SOFTWARE

E-LEARNING PLATFORMS
The data revealed a grand mean of 3.89, which is considered an "advanced" level,
indicates that the student-teachers are advanced proficient in using e-learning platforms and other
software technological instructional tools.
SUPPORT: In order to satisfy the needs of modern education and prepare students for
the digitally integrated workforce, this high overall competency suggests a good readiness to
engage in technology-enhanced teaching approaches (Guzmán-Simón et al., 2020; Pellas &
Boumpa, 2021).
Proficiency in "maintaining and organizing learning materials in digital form," with the
highest mean of 3.93, is the most notable item.

HARDWARE
TELEVISION
The participants highly developed and consistent skill set in utilizing television as a piece
of hardware for instructional materials is demonstrated by the grand mean of 4.01, which is
understood as "Advanced" proficiency.
Strong operational and presentation skills are demonstrated by the highest scoring item,
"I am proficient in adjusting audio for view settings of the television to ensure clarity" with a
mean of 4.14.
It is implied that these student-teachers are comfortable using television to effectively
communicate material to a group.
SUPPORT: According to studies by Gecik et al. (2020) and Tondeur et al. (2017),
which contend that fundamental technical abilities are a prerequisite for successful pedagogical
application, this fundamental operational competence is the essential basis for more
complicated digital integrations.

However, the two items with the lowest scores, "I am proficient in troubleshooting
common television issues that may occur during class" with a mean of 3.68 and "I am proficient
in managing student focus when using television as a teaching tool" with a mean of 3.98, are
related to the more difficult aspects of classroom management and troubleshooting. Even though
they are still "Advanced," these relative shortcomings endanger the efficacy and continuity of
training.
Technical issues (troubleshooting) and controlling off-task behavior (focus management)
are chronic second-order hurdles that can erode a teacher's confidence and divert attention from
the lesson's goal, according to research by Prasojo et al. (2019) and Singhavi and Basargekar
(2019).

Key Findings: High Operational Proficiency

The participants demonstrate an "Advanced" level of proficiency (Grand Mean: 4.01) in

using television as an instructional tool. They are particularly skilled in the physical and
presentational aspects of the hardware, such as:

 Audio/Visual Adjustments: Optimizing settings for clarity (Mean: 4.14).

 Group Dynamics: Maximizing the television for whole-class viewing (Mean: 4.13).
 Media Delivery: Playing educational videos effectively (Mean: 4.12).
 This foundational competence is essential, as research suggests that technical mastery is a
prerequisite for more complex digital pedagogical integration.

Areas for Improvement: Management and Maintenance

While still rated as "Advanced," the lowest-scoring areas reveal vulnerabilities in "just-
in-time" management:

 Technical Troubleshooting: Handling hardware issues mid-lesson (Mean: 3.68).

 Student Engagement: Managing focus and preventing off-task behavior during viewing
(Mean: 3.98).

The data suggests that high presentation skills may be undermined if a teacher cannot
resolve technical glitches or maintain classroom discipline, as these "second-order hurdles" can
erode teacher confidence and lesson efficacy.

Recommendations

To bridge the gap between technical skill and classroom reality, the university should
prioritize professional development focused on:

 Hands-on Troubleshooting: Practical exercises to fix common hardware issues.

 Active Viewing Strategies: Pedagogical techniques to keep students engaged during
media-based instruction.

LAPTOP
The grand mean of 4.17, which is interpreted as "Advanced" competency, shows that the
participants have a highly developed and reliable skill set when it comes to utilizing laptops as
teaching tools.
It is implied that these student-teachers are competent and self-assured enough to carry
out the essential teaching tasks of preparation, delivery, and digital organization using the
primary instructional hardware, which is essential for contemporary pedagogical practices.
However, the two categories with the lowest scores, "utilizing productivity tools
effectively" (mean 4.07) and "safe guarding and backing up teaching materials on a laptop"
(mean 4.10), are related to the less important yet crucial aspects of technology management.
Even though they are still classified as "Advanced," they show a relative lack of efficiency and
sophisticated digital citizenship.
SUPPORT: According to researchers like Alonso García (2020) and Prasojo et al.
(2019), inadequate management of digital resources (such as cloud storage and sophisticated
office suite features) and data security are frequent issues that serve as second-order barriers to
sustainable technology use, taking teachers' time and energy away from the focus of instruction.

