CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the results and discussion about the data gathered on

the levels of integration on Web 2.0 tools and the levels of self-efficacy on Web 2.0

tools in classroom instructions among the senior high school teachers of the public

and private secondary schools in Iligan City. The evaluation of their personal

differences, their preferred Web 2.0 tools used, their level of integration on Web 2.0

tools and their level of self-efficacy on Web 2.0 tools.

1. Profile of the respondents in terms of the following:

A. Age

3(4%)
20(24%) 30(37%) 25 years old and below
26-35 years old
36-50 years old
29(35%)
51-65 years old

Figure 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

according to Age
 30

Figure 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the age of the

respondents. It can be observed that most of the respondents were young adult

with ages between 25 years old below to 35 years old. The group constituted about

72% (37% and 35%), respectively, of the total respondents. About one-fourth of

the respondents were middle aged with ages between 36-50 years old (24%).

Result indicated that for every middle aged teacher, there are three young adult

teachers.

B. Sex

20(24%)

Female
62(76%)
Male

Figure 4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

according to Sex

Figure 4 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents

according to sex. It can be observed that majority of the respondents were female
 31

which comprises 76% of the total respondents. This result implies that for every

male teacher, there are about three female teachers.

C. Educational Qualification

2(2%) 1(1%) Bachelor’s Degree

18(22%) Master’s Degree (with

units)
44(54%)
Master’s Degree (full
17(21%) pledge)
Doctorate Degree (with
units)
Doctorate Degree (full
pledge)

Figure 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

according to Educational Qualification

Figure 5 presents the frequency and percentage distribution according to

the respondents’ educational qualifications. Among the 82 respondents, 54% of

the respondents were bachelor’s degree holder, 22% were master’s degree

graduate, and only 1% was doctorate’s degree graduate. This result indicated that

there were 22 master’s degree graduates to one doctorate’s degree graduate.

 32

D. Grade Level Handled

36(44%) 32(39%)
Grade 11
Grade 12

14(17%) Both Grade 11 & 12

Figure 6. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

according to Grade Level Handled

Figure 6 shows the frequency and percentage distribution according to

grade level handled by the respondents. Among the 82 respondents, 39% of the

respondents handled grade 11, 17% handled grade 12. And 44% of the

respondents handled both grade 11 and 12. This showed that for every teacher

who handled grade 12, there were about 3 teachers who handled both grade 11

and 12. However, the ratio of teachers who handled grade 11 teachers and who

handled both was about one is to one.

 33

E. Tracks and Strands Handled

Table 5: Track and Strands Handled by the Senior High School Teacher
Responses Percentage of
Track and Strands Handled
N Percentage Cases

TVET 47 23.30% 58.00%

Home Economics 33 16.30% 40.70%
HUMSS 22 10.90% 27.20%
STEM 21 10.40% 25.90%
GAS 20 9.90% 24.70%
Information and Communication
19 9.40% 23.50%
Technology
Industrial Arts 17 8.40% 21.00%
ABM 12 5.90% 14.80%
Agri-Fishery 9 4.50% 11.10%
Sports and Arts 2 1.00% 2.50%
Total 202 100.0% 249.4%

Table 5 shows the multiple responses on track and strands handled by the

respondents. Only 81 out 82 respondents responded on this question. There was

only one respondent who were either not familiar with online presentation or

skipped the question. Those 81 respondents handled a total of 202 strands, which

are about 2 strands per senior high school teacher. There were 47 respondents

who handled TVET – 58% of the total respondents, which was 23.3% of the total

handled strands. There were 33 respondents who handled Home Economics, 22

who handled HUMSS and 21 who handled STEM – 40.7%, 27.2 and 25.9% of the

total respondents, respectively.

 34

Problem 2: The Web 2.0 tools preferred by the teachers in classroom

instructions.

A. Blog

Table 6: Blog Tools preferred by the Teachers in Classroom Instruction

Responses Percentage of
Blogs
N Percentage Cases

BlogSpot 32 45.10% 47.10%

Blogger 27 38.00% 39.70%
Twitter 11 15.50% 16.20%
KidBlog 1 1.40% 1.50%
Total 71 100.0% 104.4%

Table 6 presents the multiple responses on the preferred blog tools as

classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 68 out 82 respondents responded

on this question. There were 14 respondents who were either not familiar with

blogs or skipped the question. These respondents identified a total of 71

preferences, which is about one preferred blog tool per respondent. The most

preferred blog tool was “Blogspot”, which accounted about 32 respondents –

47.1% of the total respondents. Next was Blogger with 27 respondents – 39.7% of

the total respondents. However, the least preferred blog tool was “KidBlog” with

the lowest number of responses – 1.5% of the total respondents.

