105 American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402 http://asrjetsjournal.org/ Integration of Information Communication Technology (ICT) in Teaching Intermediate Science Victoria E. Tamban a *, Ofelia B. Maningas b , Macy F. Dichoso c , Maria Sharice M. Navales d , Annabelle M. Angeles e a,b College of Teacher Education, Laguna State Polytechnic University, Los Baños, Laguna, 4030, Philippines c,d,e Malaban Elementary School, Department of education, Biñan City, Laguna, 4024, Philippines a Email: victoria.tamban@lspu.edu.ph, b Email: ofelia.maningas@lspu.edu.ph c Email: macy.dichoso@gmail.com, d Email: mariasharice.navales@gmail.com e Email: annabelle.angeles@gmail.com Abstract The aimed of this study was to assess the performance of pupils in terms of ICT integration in teaching science in Grade IV-VI learners in Malaban Elementary School Biñan City, Laguna, and their disparity between the level of ICT integration in teaching and non-integration of ICT. In this analysis, the quantitative quasi- experimental method was used. The hypotheses for independent and dependent samples are tested using the t- test. The results revealed that ICT Integration in teaching Science 4,5, & 6 were effective than Non-ICT Integration based on the mean scores performance of the learners’ formative test and posttest which can be implied that the academic performance of the learners with ICT integration is much better than that of the non- ICT incorporated learners . Based on the result that the mean quality measures of the two classes of the learners are differently highly significant on their formative test and posttest. The results also revealed that in terms of pretest and posttest of experimental group found highly significance while for the comparison group found not significantly different except for GRADE IV found slightly significant. The authors proposed exploring the use of ICT in the incorporation of the other subjects related to the use of ICT in Science. They also recommend to the school heads that the teachers have as much as possible continuous training and seminars to enhance the skills and confidence of the teacher in using the technology. Keywords: integration; information communication and technology; teaching; intermediate science. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Corresponding author. http://asrjetsjournal.org/ American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 106 1. Introduction ICTs such as power point presentations and LCD screen, video presentation, monitor/VDU or visual display system, printer, microphone, USB, pocket Wi-Fi, HDMI, VGA, keyboard, LED TV, smartphones, etc. are now being practiced and implemented as directed by the said DepEd Order. To promote highly and globally competent learners, the integration of ICT in teaching and learning is applied. ICT promotes the shift in education from teacher-centric to student-centric training. It also used cooperative training to facilitate role- playing, team problem-solving exercises, and formulated initiatives. Traditional academic activities are replaced by dynamic web-based discussions [1,2,8]. The use of ICT in teaching and learning can be a useful tool to raise the engagement and encouragement of students, which can also lead to improvements in pupils ' academic performance. Academic performance refers to the ability of the learners to show and apply knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes that are leaning towards a specific goal [3,7,9]. The successful academic achievement was achieved by the use of technology-assisted teaching. Educators should be more familiar with this technology-assisted teaching in order to gain 100 percent of our pupils ' predicted successful academic performance [5]. The authors in [4, 6, 12], stated that Education Department Order No. 78 s. 2010 centered on academic reform through the DepEd Computerization Program (DCP) implementation. The goals of the Department of Education Computerization Program (DCP) are as follows: to provide secondary school computer laboratory packages; to provide elementary schools with e-classrooms; to provide mobile teachers with laptop units; to incorporate ICT into the school system; to increase the ICT literacy of learners, children, graduates, teachers and heads of schools; and to reduce the backlog of computers in public schools. The researchers’ goal in this analysis is to learn the Effectiveness of Information Communication and Technology (ICT) Integration in Intermediate Science teaching. It is the subject chosen by the researcher because the researchers observed that the earners were not performing well. 1.1. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework This study is anchored from the philosophy of Social Activism theory of John Dewey from the study of [10,11], which emphasized learning as individual growth that comes through social experiences. Learners should be engaged in activities connected to real world issues and problems. Education should also focus to the needs and interest of the pupils. Learning by doing is an effective technique to measure the knowledge and skills of our pupils. It is along the way they discover how some issues and facts about the particular topics affects one another. Dewey’s philosophy directly caused some of the trends in current educational practice like interdisciplinary curriculum, hands-on, and experience-based curriculum. Dewey likely approved of technologies like the internet being used to help learners communicate with each other and learn about their society. Dewey emphasize on the need for cooperative learning which blend with technologies use for developing group projects and presentations. Stressed that growth is fostered through hands-on activities American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 107 connected to real-world issues and problems. It was shown in Figure 1, the research paradigm of this study wherein the independent variables consist of the two teaching approaches the ICT integration and the Non-ICT Integration, while the dependent variables are the learners’ academic performance on their pretest, formative test and posttest. Figure 1: Research Paradigm 1.2. Materials and Methods Descriptive quasi-experimental design, the researcher lacks control over the assignment to conditions and/or does not manipulate the causal variable of interest. With quasi-experimental designs, you can’t rule out all alternative explanations, but you can try to minimize them. This will be used since the main purpose of the study is to find out the effectiveness of the respondents of the study were the selected learners through match-pairing consist of 56 Grade IV, 38 Grade V and 32 Grade VI learners during 2nd quarter of S.Y. 2019-2019 in Malaban Elementary School, Biñan City. Table 1 shows the pretest mean scores of the respondents. Table 1: Pretest Mean Scores of Grade IV-VI Group Sample Size Mean SD Skewness Verbal Interpretation Grade IV ICT GROUP 28 22.96 3.42 2.06 B NON-ICT GROUP 28 22.96 3.42 2.06 B Grade V ICT GROUP 19 33.63 0.50 -0.59 B NON-ICT GROUP 19 33.63 0.50 -0.59 B Grade VI ICT GROUP 16 33.81 0.75 0.33 B NON-ICT GROUP 16 33.81 0.75 0.33 B The instrument of this study is the were the 50 items pretest and posttest each for Grade IV-VI, while 20 items per formative test with 10 lessons for Grade IV, while 25 per formative test with 10 lessons for Grade V, same with Grade VI. Mean, Standard Deviation, and Skewness were used in describing pretest, formative test and American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 108 posttest mean scores of Grade IV-VI in Science. Independent t-test was used in determining the significant difference between the formative test, and posttest of learners with ICT integration in teaching Intermediate Science and Non-ICT integration. Dependent t-test was used in determining the significant difference between the pretest, and posttest of both experimental and comparison group. 1.3. Results and Discussion Table 2 shows the mean scores of Grade IV on their 2 nd quarter formative test. The results of mean scores of Grade IV on their 2 nd quarter formative test in Science 4 from formative 1-10 ranges from 17.50 to 19.64 with composite mean of 18.50 (SD=0.94; Skewness-0.10) for the experimental group which implied of an advanced level of the learners, while for the comparison group is beginning level with mean ranges from 9.21 to 13.79 with composite mean of 11.23 (SD=2.27; Skewness=0.03). This results described that ICT integration in teaching Science 4 is much effective than Non-ICT integration, which is supported by the