Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

50

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION


INSTITUTIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Dave E. Marcial

Silliman University
Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the level of prioritization and implementation of teaching and
learning with technology in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines. Ninety-five
HEIs in the Philippines were evaluated in the study. The respondents are all heads in the
management of the information technology function in their HEIs. A survey questionnaire that
had been based on EDUCAUSE was used to gather data.

The study reveals that the level of prioritization of teaching and learning with
technology in HEIs in the Philippines is high. It has an aggregate mean of 4.03, implying that
teaching and learning with technology is highly prioritized in the HEIs and needs to be done in
the next 3 years. The degree of implementation of the teaching and learning with technology is
moderate. It has an aggregate mean of 3.21, showing that teaching and learning with
technology is already in the strategic plan of the HEIs; however, action has yet to be done. The
study also reveals a significant positive relationship between degree of implementation of the
teaching and learning with technology and conceptual skill of the respondents. On the other
hand, respondent’s technical skills, extent of decision-making, gender, civil status, highest
educational attainment, working status, and teaching status, an HEI’s number of years of
existence, and an HEI’s total internet bandwidth have no significant positive relationship the
implementation of teaching and learning with technology in HEIs in the Philippines.

Keywords: IT in Education, eLearning, IT Management

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
51

INTRODUCTION

Martin Heidegger, according to Thornton (2007, p. 164), is the most well-known of the
great 20thcentury philosophers for investigating the “question concerning technology.” The
technological phases in the history of being that impact how people understand and adopt the
modernist worldview related to it have changed drastically (Zimmerman, 1990). “Heidegger’s
philosophy went beyond the simplistic view of technology as a neutral benefactor of
humanity.” (Thornton, 2007, p. 164) Emerging technologies challenge the traditional process of
teaching and learning and the way education is managed and delivered. Information
Technology (IT) is having a major impact on all curriculum areas. Easy worldwide
communication provides instant access to a vast array of data, challenging assimilation and
assessment skills. Rapid communication, plus increased access to IT at home, at work, and in
educational establishments, could mean that learning becomes a truly lifelong activity, an
activity in which the pace of technological change forces constant evaluation of the learning
process itself.

Generally, teaching and learning with technology is a major activity in any higher
education institution (HEI). However, it often receives little attention. EDUCAUSE, an
international non-profit association whose mission is to advance higher education by promoting
the intelligent use of IT, reported that teaching and learning with technology ranked 3rd among
the top ten IT issues in 2011, 4th in 2010,and 5th in 2009 (www.educause.org). The survey clearly
shows that teaching and learning with technology is an increasing issue in HEIs. As technology
advances rapidly, educational institutions are trying to embrace the new trends in the teaching-
learning process. From blackboards to Digital Light Processing (DLP) projectors, chalk to e-
markers, classroom to virtual rooms, groupings to social networking sites and many more. Most
of higher education is struggling to keep abreast with these innovations in IT. School
administrators, including IT managers, are facing technical challenges in this digital economy. E-
learning priorities and integration, among others, are common issues that IT leaders are facing.
Additional challenges for IT heads arise from the sociological and cultural aspects in the
institution (Frenzel, 1999). Asian universities use IT intensively, ranking 21st among the top 100
IT users in Asia (MIS Asia, 2005). In the Philippines, both basic education institutions and HEIs
have initiated actions to provide quality and IT-enabled education. The formulation of policies
and standards by the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) for IT Education in the
Philippines has increased the prioritization and implementation of IT in the teaching-learning
process in most schools. However, in a report by Yap (2005), the Philippines is ranked last
among Asian countries in terms of IT usage in general.

