View of Secondary School Heads' Technology Leadership Skills, Educational Motivation, Teachers’ Techno-Pedagogical Competence in the City Schools Division of Laguna

(1)

Technium

44/2023

2023 A new decade for social changes

Social Sciences

Technium.

(2)

Secondary School Heads' Technology Leadership Skills, Educational Motivation, Teachers’ Techno-Pedagogical Competence in the City Schools Division of Laguna

George V. Lambot, Antonio R. Yango

Graduate School, University of Perpetual Help System lambotgeorge@gmail.com, yango.antonio@uphsl.edu.ph

Abstract. Techno-pedagogical competency is the hybrid method of educating wherein ICT is applied for teaching learning situations. It is one of the skills of the teachers to effectively integrate technology and pedagogy in the classroom. The goal of this study was to ascertain the secondary school heads' technology leadership skills, educational motivation, and teachers’

techno-pedagogical competence in the Schools Division of Laguna. Likewise, it explored the relationship between the respondents’ level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills and level of educational motivation, level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills and level of teachers’ techno-pedagogical competency, and level of secondary school heads’ educational motivation and level of teachers’ techno-pedagogical competency as well as the predictive ability of the level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills, and level of educational motivation taken singly or in combination, of level of techno- pedagogical competence. Findings revealed that there was a multiple correlation between the level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills, and level of educational motivation taken singly or in combination, of level of techno-pedagogical competency. A value of 0.000 indicated a high level of prediction of the dependent variable (Techno-Pedagogical Competency). The obtained R square of 0.443 showed that independent variables (level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills and level of educational motivation) explain the variability of the dependent variable (Techno-Pedagogical Competency).

Keywords. Competency, educational motivation, ICT, leadership skills, techno-pedagogical

I. Introduction

ICT integration in educational systems has emerged recently because of shifting socioeconomic and cultural conditions, which call for leaders to pay close attention to them (Capilla et al., 2019) [1]. Technology changes in the educational environment necessitate not only the purchase of technical equipment but also its systematic and effective use.

School leaders are heavily involved in using ICT to execute an effective supervision job.

On the other hand, technological leadership focuses mostly on understanding technology and how to use it to do tasks. Since the introduction of digital technologies into educational institutions, it has significantly altered educational systems in general and teaching and learning processes and brought changes in the roles and responsibilities of teachers and administrators alike. This calls on school administrators to comprehend the potential of new technology so Technium Social Sciences Journal

Vol. 44, 449-476, June, 2023 ISSN: 2668-7798 www.techniumscience.com

(3)

they can use it independently and encourage a school culture of experimenting with cutting- edge management, instruction, and learning methods (Apsorn et al., 2019) [2].

Student achievement is one aspect of the learning organization that is significantly impacted by school administrators. School administrators are in a unique position to enhance teaching and learning. Learning and technology cannot be viewed as separate silos in today's K–12 classrooms. Therefore, it is crucial that school administrators take an active role in how technology is incorporated into the learning environment. Those who are in a unique position to affect teaching and learning should be aware of what technology leadership entails (Richardson and Sterrett, 2018) [3].

On the study conducted by Yango et. al (2019) [4], he concluded that the student respondents had positive attitude towards the Internet as a communication medium because they still have diverse opinions and attitudes towards this contemporary process of learning by using it as a communication medium. Since learners are very techy today, teachers and administrators should also know how to cope up with them and learn their new trends. But school heads are facing the challenging issue of implementing technologies to improve teaching and learning as they cater 21^st century learners. Their technology leadership is crucial as a catalyst to encourage teachers to adopt technology. Technology adoption in K–12 classrooms is changing from highlighting a technology in teaching to a widespread use of interactive and portable gadgets.

In the country, with the help of cutting-edge developments in educational technology, everyone may now stay connected.

In view of leadership and vision, Pelgrum (2018) [5] discovered that instructors' views and incorporation of technology were influenced by principals' attitudes toward technology.

Thus, school leaders must demonstrate competency in the use of technology to satisfy the requirements of the current technological demands in order to keep up with the technological breakthroughs in the ever-changing educational system and in instructional programming (Obert, 2022) [6].

Meanwhile, in terms of learning and teaching, students may achieve more than what they have achieved before with the help of administrators who support technology as a tool for cooperation and stimulation of authentic learning experiences (Ugur and Koc, 2019) [7].

Teachers are required to move beyond basic technologies and toward high yield technology integration solutions in order to improve learning results.

The teacher's professionalism increases in direct proportion to how motivated they perceive the principal to be. According to Abdullah et al. (2018) [8], the principal's actions should be able to boost the teachers' performance by demonstrating a sense of intimacy, camaraderie, and consideration for them. It implies that teachers may be inspired to improve their skills through the principal's encouragement, which will raise the level of professionalism among educators. It is clear that a leader's inspiration, in this case the principal, is crucial for motivating staff members to work together effectively, do their jobs responsibly, and provide the best possible outcomes (Hardiansyah and Zainuddin, 2022) [9].