composite mean wherein the composite mean scores of the experimental group is higher than the composite mean of 11.23 of the comparison group. Table 2: Mean Scores of Grade IV on their 2 nd Quarter Formative Test in Science ICT Group Non ICT Group Topics/Lessons Mean SD Skewness DI Mean SD Skewness DI Formative 1. Bone & Muscles 18.14 0.59 2.30 A 9.21 1.45 0.86 B Formative 2. Stomach & Intestines 18.71 0.90 0.29 A 13.79 1.85 -1.84 B Formative 3.Kidney 19.39 0.83 -0.88 A 11.96 3.32 -0.18 B Formative 4.Brain 16.89 1.42 -0.55 A 9.64 1.64 0.35 B Formative 5. Body Parts of Animals that Live in Water 17.50 1.60 -0.09 A 14.04 1.29 -0.29 B Formative 6. Live on Land & in Water 18.07 1.84 -0.42 A 12.00 3.46 0.16 B Formative 7. Specialized Structures of Terrestrial & Aquatic Plants 18.82 0.39 -1.78 A 10.71 1.70 0.24 B Formative 8. Plants that Live on Land & In Water 19.64 0.78 -1.78 A 10.29 2.85 0.38 B Formative 9.Seed Germination & Growth 18.57 0.63 0.65 A 10.25 3.11 0.40 B Formative 10. Life Cycle of Humans 19.25 0.44 1.22 A 10.39 2.02 0.23 B Composite Mean 18.50 0.94 -0.10 A 11.23 2.27 0.03 B Legend: 17.90-20.00 Advanced (A); 17:00-17.89 Proficient (P); 16.00-16.89 Approaching Proficiency (AP) 15.00-15.89 Developing (D); and 14.89 & below Beginning (B) Table 3 presents the Grade V learners mean scores on their 2 nd quarter formative tests in Science 5. The results of mean scores of Grade V learners on their 2nd quarter formative test in Science 5 from formative 1-10 ranges from 23.26 to 24.32 with composite mean of 23.68 (SD=1.56; Skewness--1.65) for the experimental group with advanced level of performance, while for the comparison group is beginning and developing level with mean American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 109 ranges from 15.53 to 19.21 with composite mean of 17.15 (SD=2.91; Skewness=-0.61). ICT integration shown a good effect on the performance of Grade V learners in Science 5. Table 4 shows the Grade VI learners mean scores on their 2 nd quarter formative tests in Science 6. The results of formative 1-10 mean scores of Grade VI learners on their 2 nd quarter in Science 6 were at the level of advanced and proficiency which ranges from 21.75 to 24.75 with composite mean of 23.36 (SD=0.92; Skewness--0.95) for the experimental group with advanced level of performance, while for the comparison group is beginning and developing level with mean ranges from 15.63 to 19.69 with composite mean of 17.11 (SD=2.03; Skewness=-0.67). The results revealed that ICT integration shown an effectiveness on the formative test 1-10 than those performance of learners with Non-ICT integration in Science 6. Table 5 reveals the posttest mean scores of both groups Grade IV-VI learners. The results revealed that the posttest mean scores of the Grade IV learners with ICT integration is 48.43 (SD=2.13; skewness=-1.92) is in advanced level while the Non-ICT integration group is in beginning level with 25.54 mean scores (SD=3.55; skewness= 1.528). The Grade V learners with ICT integration were in advanced proficiency level with 41.89 mean scores ((SD=5.62; skewness=-1.29) while NON-ICT integration were at beginning level with 34.68 mean scores (SD=1.00; skewness=-0.593). Table 3: Mean Scores of Grade V on their 2 nd Quarter Formative Test in Science. ICT Group Non ICT Group Topics/Lessons Mean SD Skewness DI Mean SD Skewness DI Formative 1. Parts & Functions of Human Reproductive System 23.63 1.80 -1.55 A 19.05 1.58 -0.95 D Formative 2. The Reproductive System 23.74 1.63 -1.34 A 19.16 1.92 -1.98 D Formative 3.Parts & Functions (Human) 23.84 1.80 -1.90 A 19.21 3.55 -0.50 D Formative 4.Ways of Taking Care of Reproductive System 23.53 1.47 -1.42 A 16.53 3.42 -0.56 B Formative 5. Parts of the Reproductive System of Some Animals 23.74 1.48 -1.88 A 15.95 3.89 0.30 B Formative 6. Reproductive Parts in Flowering Plants 24.32 0.82 -1.36 A 15.53 3.37 0.18 B Formative 7. Modes of Reproduction in Plants 23.47 1.50 -1.26 A 15.74 3.60 -1.60 B Formative 8. Interaction Among Living things 23.42 1.84 -1.79 A 16.37 3.17 -0.54 B Formative 9.Reasons why We Need to Protect and Conserve Estuaries and Intertidal Zone (Part 1) 23.84 1.77 -2.41 A 15.68 3.43 -0.49 B Formative 10. Reasons why We Need to Protect and Conserve Estuaries and Intertidal Zone (Part 2) 23.26 1.45 -1.62 A 18.32 