Key Findings: Expert Instructional Delivery

The participants exhibit a highly developed skill set with a grand mean of 4.17
("Advanced"). They demonstrate particular strength in the core tasks of teaching and digital
organization:
  Preparation and Delivery: Using laptops to create and present lessons reached "Expert"
levels (Mean: 4.30).
 Digital Organization: Efficiently managing files and folders for instruction (Mean:
4.24).

These high scores indicate strong Computer Self-Efficacy (CSE) and Technological
Knowledge (TK), suggesting that these student-teachers are well-equipped for the fundamental
demands of modern classroom instruction.

Areas for Improvement: Efficiency and Security

Despite the high overall scores, there are relative weaknesses in the "background" habits
of technology management:

 Productivity Tools: Effective use of advanced software features (Mean: 4.07).

 Data Security: Safeguarding and backing up teaching materials (Mean: 4.10).

While still considered "Advanced," these lower scores suggest a potential risk.
Inadequate data security and inefficient use of advanced tools can act as "second-order
barriers," creating unnecessary friction and distracting teachers from their primary instructional
goals.

Recommendations

To ensure that high delivery skills are supported by sustainable professional habits, the
university should focus on:

 Digital Citizenship: Enhancing skills related to data protection, cloud storage, and
backup protocols.
 Operational Efficiency: Training in the sophisticated features of productivity suites to
save time and streamline administrative tasks.

CELLPHONE
All five items fall into the "Expert" descriptive interpretation, and the grand mean of
4.46, which is regarded as "Expert" competency, shows that the participants have an
extraordinarily high skill level in using the cellphone as a technological instructional resource.
With the highest mean of 4.56, "using cellphone to communicate with students" is the
most noteworthy strength.
SUPPORT: According to studies by researchers like Crompton (2019) and Wu et al.
(2018), these educators are ready to use mobile learning (m-learning) strategies to expand the
learning environment outside of the classroom in order to improve flexibility, personalization,
and accessibility of education.
High levels of technological knowledge (TK) and comfort (e.g., communication,
documentation) are reflected in the scores. High comfort, however, does not always equate to
effective Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), particularly when it comes to handling the
difficulties inherent in using mobile devices. Despite the high score for "managing classroom
activities," mean 4.39, studies have consistently demonstrated that the biggest challenges in m-
learning are not technical but rather distraction management (a potential problem) and the
challenge of creating content that is truly optimized for small-screen, high-mobility learning.

Key Findings: Expert Mobile Proficiency

The participants achieved a grand mean of 4.46 ("Expert"), the highest across these
categories, signaling a profound familiarity with mobile technology. Their strengths are centered
on communication and accessibility:

 Instructional Communication: Using cellphones to connect with students for support

and administration (Mean: 4.56).
 App & Content Utilization: High proficiency in using mobile applications (Mean: 4.51)
and sharing digital content (Mean: 4.31).

These results suggest the student-teachers are well-prepared for m-learning (mobile
learning), which extends education beyond the classroom through increased flexibility and
personalization.

Critical Perspective: Technical vs. Pedagogical Mastery

Despite the "Expert" ratings, the analysis suggests a gap between technical comfort and
pedagogical depth:

 High Comfort $\neq$ Quality Integration: While technical knowledge (TK) is high, it
does not automatically guarantee effective Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK).
 The Distraction Challenge: Although participants feel confident in managing activities
(Mean: 4.39), research indicates that distraction management and optimizing content for
small screens remain significant hurdles in mobile education.

Recommendations

To transition from basic mobile utility to transformative teaching, the university should
focus on Mobile Pedagogical Content Knowledge (MPCK):

 Beyond Communication: Training teachers to move past simple messaging and file
sharing.
 Transformative Design: Teaching educators to design complex, "distraction-proof"
lessons that utilize unique mobile features, such as augmented reality or location-based
learning.

PROJECTOR
The participants' high level of proficiency in using the projector as a hardware teaching
tool is demonstrated by the grand mean of 3.80, which is interpreted as "Advanced" competency.