This paper presents the landscape of teaching and learning with technology, particularly
the level of prioritization and degree of implementation in HEIs in the Philippines. Only those
items that are critically evaluated by EDUCAUSE were included. Prioritization in this paper
means the level of importance or urgency of teaching and learning with technology in HEIs
while implementation refers to the degree of realization or execution of teaching and learning
in HEIs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
52

This paper further investigates the relationship between degree of implementation of


the teaching and learning with technology in Philippine HEIs and the level of prioritization; HEIs’
total number of years of existence, annual IT expenditures, total internet bandwidth; the
respondents’ level of proficiency of technical skills, rating of human skills, rating of conceptual
skills; and the extent of participation in decision-making of the respondents.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Asian universities use IT intensely, as evidenced by their 21st rank among the top 100 IT
users in Asia. The Ministry of Education in Singapore encourages school-created teaching
materials and digital learning resources. As reported in JETRO (2004), the Philippines’ National
ICT Strategy and the e-Government Fund for 2005 to 2010 aimed to develop an e-enabled
society with the following as the five major strategic items: 1) provide affordable internet
access to all communities; 2) build ICT awareness and capability in society; 3) provide a healthy
and competitive business environment; 4) generate high-value jobs in the community through
world-class ICT services; and 5) provide government services to citizens directly. Under the
Arroyo administration, the Philippines aimed to become an e-service hub, and the IT service
sector has been growing rapidly. Likewise, the Philippine government’s initiative to improve the
quality of IT-enabled education for the elementary and secondary schools began in 2000. The
government aimed to provide PC and internet connection to all public high schools in the
country by 2010.

Yap (2005) reported that the education sector garnered a 20% rating in the survey of
Asia’s top IT-using organizations. Universities and colleges have embraced e-learning
tremendously. Entire courses are delivered online, and video-conferencing brings remote
universities together. These universities are not driven by bottom-line profits and shareholders’
returns. Instead, they are trying to create an environment to support learning, teaching, and
researching. Universities often tend to be geographically spread out, sometimes over several
campuses, and have large user pools that frequently change. The information is authentic, and
the latest information is available. E-learning, wireless connectivity, voice over internet
protocol(VOIP) and video-conferencing, and grid computing became popular and significant in
most of Asia’s educational institutions in 2005 (Edmonds, 2005). E-learning has gone beyond
emailed lecture notes, with many of the universities using powerful e-learning systems to
deliver entire courses online, to link with other universities and campuses for video
conferencing, and to bring together knowledge across departments. Among the successful
Philippine universities in terms of e-Learning is the UP Open University. Similarly, the Silliman
Online University Learning (SOUL) program that aims to promote the use of IT designed to
increase Silliman University’s commitment to total human development for the well-being of
society and the environment (Marcial, 2010).Educational institutions in the Philippines are now
rolling out wireless networks all over campus. AMA Education System is among the first that
implemented VOIP. Grid computing, sidelined in enterprises, has caught on in universities as a
solution for cash-strapped but resource-hungry academics. Combined with e-learning, video

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
53

conferencing has helped bring scattered campuses together and allowed greater international
collaboration (Tsang, 2007).

EDUCAUSE reported that teaching and learning with technology remains among the top
10 IT issues in higher education. The following excerpts are descriptions about teaching and
learning with technology by EDUCAUSE in its 2011 survey Top-Ten IT Issues (Ingerman, B., Yang,
C., & the 2011 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee, 2011):

Not surprisingly, the strategic importance of Teaching and Learning with


Technology has been steadily increasing in the Current Issues Surveys over the
past several years. What is more revealing is that in 2011, Teaching and Learning
with Technology rose to the top-three issues and was ranked higher than Security
for the first time. This rise in strategic importance is evidence that technology has
moved beyond the data center and institutional administrative systems and is
now part of daily life for faculty and students. If you look into classrooms, offices,
or libraries at any higher education institution and watch students as they move
about campus, you will observe technology in practical use every day. Off campus
as well, the number of courses taught online and in blended technology-mediated
modes continue to increase.

For CIOs and other IT leaders, this ubiquitous use of instructional


technology poses a challenge that will most likely escalate in the foreseeable
future as new and emerging tools for teaching and learning evolve. Indeed, the
2011 Current Issues Survey ranked Teaching and Learning with Technology as
one of the top-three issues that has the potential to become more significant. The
impact on the budget was noted in the survey as well, with Teaching and
Learning with Technology ranking fifth as an issue that consumes financial
resources.