 35

B. Wiki

Table 7: Wiki Tools preferred by the Teachers in Classroom Instruction

Responses Percentage of
Wikis
N Percentage Cases

Wiki Answer 39 58.20% 60.00%

Wikispaces 23 34.30% 35.40%
PBWikis 4 6.00% 6.20%
MyWikiBiz 1 1.50% 1.50%
Total 67 100.0% 103.1%

Table 7 shows the multiple responses on the preferred wiki tools as

classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 65 out 82 respondents responded

on this question. There were 17 respondents who were either not familiar with wikis

or skipped the question. These respondents identified a total of 67 preferences,

which is about one preferred wiki tool per respondent. The most preferred wiki tool

was “Wiki Answer”, which accounted about 39 respondents – 60% of the total

respondents. However, the least preferred wiki tool was “MyWikiBiz” with the

lowest number of responses – 1.5% of the total respondents.

 36

C. Social Networking

Table 8: Social Networking Tools preferred by the Teachers in Classroom

Instruction
Responses Percentage of
Social Networking
N Percentage Cases

Facebook 76 80.00% 95.00%

Edmodo 9 9.50% 11.30%
Google Classroom 8 8.40% 10.00%
My Space 2 2.10% 2.50%
Total 95 100.0% 118.8%

Table 8 presents the multiple responses on the preferred social networking

tools as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 80 out 82 respondents

responded on this question. There were 2 respondents who were either not familiar

with social networking or skipped the question. These respondents recognized a

total of 95 preferences, which is one preferred social networking tool per

respondent. The most preferred social networking tool was “Facebook”, which

accounted about 76 respondents – 95.0% of the total respondents. However, the

least preferred social networking tool was “My Space” with the lowest number of

responses – 2.5% of the total respondents.

According to a nationwide phone survey accomplished for a PEW Internet

& American Life Project, more than half (55%) of American teenagers used social

networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace for social interaction (Lenhart &

Madden, p.1). This digital generations uses social networking sites to maintain

friendships with their current friends or prior schoolmates, schedule plans with

friends, or make new friends online.

 37

D. Online Presentation

Table 9: Online Presentation Tools preferred by the Teachers in Classroom

Instruction
Responses Percentage of
Online Presentation
N Percentage Cases

Slideshare 49 41.20% 62.00%

GoogleDocs 42 35.30% 53.20%
Prezi 20 16.80% 25.30%
Powtoon 8 6.70% 10.10%
Total 119 100.0% 150.6%

Table 9 shows the multiple responses on the preferred online presentation

tools as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 79 out 82 respondents

responded on this question. There were three respondents who were either not

familiar with online presentation or skipped the question. These 79 respondents

recognized a total of 119 preferences, which are about two preferred online

presentation tools per respondent. The most preferred online presentation tool was

“Slideshare”, which accounted about 49 respondents – 62% of the total

respondents. However, the least preferred online presentation tool was

“Powtoon” with the lowest number of responses – 10.1% of the total respondents.
 38

E. Video Sharing

Table 10: Video Sharing Tools preferred by the Teachers in Classroom

Instruction
Responses Percentage of
Video Sharing
N Percentage Cases

Youtube 65 48.10% 82.30%

Facebook 43 31.90% 54.40%
Video Clips 24 17.80% 30.40%
Daily Motion 3 2.20% 3.80%
Total 135 100.0% 170.9%

Table 10 displays the multiple responses on the preferred video sharing

tools as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 79 out 82 respondents

responded on this question. There were three respondents who were either not

familiar with online presentation or skipped the question. These respondents

identified a total of 135 preferences, which are about two preferred video sharing

tools per respondent. The most preferred video sharing tool was “YouTube”,

which accounted about 65 respondents – 82.3% of the total respondents. Then,

video clips with 65 respondents – 82.3% of the total respondents. However, the

least preferred video sharing tool was “Daily Motion” with the lowest number of

responses – 3.80% of the total respondents.