This overall high level of proficiency indicates that student-teachers have effectively
grasped the fundamental display and operational skills required to use the projector for material
delivery.
Key Findings: Advanced Presentation Skills

The participants achieved a grand mean of 3.80 ("Advanced"), showing strong

fundamental skills in using projectors for visual delivery. Their strengths lie in ensuring the
quality of the student's viewing experience:

 Visual Optimization: Adjusting brightness and focus for clarity (Mean: 4.01).
 Content Display: Effectively presenting slides, videos, and diagrams (Mean: 3.89).

These scores indicate that the student-teachers have mastered the "visual enhancement"
aspect of the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework, which is
essential for traditional whole-class instruction.

Areas for Improvement: Independence and Resilience

Despite the overall "Advanced" rating, there is a noticeable decline in scores when it
comes to technical self-reliance:

 Autonomous Operation: Operating basic functions independently (Mean: 3.67).

 Troubleshooting: Resolving technical glitches mid-lesson (Mean: 3.57).

Research suggests that a lack of technical resilience is a "second-order hurdle." If a

teacher cannot fix a connection issue or a bulb failure independently, it can cause high anxiety,
disrupt the lesson flow, and ultimately undermine the teacher's confidence in using technology.

Recommendations

To elevate these skills from "Advanced" to "Expert" and ensure instructional continuity,
the university should provide:

 Independent Setup Training: Hands-on sessions focused on the autonomous setup and
breakdown of equipment.
 Rapid Troubleshooting: Practical workshops on resolving common connectivity and
hardware issues without relying on outside technical support.

BLUETOOTH SPEAKER
The grand mean of 4.48, which is interpreted as "Expert" competency, indicates that the
participants had a very high level of proficiency while using the bluetooth speaker as a hardware
teaching tool.
Strong proficiency in handling and utilizing wireless audio technology is suggested by
the consistency across all five items, each of which also received an "Expert" descriptive
interpretation.
Proficiency in "connecting bluetooth speaker to phones or laptops, or T.V." with a mean
of 4.53, is the most notable item.
A solid Technological Knowledge (TK) basis is indicated by this high score in
operational and connectivity abilities, which guarantees that the instructor can reliably and
swiftly incorporate wireless audio into their classes, reducing time lost on technical setup.
 However, the consistently high "Expert" results are positive, they should be interpreted
carefully in light of the literature on Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), which presents a
different viewpoint and an important area for improvement. High operational competence like
connection, playing, and adjusting volume are largely reflected in the scores. High technical
proficiency does not, however, ensure sound pedagogical judgment.
SUPPORT: studies by researchers like Tondeur et al. (2017) and Gecik et al. (2020)
demonstrate that teachers frequently struggle with the pedagogical decision-making related to
sound, such as using music or sound effects that might overload the students' cognitive capacity
(the redundancy principle) or failing to use audio tools for interactive, non-traditional learning
tasks, even though educators are skilled at ensuring speaker audio is appropriate for the learning
environment (mean 4.46).
The implication is that rather than merely using the speaker for simple amplification, the
university should concentrate professional development on advanced pedagogical strategies for
integrating sound, making sure that the high technical proficiency is used to optimize multimedia
learning through the strategic use of audio.

Key Findings: Expert Connectivity and Operation

With a grand mean of 4.48 ("Expert"), participants demonstrate exceptional skill in

managing wireless audio technology. Their strengths are concentrated in the technical setup and
integration of hardware:

 Seamless Connectivity: Connecting speakers to various devices like phones, laptops, or

TVs (Mean: 4.53).
 Technical Management: Managing Bluetooth settings and configurations with ease
(Mean: 4.51).
 Multimedia Enhancement: Ensuring high-quality audio for video-based lessons (Mean:
4.43).

These results indicate a strong Technological Knowledge (TK) base, allowing teachers
to integrate audio quickly and reliably without wasting instructional time on technical delays.

Critical Perspective: Technical vs. Pedagogical Sound Judgment

While the technical scores are consistently in the "Expert" range, the analysis identifies a
potential gap in Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) regarding how sound is used:

 Operational vs. Instructional: Being able to connect a speaker (Technical) is different

from knowing when and how to use sound effectively for learning (Pedagogical).
 Cognitive Load Concerns: High technical proficiency does not prevent pedagogical
errors, such as using audio that might cause cognitive overload (the redundancy
principle) or failing to use sound for interactive, non-traditional tasks.