On the other hand, the development of modern technology found out that that instructors' self-efficacy was not immediately impacted by their knowledge of technological- pedagogical content. However, it was claimed that the knowledge of technical pedagogical content influences how ICT is used in education whereas teachers' self-efficacy and the use of ICT in pedagogy were directly impacted by the corporate climate for innovation. Additionally, instructors' self-efficacy has an impact on how they employ ICT in teaching. And although teachers' self-efficacy is a mediator, understanding of technological pedagogical subject Technium Social Sciences Journal

(4)

knowledge has little direct impact on the use of ICT in pedagogy (Andyani et al., 2020) [10].

Considering all these factors, the researchers conducted this study to explore the significant relationship on technology leadership skills, educational motivation, and teachers’

techno-pedagogical competence of the selected public secondary school teachers in the School’s Division of Laguna. Likewise, this study sought to recognize the respondents’ level of technology leadership skills along with leadership and vision, learning and teaching, productivity and professional practice, support, management, and operations, assessment and evaluation, and social, legal, and ethical issues, including the level of secondary school heads educational motivation in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as the level of secondary teachers’ techno-pedagogical competence when it comes to content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge. On top of that, this study was conducted in the selected public secondary schools in the Schools Division of Laguna namely SDO Calamba, SDO Cabuyao, SDO Santa Rosa, and SDO Biñan. By the time this study was finished, the researcher had made a number of suggestions for boosting and intensifying the technological leadership and techno-pedagogical competence of the respondents.

1.1 Objective of the Study

The overall objective of this study was to assess the level of technology leadership skills, level of educational motivation, and level of techno-pedagogical skills among school heads at in public secondary schools in Laguna through the lens and perspective of teachers.

Furthermore, this study also investigated the (1) technological leadership skills and educational motivation among school heads, as well as teachers’ techno-pedagogical competency, (2) relationship between school heads' level of technology leaderships skills and levels of educational motivation, levels of technology leadership skills and teachers’ techno-pedagogical competency, as well as the relationship between school heads' educational motivation, and teachers' level of techno-pedagogical competency, and (3) specify how predictive were the mentioned levels when taken singly or in combination.

II. Methods

This study utilized quantitative research in obtaining the necessary data for the study.

Quantitative research, as defined by Babbie (2016) [11], is a design which focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon. The goal in utilizing quantitative research was to determine the relationship between an independent variable and another dependent variable within a population.

Descriptive correlational research was likewise employed in this study since it was perceived to be the most effective as it is used to describe the characteristics of a population and collect data which were used to answer a wide range of what, when, and how questions pertaining to a particular population or group (Durmus et al., 2022) [12]. In terms of sampling technique, the researcher used stratified random sampling. This sampling technique allows researchers to obtain a sample population that best represents the entire population being studied by dividing the entire population into homogeneous groups called strata (Hayes, 2023) [13].

The population of the study were the selected public secondary school teachers in the School’s Division of Laguna. The total population of the study was 1103 teachers but using the Raosoft calculator with 95% confidence level and 5 % margin of error, only a sample size of 286 teachers had been asked to participate in the study. Five City School’s Division took part Technium Social Sciences Journal

(5)

in the study namely SDO Calamba, SDO Cabuyao, SDO Santa Rosa, and SDO Biñan.

In gathering the needed data for the study, the researcher disseminated a standardized survey questionnaire through Google Forms to the selected respondents. Since the researcher made use of a standardized questionnaire, it did not undergo the process of validation. Weighted mean, Pearson R, and Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis were employed in this study to interpret the extracted data from the respondents.

III. Results and Discussion Table 1

The Level of Secondary School Heads Technology Leadership Skills: Leadership and Vision

Indicators Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank

1. participate in your district’s or

school’s most recent technology planning process

2.54 Low

(Minimally) 5

2. communicate information about your district’s or school’s technology planning and implementation efforts to your school’s stakeholders

2.62 Moderate

(Somewhat) 1.5

3. promote participation of your school’s stakeholders in the technology planning

process of your school or district 2.58 Low

(Minimally) 4

4. compare and align your district or school technology plan with other plans, including district strategic plans, your school improvement plan, or other instructional plan

2.59 Low

(Minimally) 3

5. advocate for inclusion of research- based technology practices in your

school improvement plan 2.45 Low

(Minimally) 6

6. engage in activities to identify best practices in the use of technology (e.g.

reviews of literature, attendance at relevant conferences, or meetings of professional organizations)

2.62 Moderate

(Somewhat) 1

Average 2.57 Low

(Minimally)

Table 1 exhibits the respondents’ level of technology leadership in terms of leadership and vision, as seen in the table, indicators To what extent did you 1 “engage in activities to identify best practices in the use of technology (e.g. reviews of literature, attendance at relevant conferences, or meetings of professional organizations)” and 2 “communicate information about your district’s or school’s technology planning and implementation efforts to your school’s stakeholders” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.62, verbally interpreted as

“moderate” and was ranked 1. Indicator 4, which states “compare and align your district or school technology plan with other plans, including district strategic plans, your school improvement plan, or other instructional plan” got a weighted mean of 2.59, verbally interpreted as “low” was ranked 3. Indicator 3 “promote participation of your school’s stakeholders in the technology planning process of your school or district” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.58, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 4. Indicator 1 “participate in your district’s or school’s most recent technology planning process” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.54, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 5. And indicator 5 “advocate for inclusion of Technium Social Sciences Journal

(6)

research-based technology practices in your school improvement plan” got a weighted mean of 2.45, verbally interpreted as “low” was ranked 6.