 39

F. Photo Sharing/Editing

Table 11: Photo Sharing/Editing Tools preferred by the Teachers in

Classroom Instruction
Responses Percentage of
Photo Sharing/ Editing
N Percentage Cases

Facebook 65 66.30% 81.30%

PhotoShop 29 29.60% 36.30%
Flickr 2 2.00% 2.50%
Tumblr 2 2.00% 2.50%
Total 98 100.0% 122.5%

Table 11 shows the multiple responses on the preferred photo

sharing/editing tools as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 80 out 82

respondents responded on this question. There were two respondents who were

either not familiar with the photo sharing/editing tool or skipped the question. These

80 respondents recognized a total of 98 preferences, which is about one preferred

photo sharing/editing tool per respondent. The most preferred photo

sharing/editing tool was “Facebook”, which accounted about 65 respondents –

81.3% of the total respondents. However, the least preferred photo sharing/editing

tool was “Tumbler” and “Flickr” with the lowest number of responses.

In contrast to the study of Buffington (2008), a photo sharing site, Flickr,

was used for art course instruction. This photo sharing site may be implemented

to provide a platform for critical thinking, writing skills, peer review and interaction

between instructor and students.

 40

G. Podcasting

Table 12: Podcasting (Creating, Downloading and Publishing Tools

preferred by the Teachers in Classroom Instruction
Podcasting (Creating, Downloading Responses Percentage of
and Publishing N Percentage Cases

News Feed 41 51.90% 56.20%

Audacity 28 35.40% 38.40%
iTunes 10 12.70% 13.70%

Total 79 100.0% 108.2%

Table 12 shows the multiple responses on the preferred podcasting tools

as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 73 out 82 respondents

responded on this question. There were nine respondents who were either not

familiar with the podcasting tool or skipped the question. These respondents

identified a total of 79 preferences, which is about one preferred podcasting tool

per respondent. The most preferred podcasting tool was “News Feed”, which

accounted about 41 respondents – 56.2% of the total respondents. However, the

least preferred podcasting tool was “iTunes” with the lowest number of responses

– 13.7% of the total respondents.

 41

H. Digital Story Telling

Table 13: Digital Story Telling Tools preferred by the Teachers in

Classroom Instruction
Responses Percentage of
Digital Story Telling
N Percentage Cases

Movie Maker 58 67.40% 79.50%

Adobe Photoshop_ 17 19.80% 23.30%
After Effects 7 8.10% 9.60%
iMovie 4 4.70% 5.50%
Total 86 100.0% 117.8%

Table 13 presents the multiple responses on the preferred digital story

telling tools as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 73 out 82

respondents responded on this question. There were nine respondents who were

either not familiar with the digital story telling tool or skipped the question. These

73 respondents identified a total of 86 preferences, which is about one preferred

digital story telling tool per respondent. The most preferred digital story telling tool

was “Movie Maker”, which accounted about 58 respondents – 79.5% of the total

respondents. However, the least preferred digital story telling tool was “iMovie”

with the lowest number of responses – 5.5% of the total respondents.

 42

I. Learning Management System

Table 14: Learning Management System (LMS) Tools preferred by the

Teachers in Classroom Instruction
Responses Percentage of
Learning Management System (LMS)
N Percentage Cases

Blackboard_ 47 51.60% 60.30%

Edmodo 32 35.20% 41.00%
Moodle 7 7.70% 9.00%
Schoology 5 5.50% 6.40%
Total 91 100.0% 116.7%

Table 14 presents the multiple responses on the preferred learning

management system tools as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 78

out 82 respondents responded on this question. There were four respondents who

were either not familiar with the learning management system tool or skipped the

question. These respondents identified a total of 91 preferences, which is about

one preferred learning management system tool per respondent. The most chosen

learning management system tool was “Blackboard”, which accounted for 47

respondents – 60.3% of the total respondents. However, the least desired learning

management system tool was “Schoology” with the lowest number of responses

– 6.4% of the total respondents.

 43

J. Instant Message

Table 15: Instant Message Tools preferred by the Teachers in Classroom

Instruction
Responses Percentage of
Instant Message
N Percentage Cases

Messenger 67 40.60% 83.80%

Cell phone 48 29.10% 60.00%
G-Mail 34 20.60% 42.50%
Yahoo Mail 16 9.70% 20.00%
Total 165 100.0% 206.3%

Table 15 shows the multiple responses on the preferred instant messaging

tools as classroom instruction by the respondents. Only 80 out 82 respondents

responded on this question. There were 2 respondents who were either not

accustomed with the instant message tool or skipped the question. These 80

respondents recognized a total of 165 preferences, which are about two preferred

instant messaging tools per respondent. The most preferred instant messaging

tool was “Messenger”, which accounted about 67 respondents – 83.8% of the

total respondents. However, the least preferred instant messaging tool was

“Yahoo Mail” with the lowest number of responses – 20.0% of the total

respondents.
 44

Problem 3: Teacher’s Level of Integration on Web 2.0 tools in Classroom

Instructions.