Recommendations

To ensure that high technical skill translates into effective learning, the university should
focus professional development on:

 Strategic Audio Integration: Teaching educators how to use sound to optimize

multimedia learning rather than using it for simple amplification.
  Sound Pedagogy: Training on the psychological impact of audio in the classroom to
avoid distracting or overwhelming students.

TABLE 7: SIGNIFICANT
The results between e-learning platforms, and educational software shows no significant
difference leading to failure to reject the null hypothesis related with up-to-date comparative
study that frequently highlights the role of the medium in contrast to the quality of instruction.
SUPPORT: According to Nasir et al. (2025), frequently the fact that, even though
platforms differ in features like analytics, collaboration tools, and user-friendliness, overall
academic outcomes are often comparable when the core curriculum and content delivery method
are consistent across the tested platforms.
This suggests that the particular platform (LMS) or software tool utilized may not be the
main factor influencing the proficiency level for a general measure like year-level perceived
proficiency.
This idea supports the typical "no significant difference" findings in media comparisons
(Dupchu, 2024).
On the other hand, the result revealed a significant difference between multimedia, and
interactive videos leading to rejecting the null hypothesis is extremely in line with up-to-date
empirical data.
This supported by Dupchu (2024), stated that the study conducted during this time
period, such as one examining the effect of interactive multimedia on the academic performance
of young learners, revealed that students who used interactive multimedia materials
outperformed those who utilized traditional methods on post-test scores, indicating that the
interactivity enhances cognitive engagement and self-regulation.
Research on tools such as interactive videos for language learning or an interactive
speech proficiency tool consistently appears a statistically significant enhancement in academic
achievement and skills, especially for student proficiency (Samson et al., 2025).
As to support by Nasir et al. (2025) and Samson et al. (2025), this directly results in a
more significant and statistically verifiable improvement in skills and proficiency than non-
interactive materials.

Key Findings: Demographic Variables

Statistical
Variable Findings
Status

Mixed Results: Significant differences found in

Partially
Year Multimedia and Interactive Videos; No significant
Rejected
Level differences in E-learning platforms and Educational
$H_0$
Software.

Sex No Significant Difference: Proficiency levels are Failed to

consistent across all software categories regardless of
 Statistical
Variable Findings
Status

gender. Reject $H_0$

Family No Significant Difference: Economic background did not Failed to

Income statistically impact perceived software proficiency. Reject $H_0$

Analysis of Year Level Differences

The data suggests that while the "medium" (platforms/software) remains consistent
across year levels, the interactivity of the tools creates a statistical divide:

 E-learning & General Software: The lack of significant difference aligns with the "no
significant difference" phenomenon in media comparisons. Research by Nasir et al.
(2025) suggests that when core curriculum is consistent, the specific platform used does
not drastically alter perceived proficiency.
 Multimedia & Interactive Videos: The significant difference here is supported by
studies (Dupchu, 2024; Samson et al., 2025) showing that interactive elements drive
higher cognitive engagement. These tools allow for immediate feedback and self-paced
learning, leading to more verifiable improvements in student proficiency compared to
non-interactive materials.

Consistency in Sex and Income

The results for sex and family monthly income indicate a leveling of the digital playing
field. Regardless of gender or socioeconomic status, student-teachers perceive their software
proficiency similarly. This suggests that institutional training or general digital exposure may be
successfully bridging gaps that historically existed in technology adoption.

TABLE 8: SIGNIFICANT
In terms to year level, the result revealed that there is no significant difference between
television, cellphone, and Bluetooth speaker because the P-Value are higher than .05.
Therefore, it is failed to reject the null hypothesis. On the other hand, the result of laptop and
projector revealed that there is significant difference because the P-value are lower than .05
that indicated to reject the null hypothesis.
SUPPORT: Due to the universal nature of these consumer electronics in daily life,
studies consistently revealed that pre-service teachers, regardless of year level, exhibit high and
relatively uniform Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) competencies
related to basic operational familiarity (TPACK's Technological Knowledge component) for
personal and entertainment-oriented devices like televisions, cellphones, and Bluetooth speakers
(Gao et al., 2020; Teo et al., 2019).
The observed non-significant difference is caused by the high baseline proficiency across
all groups, which supports the null hypothesis, failure to be rejected.
 SUPPORT: On the other hand, the acquisition of Pedagogical Knowledge and Content
Knowledge components of TPACK - the abilities required to successfully integrate technology
into teaching, not just operate it - is probably what drives the notable difference seen for the
laptop and projector (Teo et al., 2019).
SUPPORT: According to Teo et al. (2019), upper-year student-teachers have usually
finished required educational technology courses, engaged in extensive fieldwork, and received
specific instruction on how to use laptops to create educational materials and projectors to
present content in a classroom.
SUPPORT: When compared to lower-year students, this structured exposure and
pedagogical application result in a quantifiable enhancement in perceived proficiency and actual
integration skills (Gao et al., 2020). The lower P-value (.05) and resulting in rejection of the
null hypothesis for these instructional-specific tools are justified by this growth over the
academic years.