Quimbo (2009) asserts that exposure to technology equips students with 21st-century
skills required for the dynamic needs of the workplace. In his study, Gorospe (2010) revealed
that technology resources were generally perceived as adequate across units. Akhondi (2011)
concluded in his study that there is a meaningful relation between utilization of virtual teaching
and improving the teaching-learning process. Likewise, Cai (2012) concludes that e-learning
brings changes in pedagogical strategies and ultimately improves the efficiency of teaching and
learning.

METHODOLOGY

This paper is a supplemental discussion and forms part of the study on the landscape of
IT in HEIs in the Philippines (Marcial, 2011a). The study was descriptive-correlative and used a
survey method. The respondents of the study are IT managers or the head in the management
of IT and IT-related services in HEIs. During the administration of the survey, a sample size of

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
54

the respondents was determined; the total number of population (N) was based on the list of
HEIs published in the official website of the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) of the
Philippines as of December 2010. In this case, the total HEIs in the list was 1,496, of which 112
were public colleges and universities and 1,384 were private colleges and universities. The
sample size was rounded off to 316 HEIs. The sample size was computed as follows: n =
(Pagoso et al., cited by Calderon, 1993), where n is the sample size, N is the total population,
and e is the margin of error. A 5% margin of error was used. A stratified sampling procedure (%
= ) was conducted to get the regional distribution of the respondents. Respondents per region
were identified using a computerized random number generator by Weaver and Raulin (2007).

The survey administration process was limited to four distribution methods. The first
administration was done by sending the questionnaire to the email addresses of each
respondent as published in the CHEd website on February 4, 2011. The second administration
was done personally to some identified respondents who attended the 2011 National
Convention of the Philippine Society of IT Educators held from February 16 to 19, 2011, in
Antipolo City, Manila. The third administration was done on March 4, 2011, by sending a
printed copy of questionnaires addressed to school heads. The fourth administration was done
by emailing the electronic questionnaire directly to some of the identified respondents. Follow-
up processes were also limited through making telephone calls and sending text messages to
the respondents who did not respond by the indicated deadline. Telephone numbers were
sourced from the list published in the CHEd website. A weekly follow-up through email was also
done to have greater participation from HEIs. Only those HEIs that returned the accomplished
questionnaire from February 4 to April 30, 2011, were included in this study. In all, 95 HEIs
participated, resulting in a 30% response rate. Two questionnaires were rejected because the
respondents were not IT managers. Fourteen HEIs formally signified that they would not
participate in the survey, and another two questionnaires were returned via the post office
because the addresses could not be found. The remaining respondents did not respond even
after several follow-ups had been made. The following is the breakdown of respondents:
Region 1=4; Region 2=5; Region 3=5; Region 4=4; Region 5=6; Region 6=12; Region 7=18; Region
8=6; Region 9=5; Region 10=2; Region 11=8; Region 12=4; Region 13=9; Region 14=2; Region
15=1; Region 16=2; and Region 17=2. Of the 95 HEIs, 15 are public colleges and universities and
80 are private colleges and universities. Figure 1 presents the graphical distribution of the HEIs
per region that participated during the study.

Moreover, a survey questionnaire was used to gather data. A test-retest of 21 qualified


testers was conducted to measure the reliability of the instrument. These testers were
composed of various IT stakeholders such as academic heads, IT consultants, IT practitioners
who have supervisory or administrative experience, and other IT enthusiasts who actively
promote quality education. The instrument comprised close-ended questions that are based on
the critical questions that EDUCAUSE had pointed out in the 2010 top IT issues in higher
education (Ingerman, B., Yang, C. and the 2010 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee, 2010)
particularly on strategic planning. Respondents were asked to evaluate the level of
prioritization according to the five alternative choices: 5 – Essential (item is already in place); 4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
55

– High Priority (item needs to be done in the next 3 years); 3 – Medium Priority (item needs to
be done in the next 6 years); 2 – Low Priority (item needs to be done in the next 9 years); and 1
– Not a Priority (item is not being considered). Likewise, respondents were asked to evaluate
the degree of implementation of each item according to the five alternative choices: 5 – Very
Highly Implemented (item is performed and done with careful review and evaluation); 4 –
Highly Implemented (item is performed but continuing and on-going); 3 – Moderately
Implemented (item is in the strategic plan but no action yet); 2 – Fairly Implemented (item is
discussed and considered for inclusion in the next strategic plan); and 1 – Not Implemented
(item is not being considered). The level of prioritization and degree of implementation were
measured using the weighted mean (x) formula, and a chi square (x ) was used to test the
relationships between variables.