Table 16: Mean of Teacher’s Level of Integration of Web 2.0 tools in

Classroom Instructions.
Item
Web 2.0 Tools Mean Description Interpretation
No.
Instant Message (Cellphone Messaging, Always
1 3.50 Daily
Messenger, G-Mail, Yahoo Mail ) Integrated
Social Networking (Facebook, MySpace, Edmodo, Always
2 3.35 Daily
Google Classroom Integrated
Online presentations (Google Docs, Slideshare, Some of the time
3 3.05 1 x a week
Prezi, Powtoon Integrated
Videosharing (Video Clips, YouTube, Facebook, Some of the time
4 2.99 1 x a week
Daily Motion) Integrated
Photosharing (Flickr, Photoshop, Facebook, Some of the time
5 2.95 1 x a week
Tumblr) Integrated
Learning Management System (LMS) Some of the time
6 2.91 1 x a week
(Blackboard, Moodle, Edmodo, Schoology) Integrated
Digital Story Telling (iMovie, Movie Maker, After Some of the time
7 2.50 1 x a week
Effects, Adobe Photoshop) Integrated
Podcasting -Creating, Downloading and
Rarely
8 Publishing (GarageBand, Audacity, iTunes, News 2.40 1 x a year
Integrated
feeds)
Wikis (Wikispaces, PBWik, MyWikiBiz, Wiki Rarely
9 2.15 1 x a year
Answers Integrated
Rarely
10 Blogs (Blogger, BlogSpot, Twitter, KidBLog)_ 2.01 1 x a year
Integrated
Some of the
Mean 2.78 1 x a week
time Integrated

LEGEND:
Mean Scores Range Description
1.00 – 1.75 Never
1.75 – 2.50 At least once a year
2.50 – 3.25 At least once a week
3.25 – 4.00 Daily

Table 16 shows the mean on the teacher’s level of integration of Web 2.0

tools to classroom instructions. A mean is computed based from their responses

in every statement that are used to measure their level of integration of Web 2.0

tools to classroom instructions. It reveals that Instant Message (M=3.50) and

 45

social networking (M=3.35) tools got the highest means, which indicated that the

respondents Always Integrated instant messaging and social networking tools in

their classroom instruction on a daily basis. Among the Web 2.0 tools, Podcasting

(M=2.40), wikis (M=2.15) and Blogs (M=2.01) were the least preferred tools,

which were only Integrated Rarely or once a year in their classroom instruction.

Generally, most of the respondents indicated that some of the time they were likely

to integrate Web 2.0 tools in their classroom instruction like once a week (M=2.78).

In contrast, the National Center for Education Statistics (2010) revealed a

nationwide report that was conducted in the winter and spring of 2009 to examine

the rare use of social networking sites by public school teachers (Gray et al.,

2010b). This report indicated that very few (8%) of the teachers gave the reponse

“sometimes” or “often” when they were asked about social networking sites for

instructional or administrative purpose (Gray et al., p.12).

 46

Problem 4: Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy on Web 2.0 Tools

A. Blog

Table 17: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Blog
Blog Mean Description Interpretation

High Self-
Add links on a blog 2.78 Agree
Efficacy
Create my own blog (to be accessed by High Self-
2.76 Agree
my students as part of a lesson) Efficacy
High Self-
Post news or comment on a blog 2.76 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Upload attached files on a blog 2.76 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Edit or delete information on a blog 2.71 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Mean 2.75 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 17 presents the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

blog tools to perform classroom instructions or at home. It reveals that most of the

respondents have High Self-Efficacy when it comes to adding links on a blog

(M=2.78), creating their own blog (M=2.76), posting news or comment (M=2.76)

and editing or deleting information (M=2.71). Generally, most of the respondents

indicated that they Have High Self-Efficacy when it comes to Blogging (M=2.75).

This indicates that most of the respondents believed that they could execute well

the said Web 2.0 tool in terms of Blog.