An average weighted mean of 2.57 revealed that the school heads’ level of technological leadership skills in terms of leadership and vision was low, which implied that the School Principal must have a good leadership and vision to their teachers for them to become efficient and good implementors.

Table 2

The Level of Secondary School Heads Technology Leadership Skills: Learning and Teaching

Indicators To what extent did you…

Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank 1. provide or make available assistance

to teachers to use technology for implementing and analyzing student assessment data

2.48 Low

(Minimally) 6

2. provide or make available assistance to teachers for using student assessment

data to modify instruction 2.53 Low

(Minimally) 5

3. disseminate or model best practices in learning and teaching with technology to faculty and staff

2.67 Moderate

(Somewhat) 2

4. provide support (e.g., release time, budget allowance) to teachers or staff who were attempting to share

information about technology practices, issues, and concerns?

2.68 Moderate

(Somewhat) 1

5. organize or conduct assessments of staff needs related to professional development on the use of technology

2.57 Low

(Minimally) 4

6. facilitate or ensure the delivery of professional development on the use of

technology to faculty and staff 2.65 Moderate

(Somewhat) 3

Average 2.60 Moderate

(Somewhat)

Table 2 presents the respondents’ level of technology leadership in terms of learning and teaching, as seen in the table, indicators to what extent did you 4 “provide support (e.g., release time, budget allowance) to teachers or staff who were attempting to share information about technology practices, issues, and concerns” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.68, verbally interpreted as “moderate” and was ranked 1. Indicator 3, which states “disseminate or model best practices in learning and teaching with technology to faculty and staff” got a weighted mean of 2.67, verbally interpreted as “low” was ranked 2. Indicator 6 “facilitate or ensure the delivery of professional development on the use of technology to faculty and staff”

had obtained a weighted mean of 2.65, verbally interpreted as “moderate” and was ranked 3.

Indicator 5 “organize or conduct assessments of staff needs related to professional development on the use of technology” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.57, verbally interpreted as “low”

and was ranked 4. Indicator 2 “provide or make available assistance to teachers for using student assessment data to modify instruction” got a weighted mean of 2.53, verbally interpreted as

“low” was ranked 5. And indicator 1 “provide or make available assistance to teachers to use Technium Social Sciences Journal

(7)

technology for implementing and analyzing student assessment data” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.48, verbally interpreted as “low” was ranked 6.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 2.60 revealed that the school heads’ level of technological leadership skills in terms of learning and teaching was moderate. School Heads’

must be vigilant and rigorous in terms of learning and teaching by the use of the new technology for the teachers must be well-equipped and familiarized to utilize the new technology and trends in the teaching-learning process.

Table 3

The Level of Secondary School Heads Technology Leadership Skills: Productivity and Professional Practice

1. participate in professional

development activities meant to improve or expand your use of technology

2.02 Low

(Minimally) 5

2. use technology to help complete your day-to-day tasks (e.g., developing budgets, communicating with others, gathering information)

2.09 Low

(Minimally) 4

3. use technology-based management systems to access staff/faculty personnel

records 2.13 Low

(Minimally) 3

4. use technology-based management

systems to access student records 2.18 Low

(Minimally) 2

5. encourage and use technology (e.g., e- mail, blogs, videoconferences) as a means of communicating with education stakeholders, including peers, experts, students, parents/guardians, and the community

2.30 Low

(Minimally) 1

Average 2.22 Low

(Minimally)

Table 3 displays the respondents’ level of technology leadership in terms of productivity and professional practice, as seen in the table, indicators to what extent did you 5 “encourage and use technology (e.g., e-mail, blogs, videoconferences) as a means of communicating with education stakeholders, including peers, experts, students, parents/guardians, and the community” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.30, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 1. Indicator 4, which states “use technology-based management systems to access student records” got a weighted mean of 2.18, verbally interpreted as “low” was ranked 2. Indicator 3 “use technology-based management systems to access staff/faculty personnel records” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.13, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 3. Indicator 2 “use technology to help complete your day-to-day tasks (e.g., developing budgets, communicating with others, gathering information)” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.09, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 4. Indicator 1 “participate in professional development activities meant to improve or expand your use of technology” got a weighted mean of 2.02, verbally interpreted as “low” was ranked 5.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 2.22 revealed that the school heads’ level of technological leadership skills in terms of productivity and professional practice was low. It was recommended to use current technology-based management systems to access records and use a variety of media formats, including telecommunications and the school website, to Technium Social Sciences Journal

(8)

communicate, interact, and collaborate with peers, experts, and other education stakeholders (Brook-Young, 2002).