Public Private Total Respondents

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 1. Distribution of Respondents

RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS

Prioritization of Teaching and Learning with Technology

In a dynamic society, the major way in which an organization adapts to changing


requirements is through planning (Johnson, 1963). Teo and Ang (2001) reveal that failing to
secure top management support for the planning effort is the most serious problem. They
reveal that the other two major problems in the planning phase are: not having free
communication flow and not being able to obtain sufficiently qualified personnel. Planning
priorities is one of the vital activities in any academic institution. The key to success in setting
priorities is having a long-term perspective. One can tell how important something is today by
measuring its potential impact in an organization. Setting priorities usually requires sacrificing
present enjoyment for future enjoyment. It requires giving up a short-term pleasure in the

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
56

present in order to enjoy a far greater and more substantial pleasure in the future. Setting
priorities begins with a decision, then organizing the organization’s priorities so that everything
is of most valuable use in achieving institutional objectives.
Prioritization refers to the level of importance or urgency of IT components in the HEIs.
The teaching and learning with technology in HEIs in the Philippines, as shown in Table 1, is
rated High Priority by the respondents. It has an aggregate mean of 4.03, implying that this
component and all of its items are highly prioritized and need to be done in the next 3 years.
The highest weighted mean (x = 4.17) among the items corresponds to the statement, “There
should be an in-place IT teaching-learning program for faculty development.”This implies that
trainings, seminars, workshops, and other faculty development activities are to be done in the
next 3 years to improve the IT teaching-learning of HEIs in the Philippines. The institutions,
according to the respondents, highly prioritize their initiatives to encourage other faculty who
are resistant to new technologies to attend training and to consider innovative methods to
enhance student engagement and promote learning outcomes (x = 4.16), as well as their
initiatives to organize or participate in communities of practice to address strategic technology
initiatives that include teaching and learning (x = 4.09). Also perceived as High Priority by the
respondents is the need for institutions to monitor the progress of e-learning technologies and
strategically implement those that require institutional oversight (x = 3.97).The respondents
rated High Priority (x = 4.12) the appreciation by IT staff that the adaption by faculty members
of emerging technologies may require rapid accommodations in the configuration of the
institution’s hardware and software infrastructure. Likewise, the IT management, according to
the respondents, highly prioritize their communication with the campus using regular and
timely information that helps stakeholder groups acknowledge and improve (x = 4.05). School
presidents highly prioritize (x = 4.11) the giving of advice to the academic community about
decision processes for assessing proposed instructional technologies. Strategy (x = 3.97),
mechanism (x = 3.93), and a system (x = 3.91) of the teaching and learning with technology
program were also highly prioritized by the respondents. On the other hand, the statement “IT
managers should be in dialogue with legal counsel, management and leadership counsels, and
records managers about the issues inherent in the instructional use of emerging, user-focused
applications “rated lowest in terms of weighted mean (x = 3.86) among the items in the level of
prioritization. This suggests that collaboration among other units in the institutions carries the
least priority in HEIs in the Philippines.

Table 1
Level of Prioritization and Degree of Implementation of Teaching and Learning with Technology
Level of Prioritization Degree of Implementation
Item on Teaching and Learning with
Weighted Weighted
Technology Description Description
Mean Mean
1. There should be in place an IT
High Highly
teaching-learning program for faculty 4.17 3.40
Priority Implemented
development.
2. The institution should encourage other
High Highly
faculty who are resistant to new 4.16 3.41
Priority Implemented
technologies to attend training and to
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
57