1.16 0.02 B Overall Mean 23.68 1.56 -1.65 A 17.15 2.91 -0.61 B Legend: 22.38-25.00 Advanced (A); 20:88-22.37 Proficient (P); 19.88-20.87 Approaching Proficiency American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 110 (AP)18.63-19.87 Developing (D); and 18.62 & below Beginning (B) Table 4: Mean Scores of Grade VI on their 2 nd Quarter Formative Test in Science. ICT Group Non ICT Group Topics/Lessons Mean SD Skewness DI Mean SD Skewness DI Formative 1. Parts & Functions of Human Reproductive System 24.50 0.73 -1.17 A 19.50 3.71 -0.03 D Formative 2. The Reproductive System 24.50 0.89 -1.28 A 19.56 3.78 -0.34 D Formative 3.Kidney 24.75 0.45 -1.28 A 19.69 3.89 0.04 D Formative 4.Brain 23.56 0.51 -0.28 A 15.75 1.18 -0.28 B Formative 5. Body Parts of Animals that Live in Water 23.38 0.50 0.57 A 16.25 1.29 -2.66 B Formative 6. Live on Land & in Water 23.94 0.25 -4.00 A 16.13 0.89 -0.27 B Formative 7. Specialized Structures of Terrestrial & Aquatic Plants 22.63 1.26 -1.01 A 15.63 1.67 -0.20 B Formative 8. Plants that Live on Land & In Water 22.63 1.26 -1.01 A 16.25 1.48 -1.33 B Formative 9.Seed Germination & Growth 21.75 1.53 -0.03 P 15.88 1.59 -0.57 B Formative 10. Life Cycle of Humans 22.00 1.79 0.00 P 16.44 0.81 -1.04 B Overall Mean 23.36 0.92 -0.95 A 17.11 2.03 -0.67 B Legend: 22.38-25.00 Advanced (A); 20:88-22.37 Proficient (P); 19.88-20.87 Approaching Proficiency (AP) 18.63-19.87 Developing (D); and 18.62 & below Beginning (B) American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 111 Table 5: Posttest Mean Scores of Grade IV-VI Group Sample Size Mean SD Skewness Verbal Interpretation Grade IV ICT GROUP 28 48.43 2.13 -1.92 A NON-ICT GROUP 28 25.54 3.55 1.528 B Grade V ICT GROUP 19 41.89 5.62 -1.29 AP NON-ICT GROUP 19 34.68 1.00 -0.593 B Grade VI ICT GROUP 16 43.39 5.28 -0.36 P NON-ICT GROUP 16 35.44 3.46 0.325 B Legend: 44.75-50.00 Advanced (A); 42:25-44.74 Proficient (P); 39.75-42.24 Approaching Proficiency (AP 37.25-39.74 Developing (D); and 37.24 & below Beginning (B) The performance level of Grade VI learners with ICT integration were at proficiency level with 43.39 mean scores (SD=5.28; skewness=-0.36) while NON-ICT integration were at beginning level with 35.44 mean scores (SD=3.46; skewness= 0.325). Table 6 shows the posttest mean scores test of significance between Grade IV experimental and comparison groups. Table 6: Test of Significance on Posttest Mean Scores of Grade IV Comparison and Experimental Groups Formative Test/Lessons Group Mean Difference df t-value Formative 1 Experimental 18.14 8.93 54 **30.186 Comparison 9.21 Formative 2 Experimental 18.71 4.93 54 **12.668 Comparison 13.79 Formative 3 Experimental 19.39 7.43 54 **11.497 Comparison 11.96 Formative 4 Experimental 16.89 7.25 54 **17.681 Comparison 9.64 Formative 5 Experimental 17.50 3.46 54 **8.293 Comparison 14.04 Formative 6 Experimental 18.07 6.07 54 **8.186 Comparison 12.00 Formative 7 Experimental 18.82 8.11 54 **24.643 Comparison 10.71 Formative 8 Experimental 19.64 9.36 54 **16.742 Comparison 10.29 Formative 9 Experimental 18.57 8.32 54 **13.870 Comparison 10.25 Formative 10 Experimental 19.25 8.86 54 **22.618 Comparison 10.39 **@0.01 American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 112 It was revealed that the difference were highly significant between the formative test form 1-10 of the experimental and comparison groups (t-value= 8.186 to 30.186; df=54; mean difference = 3.46 to 8.86). The results determined that the experimental group performed better than the comparison group in terms of formative test 1-10 in Science 4. Table 7 shows the test of significance of between mean scores of Grade V learners form experimental and comparison groups in terms of their formative test 1-10. Table 7: Test of Significance on Posttest Mean Scores of Grade V Comparison and Experimental Groups Formative Test/Lessons Group Mean Difference df t-value Formative 1 Experimental 23.63 4.58 36 **8.329 Comparison 19.05 Formative 2 Experimental 23.74 4.58 36 **7.924 Comparison 19.16 Formative 3 Experimental 23.84 4.63 36 **5.068 Comparison 19.21 Formative 4 Experimental 23.53 7.00 36 **8.196 Comparison 16.53 Formative 5 Experimental 23.74 7.79 36 **8.147 Comparison 15.95 Formative 6 Experimental 24.32 8.79 36 **11.038 Comparison 15.53 Formative 7 Experimental 23.47 7.73 36 **8.637 Comparison 15.74 Formative 8 Experimental 23.42 7.05 36 **8.401 Comparison 16.37 Formative 9 Experimental 23.84 8.16 36 **9.205 Comparison 15.68 Formative 10 Experimental 23.26 4.95 36 **11.639 Comparison 18.32 **@0.01 It was discovered that there are highly significant difference between the experimental and comparison groups ' formative test from 1-10 (t-value= 8.196 to 11.639; df=36; mean difference= 4.58 to 8.79) . The results determined that in Science 5, the experimental group performed better in terms of formative test 1-10 than the comparison group. Table 8 reveals the significant difference between posttest mean scores of Grade VI learners on their 10 formative tests. It was found that formative test 1-10 (t-value= 5.166 to 33.979; df=30; mean difference= 4.94 to 7.81) are highly significant on the difference between the experimental and comparison groups. The results showed that the experimental group performed better in Science 6 than the comparison group in terms of formative test 1-10. American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 113 Table 8: Test of Significance on Posttest Mean Scores of Grade VI Comparison and Experimental Groups Formative Test/Lessons Group Mean Difference df t-value Formative 1 Experimental 24.50 5.00 30 **5.295 Comparison 19.50 Formative 2 Experimental 24.50 4.94 30 **5.089 Comparison 19.56 Formative 3 Experimental 24.75 5.06 30 **5.166 Comparison 19.69 Formative 4 Experimental 23.56 7.81 30 **24.236 Comparison 15.75 Formative 5 Experimental 23.38 7.13 30 **20.586 Comparison 16.25 Formative 6 Experimental 23.94 7.81 30 **33.979 Comparison 16.13 Formative 7 Experimental 22.63 7.00 30 **13.399 Comparison 15.63 Formative 8 Experimental 22.00 6.38 30 **13.110 Comparison 16.44 Formative 9 Experimental 22.63 5.88 30 *10.671 Comparison 16.25 Formative 10 Experimental 21.75 5.56 30 **11.321 Comparison 15.88 **@0.01 Table 9 shows the test of significance between posttest mean scores of experimental and comparison groups. Table 9: Test of Significance on Posttest Mean Scores of Comparison and Experimental Groups Grade Level Group Mean Difference df t-value Grade IV Experimental 48.43 13.61 54 **28.480 Comparison 34.82 Grade V Experimental 41.89 6.39 36 **8.258 Comparison 35..50 Grade VI Experimental 43.39 10.64 30 *13.896 Comparison 32.75 **@0.01; *0.05 American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 114 As shown in the table above, it was determined that based on findings and analysis there are highly significant difference between mean scores of experimental and comparison groups for Grade IV (t-value=28.480; df=54; mean difference =13.61), Grade V (t-value=8.258; df=36; mean difference =6.39), & Grade VI (t-value=13.896; df=30; mean difference =10.64) Table 11 shows the test of significance on the difference between pretest mean scores and posttest mean scores of experimental group. Table 11: Test of Significance Between Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of Experimental Group from Grade IV to VI Grade Level Test Mean Difference df t-value Grade IV Posttest 48.43 25.46 27 **27.612 Pretest 22.96 Grade V Posttest 44.74 11.11 18 **13.728 Pretest 33..63 Grade VI Posttest 43.39 12.94 15 **17.789 Pretest 32.75 **@0.01 It was shown in table above that there are highly significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of experimental group from Grade IV-VI with t-value ranges from 13.728 to 27.612 and mean differences ranges from 11.11 to 25.46. This results revealed that ICT integration helps the learners to enhance their learning in Science 4, 5, & 6. Table 12 shows the test of significance on the difference between pretest mean scores and posttest mean scores of comparison group. Table 12: Test of Significance Between Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of Comparison Group from Grade IV to VI Grade Level Test Mean Difference df t-value Grade IV Posttest 25.53 2.57 27 *6.840 Pretest 22.96 Grade V Posttest 34.68 1.05 18 4.472 Pretest 33..63 Grade VI Posttest 35.44 1.63 15 2.702 Pretest 33.81 **@0.01; *0.05 American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 115 Table above showed that no significant difference between the pretest and the posttest mean scores of the Grade V & VI comparison group with t-value of 4.472 and 2.702 and mean differences of 1.06 & 1.63 respectively except for Grade IV which found out that there is a slight significance on their pretest and posttest mean scores. 