Table 4

The Level of Secondary School Heads Technology Leadership Skills: Support, Management, and Operation

1. I am motivated to contribute more than what is expected of me at this school.

3.58 Very High

(Strongly Agree)

1

2. I understand how students’

experiences in my class can affect their feelings about learning in general.

3.57 Very High

(Strongly Agree)

2.5

3. I try my hardest to perform well while

teaching. 3.57 Very High

(Strongly Agree)

2.5

Average 3.57 Very High

Table 4 presents the respondents’ level of technology leadership in terms of support, management, and operations, as seen in the table, indicators to what extent did you 5 “advocate at the district level for adequate, timely, and high-quality technology support services” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.41, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 1. Indicator 3, which states “pursue supplemental funding to help meet the technology needs of your school”

and indicator 6 which states that “investigate how satisfied faculty and staff were with the technology support services provided by your district/school” got a weighted mean of 2.33, verbally interpreted as “low” were ranked 2. Indicator 3 “ensure that hardware and software replacement/ upgrades were incorporated into school technology plans” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.32, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 4. Indicator 1 “support faculty and staff in connecting to and using district- and building-level technology systems for management and operations (e.g., student information system, electronic grade book, curriculum management system)” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.28, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 5. Indicator 2 “allocate campus discretionary funds to help meet the school’s technology needs” got a weighted mean of 2.22, verbally interpreted as “low” was ranked 6. To sum up, an average weighted mean of 2.32 revealed that the school heads’ level of technological leadership skills in terms of support, management and operations was low.

This meant that the support, management and operations of the schools really relied on the school heads’ actions and given tasks to their teachers.

Table 5

The Level of Secondary School Heads Technology Leadership Skills: Assessment and Evaluation

1. promote or model technology-based systems to collect student assessment

data 2.37 Low

(Minimally) 4.5

2. promote the evaluation of instructional practices, including technology-based

practices, to assess their effectiveness 2.37 Low

(Minimally) 4.5

3. assess and evaluate technology-based administrative and operations systems

for modification and upgrade 2.40 Low

(Minimally) 3

Technium Social Sciences Journal Vol. 44, 449-476, June, 2023 ISSN: 2668-7798 www.techniumscience.com

(9)

4. evaluate the effectiveness of professional development offerings in your school to meet the needs of teachers and their use of technology

2.43 Low

(Minimally) 1

5. include the effective use of technology as a criterion for assessing the

performance of faculty 2.41 Low

(Minimally) 2

Average 2.40 Low

(Minimally)

Table 5 presents the respondents’ level of technology leadership in terms of assessment and evaluation, as seen in the table, indicator to what extent did you 4 “evaluate the effectiveness of professional development offerings in your school to meet the needs of teachers and their use of technology” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.43, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 1. Indicator 5, which states “include the effective use of technology as a criterion for assessing the performance of faculty” got a weighted mean of 2.43, verbally interpreted as “low” were ranked 2. Indicator 3 “assess and evaluate technology-based administrative and operations systems for modification and upgrade” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.40, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 3. Indicator 1 “promote or model technology-based systems to collect student assessment data” and indicator 2 “promote the evaluation of instructional practices, including technology-based practices, to assess their effectiveness” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.37, verbally interpreted as “low” and were ranked 4.5.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 2.40 revealed that the school heads’ level of technological leadership skills in terms of assessment and evaluation was low. This meant that the teachers’ assessment and evaluation given to the students was not really in the control of them. School heads and the entire department must be given a much criterion and efficient assessment and evaluation to their students.

Table 6

The Level of Secondary School Heads Technology Leadership Skills: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues

1. work to ensure equity of technology

access and use in your school 2.74 Moderate

(Somewhat) 5

2. use technology to help implement policies or programs meant to raise awareness of technology-related social, ethical, and legal issues for staff and students

2.43 Low

(Minimally) 7

3. involved in enforcing policies related

to copyright and intellectual property 2.60 Moderate

(Somewhat) 6

4. involved in addressing issues related

to privacy and online safety 3.17 Moderate

(Somewhat) 3

5. support the use of technology to help meet the needs of special education

students 3.17 Moderate

(Somewhat) 3

6. support the use of technology to assist in the delivery of individualized

education programs for all students 3.67 High

(Significantly) 1

(10)

7. disseminate information about health concerns related to technology and computer usage in classrooms and offices

3.17 Moderate

(Somewhat) 3

Average 2.99 Moderate

(Somewhat)

Table 6 highlights the respondents’ level of technology leadership in terms of social, legal, and ethical, issues, as seen in the table, indicator to what extent did you 6 “support the use of technology to assist in the delivery of individualized education programs for all students”

had obtained a weighted mean of 3.67, verbally interpreted as “high” and was ranked 1.