consider innovative methods to


enhance student engagement and
promote learning outcomes.
3. IT staff should appreciate that faculty
members’ adaption of emerging
technologies may require rapid High Moderately
4.12 3.31
accommodations in the configuration Priority Implemented
of the institution’s hardware and
software infrastructure.
4. School presidents should give advice to
the academic community about High Highly
4.11 3.40
decision processes for assessing Priority Implemented
proposed instructional technologies.
5. The institution should organize or
participate in communities of practice
High Moderately
to address strategic technology 4.09 3.30
Priority Implemented
initiatives that include teaching and
learning.
6. The IT management should
communicate with the campus using
High Moderately
regular and timely information that 4.05 3.22
Priority Implemented
helps stakeholder groups acknowledge
and improve.
7. The institution should monitor the
progress of e-learning technologies and High Moderately
3.97 3.07
strategically implement those that Priority Implemented
require institutional oversight.
8. A strategy for choosing among
proprietary systems, open source, or High Moderately
3.97 3.14
cloud-based components should be Priority Implemented
developed.
9. A mechanism about the effectiveness
and possible reformulation of High Moderately
3.93 3.08
institutional technology should be Priority Implemented
provided.
10. A system should be in place to examine
and re-evaluate institutional structures High Moderately
3.91 3.13
for campus technology on a regular Priority Implemented
basis.
11. IT managers should be in dialogue with
legal counsel, management and
leadership counsels, and records High Moderately
3.86 2.91
managers about the issues inherent in Priority Implemented
the instructional use of emerging, user-
focused applications.
High Moderately
Aggregate Mean 4.03 3.21
Priority Implemented
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
58

Implementation of Teaching and Learning with Technology

Implementation refers to the degree of realization or execution of IT components in the


HEIs. The degree of implementation of the teaching and learning with technology in HEIs in the
Philippines, as presented in Table 1, is rated Moderately Implemented. It has an aggregate
mean of 3.21, showing that this component is already in the strategic plan of the HEIs;
however, action still has to be done. Rated Highly Implemented are items 1, 2, and 4, indicating
that these items are continuing processes in the HEIs. Specifically, the table shows that the
highest weighted mean of the items is only 3.41 and is described as Highly Implemented. The
result reveals that a high degree of implementation of the institutions’ encouragement of their
faculty who are resistant to new technologies to attend training. The result implies that this
item is performed but continuing and ongoing. The result also provides evidence that HEIs in
the Philippines are serious about implementing their faculty development program in relation
to the teaching and learning with technology. On the other hand, the lowest weighted mean in
the degree of implementation of the teaching and learning with technology in the HEIs in the
Philippines is on the statement that IT heads should be in dialogue with legal counsel,
management and leadership counsels, and records managers about the issues inherent in the
instructional use of emerging, user-focused applications (x =2.91). This result implies that this
item is to be done in the next 3 years in the HEIs in the Philippines.

The results do not provide concrete evidence to the claim of Attipa Julpisit (cited by
Tsang, 2007) that IT has been used in education as a main infrastructure to support both the
university’s process and teaching. In fact, based on the profiling study of IT resources in the
HEIs in the Philippines by Marcial (2011b), 41 out of 95 (43.16%) respondents indicated that e-
Learning systems are not available at their respective schools.

Relationships between the Profile and Implementation of Teaching and Learning with
Technology

In a study on the barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning, Al-Senaidi,
Lin & Poirot (2009) found that the two areas the faculty members complained about most were
lack of time and lack of institutional support including technical support. Bayrak & Bayram
(2010) explain that the characteristics of computer-aided teaching material, different
approaches embraced in applications, and duration of application can be effective in a
student’s achievement in computer-aided teaching. In this study, the degree of implementation
of the teaching and learning with technology in the HEIs in the Philippines as perceived by the
IT heads may suggest that there are challenges in the implementation of programs that affect
teaching and learning with technology. Figure 2 illustrates the gap between the level of
prioritization and degree of implementation of teaching and learning with technology in
Philippine HEIs. It indicates a disparity between the implementation and prioritization of
teaching and learning with technology in HEIs. This disparity suggests that HEIs in the
Philippines have notable planning; however, implementation needs more improvement. This
result may also indicate that IT managers do not fully implement formal strategizing and