 47

B. Wiki

Table 18: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Wikis
Wikis Mean Description Interpretation

High Self-
Delete information on a wiki 2.90 Agree
Efficacy
Upload files to wiki, such as pictures, High Self-
2.69 Agree
PowerPoint, word documents, pdf files. Efficacy
High Self-
Add information on a wiki 2.61 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Edit information on a wiki 2.59 Agree
Efficacy
Revise the information version for what I
High Self-
want on a wiki (use the history record tool 2.54 Agree
Efficacy
to verify the version I want)
High Self-
Mean 2.67 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 18 shows the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

wikis tools to perform classroom instructions or at home. It reveals that most of the

respondents have High Self-Efficacy when it comes to deleting information on a

wiki (M=2.90), uploading files to wiki, such as pictures, PowerPoint, word

documents, pdf files (M=2.69), adding and editing information on a wiki (M=2.61)

and (M=2.59), respectively; and revising the information version (M=2.54). Largely,

most of the respondents indicated that they have High Self-Efficacy when it comes
 48

to Wikis (M=2.67). This indicates that most of the respondents believed that they

could perform well the said Web 2.0 tool in terms of wikis.

C. Social Networking

Table 19: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Social Networking
Social Networking Mean Description Interpretation
Access into Facebook to talk to other Very High Self-
3.32 Strongly Agree
people Efficacy
Maintain contact with my friends through Very High Self-
3.29 Strongly Agree
social network sites Efficacy
High Self-
Invite friends to join my social network site 3.17 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Post information on social network sites 3.06 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Create my own social network site 2.97 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Mean 3.16 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 19 shows the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

social networking tools to perform classroom instructions or at home. It shows that

most of the respondents have Very High Self-Efficacy when it comes to accessing

into Facebook in order to talk to other people (M=3.32) and maintaining contact

with their friends through social network sites (M=3.29). Then, this result shows

that they have High Self-Efficacy when it comes to invite friends to join their social

network site (M=3.17), posting information on social network sites (M=3.06); and
 49

creating their own social network site (M=2.97). Generally, most of the

respondents showed that they have High Self-Efficacy when it comes to Social

Networking (M=3.16). This indicates that most of the respondents were confident

in accessing social networking tool.

D. Online Presentation

Table 20: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Online Presentations
Online Presentations Mean Description Interpretation

Use to make different kinds of Very High Self-

3.28 Strongly Agree
presentation Efficacy
Very High Self-
Use in presenting your work confidently 3.27 Strongly Agree
Efficacy
Use online presentation to make your Very High Self-
3.26 Strongly Agree
lesson interested Efficacy
High Self-
Use Google Doc to create documents 3.24 Agree
Efficacy
Use SlideShare, PowToon and Prezi to
High Self-
share, edit, and create documents with 3.21 Agree
Efficacy
other people
Very High Self-
Mean 3.25 Strongly Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 20 reveals the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

online presentation tools to implement classroom instructions or at home. It shows

that most of the respondents have Very High Self-Efficacy when it comes to using

different kinds of presentation (M=3.28), presenting their work confidently

 50

(M=3.27); and using online presentation to make their lesson interested (M=3.26).

However, data shows that they have High Self-Efficacy when it comes to using

Google doc to create documents (M=3.24) and using SlideShare, PowToon and

Prezi to share, edit, and create documents with other people (M=3.21). In general,

most of the respondents showed that they have Very High Self-Efficacy when it

comes to Online Presentations (M=3.25). This indicates that most of the

respondents were confident in using online presentation tool.

E. Video Sharing

Table 21: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Video Sharing
Video Sharing Mean Description Interpretation

Very High Self-

Use to connect with other people 3.27 Strongly Agree
Efficacy
Use to enable the people to learn a lot by High Self-
3.24 Agree
uploading educational video clips Efficacy
High Self-
Use to upload and share video clips 3.15 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Use to upload lessons 3.13 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Use to share moments 3.12 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Mean 3.18 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 21 presents the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

video sharing tools as a tool for classroom instructions or at home. It shows that
 51

most of the respondents have a Very High Self-Efficacy when it comes to using

the video sharing tool to connect with other people (M=3.27). And it also reveals

that most of the respondents have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to using the

video sharing tool to enable the people to learn a lot by uploading educational

video clips (M=3.24), using video sharing to upload and share video clips (M=3.15),

using it to upload lessons (M=3.13) and share moments (M=3.12). Overall, majority

of the respondents indicated that they have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to

Video Sharing (M=3.18). This indicates that most of the respondents were self-

confident in utilizing video sharing tool.