Indicators 4, which states that “involved in addressing issues related to privacy and online safety,” indicator 5 which states that “support the use of technology to help meet the needs of special education students” and indicator 7 which states that “disseminate information about health concerns related to technology and computer usage in classrooms and offices” got a weighted mean of 3.17, verbally interpreted as “moderate” were ranked 3. Indicator 3 “work to ensure equity of technology access and use in your school” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.74, verbally interpreted as “moderate” and was ranked 5. Indicator 3 “involved in enforcing policies related to copyright and intellectual property” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.60, verbally interpreted as “moderate” and was ranked 6. And indicator 2 “use technology to help implement policies or programs meant to raise awareness of technology-related social, ethical, and legal issues for staff and students” got a weighted mean of 2.43, verbally interpreted as

“low” was ranked 7.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 2.99 revealed that the school heads’ level of technological leadership skills in terms of social, legal and ethical issues was moderate.

Teachers’ support and involvement in the policies, delivery of individualized special programs and disseminating information about health and discrimination in using new technology was reluctant due to the Principals’ initiative also. They must have a good collaboration to form a policy making body to further enhanced the needs of the school and learners in terms of social, legal and ethical issues through technology.

Table 7

Composite Table for the Level of Secondary School Heads’ Technology Leadership Skills

1. Leadership and vision 2.57 Low 3

2. Teaching and learning 2.60 Moderate 2

3. Productivity and professional practice 2.22 Low 6

4. Support, management, and operations 2.32 Low 5

5. Assessment and evaluation 2.40 Low 4

6. Social, legal and ethical issues 2.99 Moderate 1

Overall Weighted Mean 2.51 Low

Table 7 presents the composite table for the level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills. Indicator 6 “Social, legal and ethical issues” obtained a weighted mean of 2.99, verbally interpreted as “moderate” and was ranked 1, indicator 2 “Teaching and learning”

obtained a weighted mean of 2.60, verbally interpreted as “moderate” and was ranked 2, indicator 1 “Leadership and vision” obtained a weighted mean of 2.57, verbally interpreted as

“low” and was ranked 3, indicator 5 “Assessment and evaluation” obtained a weighted mean of Technium Social Sciences Journal

(11)

2.40, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 4, indicator 4 “Support, management, an operations” obtained a weighted mean of 2.32, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 5, indicator 3 “Productivity and professional practice” obtained a weighted mean of 2.22, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 6.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 2.51 revealed that the school heads have a low level of technology leadership skills. This suggested that the six standards were needed to develop more to help educators acknowledge how to be an efficient 21st century administrator.

Administrator, educators, and school heads were empowered by the technology as it allows them to be maximized in elaborating their roles and tasks.

Table 8

The Level of Secondary School Heads Educational Motivation: Intrinsic Motivation

Indicators

My school head… Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank

1. articulates a compelling vision of the

future that will be beneficial for all of us 6.21 Perfectly Acceptable 3 2. displays a sense of power and

confidence that also boosted my self-

esteem 6.33 Perfectly Acceptable 2

3. concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and

failures to help us improve ourselves 5.59 Acceptable 6

4. considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions especially if it

will affect each and everybody 6.37 Perfectly Acceptable 1

5. gets me to look at problems from many different angles for me to become

sensitive enough to my surroundings 5.11 Slightly acceptable 10 6. helps me to develop my strengths and

weaknesses as a professional 5.08 Slightly acceptable 11

7. expresses satisfaction when I meet

expectations 5.07 Slightly acceptable 12

8. expresses confidence that goals will be

achieved that shows trust on me 5.04 Slightly acceptable 13

9. uses methods of leadership that are

satisfying and never dishonor others 5.46 Acceptable 8

10. gets me to do more than I expected to do as a training ground in facing more

complex situations 5.56 Acceptable 7

11. is effective in representing me to

higher authority 4.73 Slightly acceptable 15

12. heightens my desire to succeed and

never give up on my dreams 5.78 Acceptable 5

13. my supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job which exhibits good

example to us 5.14 Slightly acceptable 9

14. increases my willingness to try

harder 5.84 Acceptable 4

15. my job is enjoyable because my

workload is very manageable. 5.00 Slightly acceptable 14

Average 4.92 Slightly acceptable

(12)

Table 8 shows the respondents’ level of educational motivation in terms of intrinsic motivation, as seen in the table, the indicator My school head 4 “considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions especially if it will affect each and everybody” had obtained a weighted mean of 6.37, verbally interpreted as “perfectly acceptable” and was ranked 1.