Key Findings: Demographic Variables (Hardware)

Statistical
Variable Findings
Status

Mixed Results: Significant differences found in Laptops Partially

Year
and Projectors; No significant differences in TV, Rejected
Level
Cellphones, and Bluetooth Speakers. $H_0$

No Significant Difference: Proficiency across all Failed to

Sex
hardware is consistent regardless of gender. Reject $H_0$

Family No Significant Difference: Socioeconomic status did not Failed to

Income statistically impact perceived hardware proficiency. Reject $H_0$

Analysis of Year Level Differences

The data reveals a clear distinction between "everyday electronics" and "instructional-
specific tools":

 Consumer Electronics (TV, Cellphone, Bluetooth Speaker): The lack of significant

difference is attributed to the high baseline proficiency student-teachers have with these
devices in their daily lives. Because these tools are ubiquitous for personal entertainment,
all year levels possess a uniform level of "Technological Knowledge" (Gao et al., 2020).
 Instructional Tools (Laptop, Projector): The significant difference observed here
reflects the growth of Pedagogical Knowledge. As student-teachers progress through
their academic years, they receive structured training and fieldwork (Teo et al., 2019).
Upper-year students show higher proficiency because they have learned to use these tools
specifically for lesson creation and classroom delivery, rather than just basic operation.

Demographic Neutrality
 The results for Sex and Family Monthly Income show no significant differences across
any hardware category. This suggests that:

 Digital literacy in hardware operation is equally distributed among male and female
student-teachers.
 Access to these technologies or the training provided by the university has effectively
neutralized any potential advantages or disadvantages related to a student's economic
background.

This summary synthesizes the study’s conclusions through the lens of the Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework by Mishra and Koehler.

Conclusion: The Path to TPACK Integration

The study reveals that while student-teachers have mastered individual components of the
TPACK framework, they are still in the process of fully integrating them into a cohesive
teaching practice.

1. Mastery of Technological Knowledge (TK)

The participants demonstrate "Expert" proficiency in standalone technological

knowledge, particularly with ubiquitous consumer electronics:

 Key Tools: Bluetooth Speakers (4.48) and Cellphones (4.46).

 Implication: This high baseline of TK is consistent across demographics (sex and
income), reflecting a deep personal familiarity with modern hardware. However, TK
alone does not constitute effective teaching.

2. Development of TPK and TCK

The study identifies a critical shift in proficiency related to Technological Pedagogical

Knowledge (TPK) and Technological Content Knowledge (TCK):

 Year-Level Growth: Significant differences in laptop and projector proficiency among

year levels show that as students progress, they move beyond "using a device" (TK) to
"using a device for teaching" (TPK/TCK).
 Academic Influence: Required coursework and fieldwork are credited with helping
upper-year students understand how to create content (TCK) and deliver lessons (TPK)
effectively.

3. The "Expert" Gap and Intervention

The general conclusion is that student-teachers are still developing the full, integrated
TPACK required for transformative instruction.

 Current State: While individual components (like TK) are high, the synthesis of
Technology, Pedagogy, and Content remains a work in progress.
 Proposed Solution: To bridge the gap between "Advanced" and "Expert" integration, the
study recommends a targeted Seminars and Training Plan. This intervention should
focus on hands-on practice that forces the intersection of CK, PK, and TK.

Final Summary Statement

The study concludes that the university must move beyond teaching hardware operation
and focus on integrated pedagogical strategies. This will ensure student-teachers can not only
operate technology but also design and deliver technology-integrated lessons that are resilient,
effective, and transformative.