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
59

planning processes that meet established objectives and instill discipline to manage application
acquisition and operation (Frenzel, 1999). Policarpio (2009) summarizes the challenges in the
implementation such as administrative support, teacher involvement, access to PCs and other
equipment, content availability and content customization, and buy-in of stakeholders (parents,
students, and teachers). Similarly, Gorospe (2010) that there is a significant relationship
between the adequacy level of technology resources and the extent of use in teaching and
learning. He also added that there is a significant relationship between the technology skills of
teachers and the extent of their use in teaching. Del Rosario (2007) asserts that the complexity
of integrating technology occurs because many variables, many of which by themselves are
complex, impact technology integration. These variables include national, state, and school
policies, state and local technology plans or the lack thereof, funding or the lack thereof,
teacher skills or the lack thereof, the rapidly changing nature of technology, learning goals and
objectives, teacher training and professional development, technology support or the lack
thereof, vis-à-vis the number of students in a school. The results of Del Rosario’s study also
point to emerging themes present in technology integration, to wit: the influence of
modernization and the desire of developing countries to become modernized and developed by
using IT as strategic tools; the decision to introduce IT as an added course or to infuse it into the
curriculum; and the evolving nature of technology, in particular the emerging trend of mobile
technology and how this impacts the use of technology.

Prioritization Implementation
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Figure 2. Comparison between Prioritization and Implementation of Teaching and Learning with
Technology
Table 2 shows the results of a chi-square computation using the online chi-square
computation (Arsham, n.d.). This computation is employed to establish significant relationships
of the level of implementation of teaching and learning with technology to: the level of
prioritization; an IT manager’s technical skill level, human skill level, conceptual skill level,
extent of decision-making, gender, civil status, educational attainment, working status, and
teaching status; an HEI’s number of years of existence; and an HEI’s internet bandwidth. The
level of prioritization is obviously significantly related to the degree of implementation of
teaching and learning with technology (Table 2 a). This indicates that items with High Priority
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
60

will also have the same intensity of degree in the implementation. There is moderate evidence
of a significant relationship between the degree of implementation of teaching and learning
with technology program and an IT manager’s level of conceptual skill level (Table 2 d). This
suggests that the key competencies of IT conceptualization of the respondents also greatly
affect the success of the implementation of the program. Further, the evidence suggests a
significant relationship between degree of implementation of teaching and learning with
technology program and an IT manager’s human skill level (Table 2 c). This may imply that the
personal characteristics that improve an IT Manager’s interpersonal relations, job performance,
and career prospects (Marcial, 2012) greatly affect the implementation of a teaching and
learning with technology program.

Table 2.Test of Relationship


Variables Chi Square Correlation p-value Remarks
a. IT Manager’s Level of Prioritization 339.604 0.888 0 Significant
b. Manager’s Level of Technical Skill 15.661 0.385 0.207 Not significant
c. IT Manager’s Level of Human Skill 14.413 0.370 0.072 Not significant
d. IT Manager’s Level of Conceptual Skill 19.149 0.417 0.014 Significant
e. IT Manager’s Extent of Decision-
4.063 0.217 0.851 Not significant
Making
f. IT Manager’s Gender 1.129 0.112 0.890 Not significant
g. IT Manager’s Civil Status 1.998 0.151 0.736 Not significant
h. IT Manager’s Highest Educational
7.624 0.290 0.471 Not significant
Attainment
i. IT Manager’s Working Status (Full-
1.129 0.112 0.890 Not significant
Time or Part-Time)
j. IT Manager’s Teaching Status (With
6.480 0.263 0.166 Not significant
or Without Teaching Load)
k. HEI’s Number of Years of Existence 15.612 0.383 0.740 Not significant
l. HEI’s Total Internet Bandwidth 15.000 0.463 0.242 Not significant