Indicator 2 “displays a sense of power and confidence that also boosted my self-esteem” had gained a weighted mean of 6.33, verbally interpreted as “perfectly acceptable” and was ranked 2. Indicator 1 “articulates a compelling vision of the future that will be beneficial for all of us”

had obtained a weighted mean of 6.21, verbally interpreted as “perfectly acceptable” and was ranked 3. Indicator 14 “expresses confidence that goals will be achieved that shows trust on me” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.84, verbally interpreted as “acceptable” and was ranked 4. Indicator 12 “heightens my desire to succeed and never give up on my dreams” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.78, verbally interpreted as “acceptable” and was ranked 5. Indicator 3

“concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures to help us improve ourselves” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.59, verbally interpreted as “acceptable”

and was ranked 6. Indicator 10 “gets me to do more than I expected to do as a training ground in facing more complex situations” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.56, verbally interpreted as “acceptable” and was ranked 7. Indicator 9 “uses methods of leadership that are satisfying and never dishonor others” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.46, verbally interpreted as

“acceptable” and was ranked 8.

On the other hand, indicator 13 “my supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job which exhibits good example to us” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.14, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 9. Indicator 5 “gets me to look at problems from many different angles for me to become sensitive enough to my surroundings” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.11, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 10.

Indicator 6 “helps me to develop my strengths and weaknesses as a professional” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.08, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 11.

Indicator 7 “expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.07, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 12. Indicator 8 “increases my willingness to try harder” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.04, verbally interpreted as

“slightly acceptable” and was ranked 13. Indicator 15 “my job is enjoyable because my workload is very manageable” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.00, verbally interpreted as

“slightly acceptable” and was ranked 14. Lastly, indicator 11 “is effective in representing me to higher authority” had obtained a weighted mean of 4.73, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 15.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 4.92 revealed that the educational motivation of school heads in terms of intrinsic motivation was slightly acceptable. This implied that teachers had high level of autonomy and competence which experience high level of self- reflection and give a greater sense of being self-determined in their actions.

Table 9

The Level of Secondary School Heads Educational Motivation: Extrinsic Motivation

Indicators

My school head… Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank

1. provides me with assistance in

exchange for my efforts 4.73 Slightly acceptable 8

2. talks about his/her most important values and beliefs that inspires me in teaching

3.80 Neutral 14

(13)

3. makes me feel satisfied with my

chances for salary increases 4.44 Slightly acceptable 11

4. keeps track of all mistakes in that can

be a lesson for me to become better 3.75 Neutral 15

5. works with me in a satisfactory way and gives a conducive working

environment 5.44 Acceptable 3

6. acts in ways that builds my enthusiasm

in teaching 3.99 Neutral 13

7. encourages teachers to attend conferences and seminars about ICT

integration 5.08 Slightly acceptable 6

8. encourages me to be professional with

my students in terms of evaluation. 5.67 Acceptable 1

9. makes me feel that I am paid a fair

amount for the work I do. 4.19 Neutral 12

10. when I do a good job, I receive the recognition and promotion for it that I

should receive. 4.66 Slightly acceptable 10

11. communications seem good within

this organization. 5.37 Acceptable 4

12. suggests new ways of looking at how

to complete tasks 5.07 Slightly acceptable 7

13. rewards me for a job well done and good outcome of my project/assigned

task 4.50 Slightly acceptable 9

14. actively encourage staff to

collaborate and communicate at all times 5.37 Acceptable 5

15. allows me to be an efficient

instructional leader 5.46 Acceptable 2

Average 4.77 Slightly acceptable

Table 9 exhibits the school heads’ level of educational motivation in terms of extrinsic motivation as seen in the table, indicator My school head 8 “encourages me to be professional with my students in terms of evaluation” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.67, verbally interpreted as “acceptable” and was ranked 1. Indicator 15 “allows me to be an efficient instructional leader” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.46, verbally interpreted as “acceptable”

and was ranked 2. Indicator 5 “works with me in a satisfactory way and gives a conducive working environment” have obtained a weighted mean of 5.44, verbally interpreted as

“acceptable” and was ranked 3. Indicator 11 “communications seem good within this organization” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.37, verbally interpreted as “acceptable” and was ranked 4. Lastly, indicator 14 “actively encourage staff to collaborate and communicate at all times” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.37, verbally interpreted as “acceptable” and was ranked 5.

On the other hand, Indicator 7 “encourages teachers to attend conferences and seminars about ICT integration” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.08, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 6. Indicator 12 “suggests new ways of looking at how to complete tasks” had obtained a weighted mean of 5.07, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 7. Indicator 1 “provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts” had obtained a weighted mean of 4.73, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 8.

Indicator 13 “rewards me for a job well done and good outcome of my project/assigned task”

had obtained a weighted mean of 4.50, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was Technium Social Sciences Journal

(14)

ranked 9. Indicator 10 “when I do a good job, I receive the recognition and promotion for it that I should receive” had obtained a weighted mean of 4.66, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 10. Indicator 3 “makes me feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases” had obtained a weighted mean of 4.44, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable”

and was ranked 11.

However, indicator 9 “makes me feel that I am paid a fair amount for the work I do”

had obtained a weighted mean of 4.19, verbally interpreted as “neutral” and was ranked 12.