F. Photo Sharing/Editing

Table 22: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Photo Sharing
Photo Sharing Mean Description Interpretation

Use image sharing/editing tools to upload High Self-

3.21 Agree
images/ photos online Efficacy
Use image sharing/editing tools to edit
High Self-
images/ photos (such as add text, resize 3.18 Agree
Efficacy
image,add tags)
Use image sharing/editing tools to create High Self-
3.18 Agree
graphics (such as logo, icon) Efficacy
Use image sharing/editing tools to add High Self-
3.16 Agree
illustration or narrative on images/ photos Efficacy
Use image sharing/editing tools to create High Self-
3.13 Agree
slideshow presentation Efficacy
High Self-
Mean 3.17 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree
 52

Table 22 presents the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

photo sharing tools as a tool for classroom instructions or at home. It shows that

most of the respondents have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to using image

sharing/editing tools to upload images/ photos online (M=3.21), using image

sharing/editing tools to edit images/ photos (such as add text, resize image, add

tags) (M=3.18), using image sharing/editing tools to create graphics (such as logo,

icon) (M=3.18), using image sharing/editing tools to add illustration or narrative on

images/photos (M=3.16) and using image sharing/editing tools to create slideshow

presentation (M=3.13). Generally, most of the respondents showed that they have

a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to Photo Sharing (M=3.17). This indicates that

most of the respondents were confident that they could execute video sharing tool.
 53

G. Podcasting

Table 23: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Podcasting
Podcasting Mean Description Interpretation

Download and upload video High Self-

3.15 Agree
clips/segments online Efficacy
High Self-
Upload or download podcast files online 2.97 Agree
Efficacy
Use computers to create podcast, such as High Self-
2.90 Agree
mp3 file Efficacy
Use Audacity to record, edit and convert High Self-
2.88 Agree
audio file into mp3 file Efficacy
High Self-
Use iTunes to subscribe podcast files 2.80 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Mean 2.94 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 23 reveals the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

podcasting as a tool for classroom instructions or at home. It shows that most of

the respondents have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to downloading and

uploading video clips/segments online (M=3.15), upload or downloading podcast

files online (M=2.97), using computers to create podcast, such as mp3 file

(M=2.90), using Audacity to record, edit and convert audio file into mp3 file

(M=2.88) and using iTunes to subscribe podcast files (M=2.80). Largely, majority

of the respondents displayed that they have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to

Podcasting (M=2.94). This indicates that most of the respondents were confident

that they could operate podcasting.

 54

H. Digital Story Telling

Table 24: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Digital Story Telling
Digital Story Telling Mean Description Interpretation

Add up audio sound (such as background High Self-

3.11 Agree
music or narrative) on my movies Efficacy
Publish my movies as common video files,
such as wmv, mov, mp4 files so that
High Self-
others can review them easily (without 3.06 Agree
Efficacy
using specific software, such as iMovie,
Movie Maker
High Self-
Edit video clip to create movie 3.04 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Use still images/photos to create movies 3.01 Agree
Efficacy
Use still images/photos to create digital High Self-
3.00 Agree
stories Efficacy
High Self-
Mean 3.04 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 24 reveals the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

digital story telling as a tool for classroom instructions or at home. It shows that

most of the respondents have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to adding up

audio sound (such as background music or narrative) on my movies (M=3.11),

publish their movies as common video files, such as wmv, mov, mp4 files so that

others can review them easily (without using specific software, such as iMovie,

Movie Maker (M=3.06), editing video clip to create movie (M=3.04), using still

images/photos to create movies (M=3.01) and digital stories (M=3.00.) Majority of

the respondents revealed that they have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to
 55

Digital Story Telling (M=3.04). This indicates that most of the respondents

believed that they could perform well with digital story telling tool.

