic ICT resources such as laptops, computers, printers, projectors, and smart televisions, while access to advanced technologies remained limited. Results further indicated that technology was commonly used in routine tasks such as lesson planning, instructional material preparation, communication, and data management. However, its use in interactive and higher-order instructional processes was limited. Teachers perceived technology as beneficial in improving instructional efficiency, learner engagement, and teaching support, although challenges such as limited internet connectivity, insufficient digital resources, and time constraints persisted. Inferential analysis revealed no significant relationship between teacher attributes and school contextual factors and the extent of technology integration, and no significant differences in technology use across school locations. However, age and training exposure influenced the level of integration. The study concludes that technology integration among teachers is largely functional rather than transformative. It recommends continuous hands-on training, improved ICT infrastructure, stronger institutional support, and mentoring programs to enhance meaningful integration of technology in instructional management.

technology integration, instructional management, teacher attributes, ICT, school contextual factors

1. Ahiaku, P. K. A., Uleanya, C., & Muyambi, G. C. (2025). Rural schools and tech use for sustainability: the challenge of disconnection. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), 12557–12571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13311-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Akram, H., Abdelrady, A. H., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration in Teaching-Learning Practices: A Systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 920317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920317 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amemasor, S. K., Oppong, S. O., Ghansah, B., Benuwa, B., & Essel, D. D. (2025). A systematic review on the impact of teacher professional development on digital instructional integration and teaching practices. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1541031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Anderson, C. (2024). What is technology integration? Focuskeeper. https://focuskeeper.co/glossary/what-is-technology-integration [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Andrade, G. (2026). DepEd Computerization Program (DCP): Implementation, utilization, and practices. Pantao, International Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.69651/pijhss0501776 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Aquino, J. A., Cempron, D. N. L., & Orongan, R. C. (2024). Professional development and digital competency as determinants on productivity of teacher education graduates. In Atlantis Highlights in Social Sciences, Education and Humanities, pp. 403–415. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-554-6_33 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ayite, D. M. K., & Nyagorme, P. (2020). Role of emerging technology on academic achievement of students at the University of Cape Coast. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 3(3), 272–287. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1293759 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bice, H., & Tang, H. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs and practices of technology integration at a school for students with dyslexia: A mixed methods study. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10179–10205. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1998). Age differences in attitudes toward computers. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, 53B(5), P329–P340. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/53b.5.p329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Department of Education. (2010). Guidelines on the implementation of the DepEd Computerization Program (DepEd Order No. 78, s. 2010). https://www.deped.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Department of Education. (2017). 2017 Brigada Eskwela implementing guidelines (DepEd Memorandum No. 43, s. 2017). https://www.deped.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Department of Education. (2020). DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2020. https://www.deped.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Department of Education. (2023). Revised guidelines on the implementation of the DepEd Computerization Program (DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2023). https://www.deped.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Development Asia. (2017). Five ways to use information and communication technology for education. https://development.asia/insight/five-ways-use-information-and-communication-technology-education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Disonglo, M. P., & Limpot, M. Y. (2023). Digital literacy, pedagogical knowledge, and research skill: a structural equation model in professional competence of teachers. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 42(4), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2023/v42i4928 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Elizabeth, A., Küng, E., & du Plessis, E. (2024). Challenges for pedagogical effectiveness in an ever-changing education landscape. Education Sciences, 14(4), 349. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040349 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Espinosa, A., et al. (2025). Bridging a digital divide: A critical analysis of contextual factors affecting ICT integration in Philippine schools. Issues in Educational Research, 35(2). http://www.iier.org.au/iier35/espinosa-2.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Francom, G. M. (2019). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1679055 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Garzon, J. A., Garzon, J. R., & Garzon, J. R. (2023). Teachers’ Digital Literacy and Self-Efficacy in Blended Learning. Knowledge Commons. https://doi.org/10.17613/cmjv-1386 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Hero, J. L., et al. (2021). Mastering innovations in ICT competence and practices of 21st century Filipino teachers. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Applied Business and Education Research, 2(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.04.02 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Javier, B. (2022). Practices of Filipino public high school teachers on digital teaching and learning technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Computing Sciences Research, 6, 707–722. https://doi.org/10.25147/ijcsr.2017.001.1.67 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Jean, B., & Ubayubay, R. M. (2025). Practices on the integration of technology and learners’ reading performance in Misamis Oriental. American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation, 4(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v4i2.4387 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert scale: explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/bjast/2015/14975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Kapur, R. (2020). Understanding the meaning and significance of pedagogical approaches. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Kunjiapu, S., Sinnappan, P., Salim, F. A. A., & Kunasegaran, M. (2025). Challenges and dilemmas of digitalization in Philippine education: a grassroots perspective. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 14(2), 232. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v14i2.22325 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Law Insider. (n.d.). Student population. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/student-population [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Law Insider. (n.d.). School location. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/school-location [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 464–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326158 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Li, M. (2024). Exploring the digital divide in primary education: A comparative study of urban and rural mathematics teachers’ TPACK. Education and Information Technologies, 30(2), 1913–1945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12890-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Lucas, Z. F. (2022). Teachers’ preparedness in the use of ICT and school’s licensure passing rate. AIDE Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 2(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Manaban, G., Piñero, B., & Futalan, M. C. (2025). Mathematics teachers’ competence and barriers in ICT integration. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2025.299 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Age. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/age [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Location. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/location [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Tangible. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Nessipbayeva, O. (2012). The competencies of the modern teacher. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567059.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Pandov, K. (2022). Digital game-based learning: A systematic review of barriers and teachers’ beliefs. DIVA. https://share.google/f62FXOzFfU9vuverF [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Paquinol, J. T., Taganas, W. R., & Comon, J. D. (2024). Digital competence among Araling Panlipunan teachers. European Modern Studies Journal, 8(4), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.8(4).2024.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Puentedura, R. R. (n.d.). Transformation, technology and education model. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3818404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Roa, R. O. (2021). Technology integration in the classroom of Sta. Lucia Junior High School. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 10(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Scheerens, J., Hendriks, M., & Luyten, H. (2014). School size effects: Review and conceptual analysis. Springer Briefs in Education, pp. 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06814-5_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Tomaro, Q. P. V. (2018). ICT integration in the educational system of Philippines. Journal of Governance and Public Policy, 5(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use. Computers & Education. https://www.sciencedirect.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Turbanada, M. Y., Alvarez, M. D., Chan, C. J., Adriatico, J. D., & Morales, R. A. (2025). Technology integration among public secondary school teachers in Northern Samar. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 19(6), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2025/v19i61072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. UNESCO. (2023). Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? https://doi.org/10.54676/habj1624 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Volman, M., & Van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071004613 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Vu, P. (2014). Availability and use of digital technologies in P-12 classrooms. Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/itet/article/view/17933/17904 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Wisdomlib.org. (2024). Perceived benefit: significance and symbolism. https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/perceived-benefit [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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