Indicator 6 “acts in ways that builds my respect” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.99, verbally interpreted as “neutral” and was ranked 13. Indicator 2 “talks about his/her most important values and beliefs that inspires me” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.80, verbally interpreted as “neutral” and was ranked 14. Lastly, indicator 4 “keeps track of all mistakes in that can be a lesson for me to become better” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.75, verbally interpreted as

“neutral” and was ranked 15.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 4.77 revealed that the educational motivation of school heads in terms of extrinsic motivation was slightly acceptable. This implied that the teachers’ classic prototype of controlled motivation must be more self-controlled, and the teacher needs to be able to understand the significance of their behavior.

Table 10

Composite Table of the Level of Secondary School Heads Educational Motivation

1. Intrinsic Motivation 4.92 Slightly Acceptable 1

2. Extrinsic Motivation 4.77 Slightly Acceptable 2

Overall Weighted Mean 4.85 Slightly Acceptable

Table 10 demonstrates the composite table of the school heads’ level of educational motivation, as seen in the table, indicator 1 “Intrinsic Motivation” had obtained a weighted mean of 4.92, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 1. Indicator 2

“Extrinsic Motivation” had obtained a weighted mean of 4.77, verbally interpreted as “slightly acceptable” and was ranked 2. To sum up, an average weighted mean of 4.85 revealed that the level of educational motivation of school heads was slightly acceptable, which implied that the respondents’ intrinsic motivation was more satisfactory than extrinsic motivation. The level of secondary school heads’ educational motivation which was slightly acceptable revealed that it could still be considered as one of the factors in their technological improvements.

Table 11

The Level of Secondary Teachers’ Techno-pedagogical Competence: Content Knowledge

1. I can express various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of the subject being taught.

3.39 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 4

2. I can state learning goals and objectives that coincide with learners’

levels and characteristics.

3.36 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 5

3. I can draft and develop learning and assessment activities that align with

learning goals and objectives. 3.43 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 3

(15)

4. I can develop and select appropriate and varied learning resources that accommodate different learning styles and preferences.

3.45 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 2

5. I can link the subject and content with scientific, social, cultural, and any other

relevant phenomena. 3.46 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 1

(Strongly Agree)

Table 11 reflects the secondary teachers’ level of techno-pedagogical competence in terms of content knowledge, as seen in the table, indicator 5 “I can link the subject and content with scientific, social, cultural, and any other relevant phenomena.” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.46, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 1. Indicator 4 “I can develop and select appropriate and varied learning resources that accommodate different learning styles and preferences” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.45, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 2. Indicator 3 “I can draft and develop learning and assessment activities that align with learning goals and objectives” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.43, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 3. Indicator 1 “I can express various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of the subject being taught” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.39, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 4. Indicator 2 “I can state learning goals and objectives that coincide with learners’ levels and characteristics.” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.36, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 5.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 3.42 revealed that the level of secondary teachers’ techno-pedagogical competence in terms of content knowledge was very high. A very high level of techno-pedagogical skills along content knowledge signified that they had a very high ability to draft and develop learning assessment activities that align with learning goals and activities and they could connect the subject and content with scientific, social, and cultural, and other phenomena.

Table 12

The Level of Secondary Teachers’ Techno-pedagogical Competence: Pedagogical Knowledge

1. I have knowledge in various learning theories, learning styles and the learner- centered approach.

3.43 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 4

2. I can organize and facilitate students’

participation and provides guidance and

support as needed. 3.54 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 3

3. I can motivate students and show enthusiasm and interest while teaching virtually using the learning management system.

3.59 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 1

4. I know how to use criterion-based assessment to evaluate individual and

group performances. 3.55 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 2

5. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom and virtual

setting. 2.87 High

(Agree) 5

(Strongly Agree)

(16)

Table 12 shows the secondary teachers’ level of techno-pedagogical competence in terms of pedagogical knowledge, as seen in the table, indicator 3 “I can motivate students and show enthusiasm and interest while teaching virtually using the learning management system”

had obtained a weighted mean of 3.59, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 1.

Indicator 4 “I know how to use criterion-based assessment to evaluate individual and group performances” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.55, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 2. Indicator 2 “I can organize and facilitate students’ participation and provides guidance and support as needed” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.54, verbally interpreted as

“very high” and was ranked 3. Indicator 1 “I have knowledge in various learning theories, learning styles and the learner-centered approach” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.43, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 4. Indicator 5 “I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom and virtual setting” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.87, verbally interpreted as “high” and was ranked 5.

To summarize, average weighted mean of 3.39 revealed that the faculty in all city schools division in Laguna had a very high level of techno-pedagogical skills along pedagogical knowledge, which meant that the faculty had motivated students and showed enthusiasm and interest while teaching virtually using the learning management systems and they could facilitate students’ participation and had provided guidance and support as needed.

Table 13

Relationship between the Respondents’ Level of Work Engagement and Level of School Performance

1. I have knowledge in various learning theories, learning styles and the learner-

centered approach. 3.43 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 4

2. I can organize and facilitate students’

participation and provides guidance and

support as needed. 3.54 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 3

3. I can motivate students and show enthusiasm and interest while teaching virtually using the learning management system.