I. Learning Management System

Table 25: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Learning Management System (LMS)
Learning Management System Mean Description Interpretation

Manage classroom materials, such as High Self-

3.23 Agree
post syllabus and curriculum documents Efficacy
Use embedded tools to communicate and
High Self-
interactive with my students, such as 3.21 Agree
Efficacy
Blog,wiki, announcement, chat room
Arrange the layout of my LMS site, such
High Self-
as display course material as weekly, 3.19 Agree
Efficacy
topics or social issues
High Self-
Assess the progress of my students 3.19 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Create quizzes for my students online 3.13 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Mean 3.19 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 25 shows the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

learning management system as a tool for classroom instructions or at home. Data

shows that most of the respondents have a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to

managing classroom materials, such as post syllabus and curriculum documents

(M=3.23), using embedded tools to communicate and interactive with my students,

such as Blog, wiki, announcement, chat room (M=3.21), arranging the layout of my
 56

LMS site, such as display course material as weekly, topics or social issues

(M=3.19), assessing the progress of my students (M=3.19) and creating quizzes

for my students online (M=3.13). Most of the respondents indicated that they have

a High Self-Efficacy when it comes to Learning Management System (M=3.19).

This indicates that most of the respondents believed that they could perform well

with learning management system tool.

J. Instant Message

Table 26: Mean of Teachers’ Level of Self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools in
terms of Instant Message
Instant Message Mean Description Interpretation
Very High Self-
Send instant message through mobile phone 3.32 Strongly Agree
Efficacy
Chat with friends online by text message, such as Very High Self-
3.30 Strongly Agree
use MNS, Yahoo Mail Efficacy
Very High Self-
Review instant message on mobile gadgets 3.27 Strongly Agree
Efficacy
Chat with friends online by audio voice, such as use
3.24 Agree High Self-Efficacy
Skype
Chat with friends and see their video image online 3.18 Agree High Self-Efficacy
Strongly Very High Self-
Mean 3.26
Agree Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 26 presents the mean on the teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using

instant message as a tool for classroom instructions or at home. Data shows that

most of the respondents have a Very High Self-Efficacy when it comes to sending

instant message through mobile phone (M=3.32), chatting with friends online by
 57

text message, such as use MNS, Yahoo Mail (M=3.30) and reviewing instant

message on mobile gadgets (M=3.27). However, most of the respondents have a

High Self-Efficacy when it comes to chatting with friends online by audio voice,

such as use Skype (M=3.24) and seeing their video image online (M=3.18). Most

of the respondents indicated that they have a Very High Self-Efficacy when it

comes to Instant Messaging tool (M=3.26). This indicates that most of the

respondents were knowledgeable and confident that they could execute instant

messaging tool.

Table 27: Over-all Mean of Teacher’s Level of Self-Efficacy on Web 2.0 tools
in Classroom Instructions.
Item
Web 2.0 Tools Mean Description Interpretation
No.
Very High Self-
1 Instant Message 3.26 Strongly Agree
Efficacy
Very High Self-
2 Online Presentation 3.25 Strongly Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
3 Learning Management System 3.19 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
4 Video Sharing 3.18 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
5 Photo Sharing/Editing 3.17 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
6 Social Networking 3.16 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
7 Digital Story Telling 3.04 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
8 Podcasting 2.94 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
9 Blogs 2.75 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
10 Wiki 2.67 Agree
Efficacy
High Self-
Over-all Mean 3.06 Agree
Efficacy
LEGEND:

Mean Scores Range Description

1.00 – 1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.75 – 2.50 Disagree
2.50 – 3.25 Agree
3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree
 58

Table 27 shows the over-all mean of teachers’ level of self-efficacy in using

Web 2.0 tool in classroom instructions. A mean is computed based from their

responses in every statement that are used to measure their level of self-efficacy

in using Web 2.0 tools in classroom instructions. It reveals that “Instant Message”

(M=3.26) and “Online Presentation” (M=3.25) tools got the highest means, which

indicated that the respondents had Very High Self-Efficacy in using instant

message and online presentation in classroom instruction. Among the Web 2.0

tools, Blogs (M=2.75) and Wiki (M=2.67) were the least preferred tools, in which

the respondents had High Self-Efficacy in using blog and wiki.

Problem 5: Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the

teachers and Teacher’s Level of Integration on Web 2.0 tools in Classroom

Instructions?

Table 28: Spearman Rho Correlation: Teacher’s Level of Integration on Web

2.0 tools in Classroom Instructions and Demographic Profiles.