On the other hand, there is no significant relationship between the degree of


implementation of teaching and learning with technology and an IT manager’s technical skill
level (Table 2 b), an IT manager’s extent of decision-making (Table 2 e), an IT manager’s gender
(Table 2 f), an IT manager’s civil status (Table 2 g), an IT manager’s educational attainment
(Table 2 h), an IT manager’s working status (Table 2 i), an IT manager’s teaching status (Table 2
j), an HEI’s number of years of existence, and an HEI’s total internet bandwidth. Although a
technical skill is required to accomplish a specific task (Marcial, in-review), this study reveals
that an IT Manager’s technical skill does not affect the implementation of teaching and learning
with technology program in Philippine HEIs. This may imply that concepts, theories, principles,
approaches, techniques, and methodologies in IT and computing as used by IT managers are
not positive indicators of the success in the implementation of the program. Being male or
female is not a factor also in the implementation of teaching and learning with technology
program in HEIs. This result validates the study by Ahmadi, Keshavarzi & Foroutan (2011), which
provides observation that the amount of knowledge, skill, and software view of male and
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
61

female faculty members is not significant. Possessing a bachelor’s, masters or doctorate degree
is also not a factor in the implementation of a teaching and learning with technology program.
Further, having a teaching load does not affect the implementation of a teaching and learning
with technology program. There is also no significant relationship between the degree of
implementation of a teaching and learning with technology program and an HEI’s number of
years of existence (Table 2 k).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The teaching and learning with technology component is described as High Priority by
the respondents. This implies that all of the items are highly prioritized and need to be done in
the next 3 years. The degree of implementation of the teaching and learning with technology
component is described as Moderately Implemented in HEIs in the Philippines, showing that
this component is already in the strategic plan of the HEI; however, action still has to be done.

IT impacts the teaching and learning process in HEIs in the Philippines. The philosophical
view of Heidegger confirms how IT changes the teaching and learning process in any HEI. IT has
redefined the role not only of teachers and learners but also of school administrators. HEIs in
the Philippines are coping to keep abreast with the latest technology that enhances teaching-
learning process in order to provide quality education. IT, however, is not a central factor in the
teaching and learning process that provides opportunities for knowledge creation, acquisition
and distribution among the other components and resources within the institution.

It is recommended that HEIs review their strategic plans and address the issues inherent
in the instructional use of emerging, user-focused, and e-learning technologies to ensure
quality and innovative teaching-learning experiences. HEIs may evaluate each critical issue that
EDUCAUSE emphasizes in the teaching and learning with technology.
REFERENCES

Ahmadi, S., Keshavarzi, A. & Foroutan, Heidegger M. (2011).The application of information and
communication technologies (ICT) and its relationship with improvement in teaching
and learning.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 475 – 480, Elsevier Ltd.
DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.091
Akhondi, A. (2011). Taking advantage of virtual learning in improving the teaching process -
learning from the perspective of university professors in Iran at year 2011.Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 448 – 450, Elsevier Ltd.
DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.086
Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., &Poirot, J. (2009).Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and
learning in Oman, Computers & Education, 53, 575–590.Elsevier Ltd.
DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.015.
Arsham, H. (n.d.). Measuring Dependency of Two Variables
from Categorized Data. Chi Square Calculator. Retrieved from
http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/Business-stat/otherapplets/Catego.htm
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
62