3.59 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 1

4. I know how to use criterion-based assessment to evaluate individual and group performances.

3.55 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 2

5. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom and virtual

setting. 2.87 High

(Agree) 5

(Strongly Agree)

Table 13 exhibits the secondary teachers’ level of techno-pedagogical competence in terms of technological knowledge, as seen in the table, indicator 1 “I know how to access various technological resources and tools such as e-mails, internet browser, LMSs, text and video chat applications and other online resources” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.15, verbally interpreted as “high” and was ranked 1. Indicator 2 “I understand the learning and teaching capabilities of various technological applications such as MSTEAMS, Google Meet, Zoom and other online applications” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.99, verbally interpreted as “high” and was ranked 2. Indicator 3 “I am being aware of the technical potentials, procedures and used to create e-content such as e-books, YouTube, and other instructional Technium Social Sciences Journal

(17)

videos” and indicator 4 “I can use technical knowledge in manipulating, troubleshooting, and modifying of the technology” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.78, verbally interpreted as “ high” and was ranked 3. Indicator 4 “I can use technical knowledge in manipulating, trouble shooting, and modifying of the technology” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.38, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 4. Indicator 6 “I am being alert and aware to the latest updates and renovation of educational technology and software” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.22, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 5. And indicator 5 “I comply with legal, ethical, and copy right issues and standards” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.12, verbally interpreted as “low” and was ranked 6.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 2.61 revealed that the level of secondary teachers’ techno-pedagogical competence in terms of technological knowledge was high. A high level of technological skills along technological knowledge signified that faculty understood the learning and teaching capabilities of various applications such as MS Teams, Google Meet, Zoom, and other online applications. Moreover, they knew how to access various technological resources and tools such as e-mails, internet browser, LMSs, text and video chat applications and other online resources.

Table 14

Composite Table of the Level of Secondary Teachers’ Techno-pedagogical Competence

1. Content Knowledge

3.42 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 1

2. Pedagogical Knowledge

3.39 Very High

(Strongly Agree) 2

3. Technological Knowledge

2.82 High

(Agree) 3

Overall Weighted Mean 3.21 High

(Agree)

Table 14 displays the composite table of the secondary teachers’ level of techno- pedagogical competence, as seen in the table, indicator 1 “Content Knowledge” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.42, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 1. Indicator 2

“Pedagogical Knowledge” had obtained a weighted mean of 3.39, verbally interpreted as “very high” and was ranked 2. Indicator 3 “Technological Knowledge” had obtained a weighted mean of 2.82, verbally interpreted as “high” and was ranked 3.

To sum up, an average weighted mean of 3.42 revealed that the level of secondary teachers’ techno-pedagogical competence in terms of content knowledge was very high, which meant that they had very high knowledge of instructional methodologies, knowledge of student potentials, and knowledge of curriculum development and it indicated that they were extremely skilled at creating learning assessment activities which were in line with learning objectives and activities and were able to relate the topic and material to many scientific, social, cultural, and other phenomena.

(18)

Table 15

Relationship between level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills and level of educational motivation along Intrinsic Motivation

Technology Leadership Skills Intrinsic Motivation (Pearson r)

Extrinsic Motivation (Pearson r) Leadership and Vision

0.274*

Low correlation p=0.000 Significant

0.189*

Low correlation p=0.021 Significant Teaching and Learning

0.303*

0.276*

Low correlation p=0.013 Significant Productivity and Professional Practice

0.308*

0.392*

Low correlation p=0.032 Significant Support, Management, and Operations

0.259*

0.179*

Low correlation p=0.028 Significant Assessment and Evaluation

0.357*

0.137*

Low correlation p=0.000 Significant Social, Legal, and Ethical issues

0.308*

Low correlation p=0.056 Not Significant

0.231*

Low correlation p=0.053 Not Significant

*Significant @ 0.05

Table 15 presents the relationship between the level of secondary school heads’

technology leadership skills and level of educational motivation along Intrinsic Motivation. For the relationship between the level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills and level of educational motivation, the table showed that the obtained p- values for Social, Legal, and Ethical issues =0.056 greater than the level of significance @ 0.05, therefore, no significant relationship was noted. The result implies that the level of educational motivation in terms of intrinsic motivation has nothing to do with the social, legal, and ethical issues of technology leadership skills. On the other hand, the obtained p- values for leadership and vision =0.000, teaching and learning = 0.000, productivity and professional practice =0.000, Support, Management, and Operations = 0.000 and Assessment and Evaluation = 0.011 were all less than the level of significance @ 0.05, therefore, significant relationship was observed. The findings revealed that the higher the intrinsic motivational, the better their leadership and vision, teaching and learning, productivity and professional practice, support, management, and operations and assessment and evaluation.

However, for the relationship between the level of secondary school heads’ technology leadership skills and level of educational motivation, the table showed that the obtained p-values for Social, Legal, and Ethical issues =0.053 greater than the level of significance @ 0.05, therefore, no significant relationship was noted. The result implies that the level of educational Technium Social Sciences Journal