Demographic Profiles

Spearman Rho (𝑟𝑠 ) .155

Age
Teacher’s p-value .166
Level of Spearman Rho (𝑟𝑠 ) .036
Integration Sex
of Web 2.0 p-value .748
tools to Spearman Rho (𝑟𝑠 ) .092
Educational
Classroom
Qualification p-value .409
Instructions
Spearman Rho (𝑟𝑠 ) .053
Grade Level Handled
p-value .637
Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
 59

Table 28 shows an analysis using Spearman rho correlations in order to

confirm if there were any relationships between teacher’s level of integration of

Web 2.0 tool to classroom instructions and their demographic profiles. Thus,

teacher’s level of integration of Web 2.0 tools were not statistically correlated with

age (𝑟𝑠 = 0.155, p > .05), sex (𝑟𝑠 = 0.036, p > .05), educational qualification (𝑟𝑠 =

0.092, p > .05) and grade level handled (𝑟𝑠 = 0.053, p > .05).

This result is the same in the study of Shu-Chien Pan (2010) that age was

negatively correlated with the Web 2.0 tools integration and Web 2.0 tools

integration self-efficacy. The correlation coefficient does not indicate the direction

of causality as it only shows the relationship among variables (Field, 2005). The

findings of Shu-Chien Pan (2010) indicates that an increase in age was correlated

with the decrease of using Web 2.0 tools at schools in the southern states.

Table 29: Spearman Rho Correlation: Track and Strands Handled and
Teacher’s Level of Integration on Web 2.0 tools in Classroom Instructions.

Track and strands Handled

STEM

HUMSS

ABM

GAS

Economics
Home

Industrial Arts

Agri-Fishery

Technology
Communication
Information and

Track
Sports and Arts

Teacher’s
Level of Spearman
-.004 .229* -.044 -.071 .004 -.024 -.004 .045 -.106
Integration of Rho (𝑟𝑠 )
Web 2.0
tools to
Classroom
p-value .970 .038 .696 .524 .969 .828 .972 .685 .342
Instructions

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

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
 60

Table 29 presents an analysis using Spearman rho correlations in order to

validate if there were any relationships between teacher’s level of integration of

Web 2.0 tool to classroom instructions and their track and strands handled. A two-

tailed test of significance indicated that there were no significant correlation

between teacher’s level of integration of Web 2.0 tool to classroom instructions

and their track and strands handled. This study had failed to prove that

respondents reported level of integration of Web 2.0 tool was related to their track

and strands handled.

The study of Zakaria, et.al (2012) found out that the implementations across

institutions have reached to a significant level although the level of actual e-

learning 2.0 implementation by teachers would vary according to the subject matter

and their methods of learning delivery.

Problem 6: Is there a significant relationship between Teacher’s Levels of

Self-Efficacy on Web 2.0 Tools and Levels of Integration on Web 2.0 tools in

Classroom Instructions?

Table 30: Spearman Rho Correlation: Teacher’s Level of Integration on Web

2.0 tools to Classroom Instructions and Teacher’s Level of Self-Efficacy in
using Web 2.0 Tools

Teacher’s Level of
Self-Efficacy in
using Web 2.0 Tools

Teacher’s Level of Integration of Spearman Rho (𝑟𝑠 ) 0.469**

Web 2.0 tools to Classroom
Instructions p-value 0.000
Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
 61

Table 30 shows an analysis using Spearman rho correlations in order to

validate if there were any relationships between teacher’s level of integration of

Web 2.0 tools and teacher’s level of self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 Tools. A two-

tailed test of significance indicated that there was significant correlation between

teacher’s level of integration of Web 2.0 tools and teacher’s level of self-efficacy in

using Web 2.0 Tools ( rs = 0.469, p < 0.05). Result indicated that individuals who

had high self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 tools would probably always integrate Web

2.0 tools in their classroom instruction that, if well executed, leads to successful

output, whereas those with low-self efficacy were likely to stop effort early and

probably will never integrate it to their classroom activity (see Figure 6).

In contrast to this result, Shu-Chien Pan (2010), cited that the K-12 teachers

were unsure if they were capable of using Web 2.0 tools. They were in a condition

of not having confidence in using these tools. Bandura (1977; 1982; 1994; 1997)

has argued that self-efficacy is the judgment of one’s own capabilities in executing

tasks, assignments, projects or work. Beliefs regarding efficacy influence human

actions (Bandura, 1982; 1984; 1989; 1994; Pajares & Schunk, 2002), regardless

of whether the judgment is right or wrong (Bandura, 1982; Pajares, 2002).

According to Bandura (1982), people with high self-efficacy could accomplish tasks

exceeding their capabilities, and those with low self-efficacy might underestimate

their ability to cope with difficult tasks and fail to finish the work.