2. Conclusion and Recommendation The researchers concluded that the findings showed that there is highly significant difference between the formative test and posttest mean scores of experimental and comparison groups, same with the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental group but the comparison group only Grade IV found significance while Grade V and Grade VI mean scores found not significant. Based on the results of this study, the researchers recommended to continue exploring the use of ICT in the incorporation of the other subjects related to the use of ICT in Science. They also recommend to the school heads that the teachers have as much as possible continuous training and seminars to enhance the skills and confidence of the teacher in using the technology. Acknowledgements The authors would like to humbly thank the honorable Mayor of Biñan City, Mayor Arman R. Dimaguila, the President of Laguna State Polytechnic University, Dr. Mario R. Briones , the Vice President of R & D, Dr. Robert C. Agatep, the Director of R &D, Prof. Christian Paul dela Cruz , Associate Dean Karen A. Manaig of College of Teacher Education , the former School Head of Malaban Elementray School, Principal Nanette M. Lacuarin, and the student-participants for their support on the completion of this study. References [1] Department of Education Memorandum Order No. 78 (2010). “Guidelines on the Implementation of DepEd Computerization Program”. Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-78-s-2010. [2] Mbugua, S. N., Kibbos, J., & Tanui, E. (2015). Influence of Integration of Information Communication Technology in Teaching on Students’ Academic Performance. Journal of Education and Practice. [3] Lucrecio, M. (2012). Breaking Barriers in Education, Creating Future Schools Today. The Modern Teacher, p. 44-46 [4] Moreno, M. L. (2010) Readiness of Teachers on the Implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Basic Education at Lubao West District, Division of Pampanga (Unpublished Master Thesis) [5] Ogunbameru, M. (2013). Effective Utilization and Maintenance of ICT facilities for Quality Teaching and Learning Outcome in Secondary Schools in Ondo State, Nigeria.Volume 2 Number 2, p.27-40. Retrieved from www.learntechlib.org/d/148152. http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-78-s-2010 http://www.learntechlib.org/d/148152 American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2022) Volume 87, No 1, pp105-116 116 [6] Orcino, J.D. (2012). Hope for Filipinos To Be Great Again. The Modern Teacher, p. 43-44 [7] Pernia, E. E. (2008). Strategy Framework for Promoting ICT Literacy in the Asia- Pacific Region. Publication of UNESCO Bangkok Communication and Information Unit. Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, Bangkok 10110, Thailand. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001621/162157e.pdf [8] Roblyer, M.D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.personal.kent.edu/~sarnold7/edtech/articles/chapter1.pdf [9] San Diego, C. D. (2012) ICT in Education. Retrieved from http://www.deped net/?page=news&action=details&code01= AI12100001 [10] Song, H. & Kang, T. (2012). Evaluating The Impacts of ICT Use: A Multi-level Analysis with Hierarchical Linear Modeling. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET). v11 n4 p132-140. Retrieved from eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ989262 [11] Trimmer, K. (2006). Teacher ICT Skills: Evaluation of the Information and Communication Technology Knowledge and Skill Levels of Western Australian Government School Teachers. 2006 International Conference Holiday Inn Esplanade, Darwin, Australia 4 – 7 September 2006 Final Papers [12] Tinio, V. L. (2002). Survey of Information & Communication Technology Utilization in Philippine Public High Schools. Retrieved from http://www.fit- ed.org/downloads/ICT%20Utilization%20Survey.pdf http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001621/162157e.pdf http://www.personal.kent.edu/~sarnold7/edtech/articles/chapter1.pdf http://www.deped/ http://www.fit-ed.org/downloads/ICT%20Utilization%20Survey.pdf http://www.fit-ed.org/downloads/ICT%20Utilization%20Survey.pdf