Bayrak, K. B. &Bayram, H. (2010). The effect of computer aided teaching method on the
students’ academic achievement in the science and technology course. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences 9, 235–238. Elsevier Ltd. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.142
Cai, H. (2012). E-learning and English teaching. IERI Procedia, 2, 841 – 846. Elsevier B.V. DOI:
10.1016/j.ieri.2012.06.180
Calderon, J. D. & Gonzales, E. C. (1993).Methods of Research and Thesis Writing. Philippines:
National Bookstore.
Del Rosario, M. T. (2007). Technology integration in teacher education programs in the
Philippines: An international development perspective. Retrieved from
http://gradworks.umi.com/32/69/3269057.html
Edmonds, D. (2005). Study Techniques. MIS Asia. (9thed.). 18-19.
Frenzel. C. W. (1999). Management of Information Technology. Third Edition. Course
Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gorospe, M. J. (2010). Technological resources, knowledge and skills of the basic education
teachers. PeLS Online Journal.1 (1). Retrieved from
http://elearning.ph/web/userfiles/gorospe.pdf
Ingerman, B., Yang, C. and the 2010 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee. (2010). Top-Ten IT
Issues, 2010. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/3.0/
Ingerman, B., Yang, C., & the 2011 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee. (2011). Top-Ten IT
Issues, 2010. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/top-ten-
it-issues-2011.
JETRO (2004). Philippine IT Industry Report. Makati, Philippines: JETRO Manila Center.
Johnson, R.A., Kast, F.E., & Rosenzweig, J.E. (1963).The theory and management of system, (2nd
Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marcial, D. E. (2010).elearning for all: The SOUL model. PeLS Online Journal.1 (1).Retrieved from
http://elearning.ph/web/userfiles/pelsonlinejournal1soulmodelmarcial.pdf
Marcial, D.E. (2011a).Prioritization and implementation of IT in the higher education
institutions in the Philippines: An analysis towards the IT landscape. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Philippines.
Marcial, D. E. (2011b).Information technology resources in the higher education institutions in
the Philippines. Proceedings of the 9th National Conference on Information Technology
Education (NCITE 2011), held at Palawan State University, Puerto Princesa, Palawan,
Philippines, from October 27 to 29, 2011.
Marcial, D. (In Review).Investigating technical skills among information technology managers in
higher education institutions in the Philippines. Graduate Currents, Silliman University.
Marcial, D. (2012). Investigating soft skills among information technology managers in higher
education institutions in the Philippines. Proceedings of the ICERI 2012, Cambodia.
MIS Asia (2005). Managing Information Strategies.100 Asia’s Top IT Users (9th Edition).
Singapore: Hitachi Asia.
Policarpio, J. M. (2009). Resistance to acceptance: issues and challenges of integrating
technology in basic education (The Genyo Experience).PeLS Online Journal.1

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
63

(1).Retrieved on April 23, 2011, from


http://elearning.ph/web/userfiles/pelsonlinejournal5genyoexperiencepolicaprio-1.pdf
Quimbo, M. A. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives of the quality of e-learning courseware
integration in the secondary curriculum. PeLS Online Journal.1 (1).Retrieved from
http://elearning.ph/web/userfiles/pelsonlinejournal6teachersperspectivesquimbo.pdf
Teo, T. S.H. and Ang, J. S.K. (2001). An examination of major IS planning problems. International
Journal of Information Management. 21, 6, 457-470. DOI=10.1016/S0268-
4012(01)00036-6.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401201000366
Thornton, J. (2007). The foundations of computing and the information technology age: A
historical, sociological and philosophical inquiry. Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education
Australia.
Tsang, S. (2007).Out of the Ivory Tower.MIS Asia. Special Issue.14-15.
Weaver, W. and Raulin, M. (2007).Random Number Generator Program. [Computer Software].
(Graciano and Raulin Research Method textbook). Retrieved from
http://www.mikeraulin.org/graziano7e/supplements/random_prog/randprog.htm
Yap, J. (2005). Making the list. MIS Asia. (9thEd.).10-11.
Zimmerman, M. E. (1990). Heidegger’s confrontation with modernity: Technology, politics, and
art. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
64

APPENDIX

Questionnaire

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
65

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.
66

What Drives a Great Learning Experience for Millennial 3-9


Learners: Swedish and Filipino Observations
Maria Victoria Pineda & Lennarth Bernhardsson

Blended Learning and Academic Performance on Problem 10-26


Solving and Programming I of Bachelor of Science in
Information Technology
Ma. Teresa T. Cachero, Bretel B. Dolipas, Marycel T. Sajise&
Frevy P. Teofilo

Learners’ Perceptions of eLearning 27-38


Mehreen E. Dolendo& Hubert Jay J. Lisas

Interactive Learning Center of the University of the 39-49


Philippines Los Baños (ILC-UPLB) – A Catalyst of
Empowering Teaching and eLearning
Joel Anthony T. Cardenas, Lynie B. Dimasuay & Beverly R. Pabro

Teaching and Learning with Technology in Higher Education 50-66


Institutions in the Philippines
Dave E. Marcial

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Marcial, D. E. (2012). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education institutions in the
Philippines. PeLS Online Journal, 3 (1), 50-66. Retrieved from http://elearning.ph.