Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.

390106, ISSN 2822-4353

Research Article

Design and Development of a Technology-Integrated Module for Educators using Triple E Model
Ma Liza D. Manliquez,* Arnel S. Travero
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
Technology integration transformed education, redefining the teaching and learning experience. Today's classrooms
have come a long way from the days of textbooks and blackboards. This study focuses on the design and development
of an instructional module aimed at enhancing faculty digital competence in technology integration within higher
education. Employing a Design and Development Research (DDR) methodology and guided by the ADDIE Model,
the research involved comprehensive needs assessments through stakeholder interviews and expert evaluations. The
instructional module was structured to address identified gaps in faculty technology integration skills and is grounded
in Kolb’s Triple E Model of Engaging, Enhancing, and Extending learning experiences. Evaluation results from a
panel of experts revealed that the module effectively met several key pedagogical standards, demonstrating high levels
of content clarity, engagement, and appropriateness for professional development needs. Despite these strengths, the
findings indicated opportunities for improvement, particularly in the areas of content inclusivity for diverse learners
and the incorporation of structured self-assessment and reflection opportunities. Recommendations emerging from the
study include enhancing content tailored to varied learning styles, fostering deeper reflective practices, establishing
continuous feedback mechanisms, and conducting professional development sessions to support effective module
implementation. This study underscores the importance of continually refining instructional resources to empower
faculty in effectively integrating technology within their teaching practices, ultimately enhancing student learning
experiences in the digital era.
Keywords: digital competence, technology integration, instructional design, faculty development, Kolb’s Triple E
model

Introduction
The integration of technology in education has revolutionized the teaching and learning experience, shifting from traditional, textbook-
based instruction to dynamic, interactive environments enriched by digital tools (Tortola, 2024; Padilla et al., 2024; Travero & Padilla,
2025). This transformation has enhanced pedagogical practices, fostering personalized, engaging, and student-centered learning
experiences. The widespread use of technology in education underscores the need to equip educators with the necessary skills to
facilitate meaningful learning. However, effective technology integration extends beyond the mere use of digital tools; it requires
aligning technology with pedagogical objectives to optimize student learning outcomes (Wiltermark et al., 2024). Thus, educators must
be proficient in both technological and pedagogical strategies to sustain quality education in the 21st century.
Global educational frameworks emphasize the necessity of technology-integrated teaching. The United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) and Goal 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) highlight the importance of digital
competence among educators. SDG 4 underscores the need for continuous professional development to ensure educators can adapt to
emerging technologies (UNDESA, 2024). Without adequate training, teachers may struggle to create interactive and inclusive
classrooms, ultimately limiting students’ learning experiences. Similarly, SDG 9 promotes innovation by encouraging the adoption of
modern teaching methodologies and digital platforms, recognizing that education must evolve alongside technological advancements
(UNDESA, 2024). Educators proficient in technology integration can create more engaging and effective learning environments,
bridging the gap between traditional instruction and contemporary digital learning demands.
Despite the recognized importance of technology integration, challenges persist in higher education. Studies indicate that while
professional development programs have improved educators’ digital skills, many training initiatives lack sustained support, limiting
their long-term impact (Edouard, 2023; Karkouti, 2023; Akram et al., 2022). Faculty members often report insufficient opportunities
to practice and refine newly acquired skills, leading to inconsistent classroom technology adoption. Institutional barriers such as time
constraints, limited funding, and inadequate infrastructure further hinder effective technology integration (Panakaje et al., 2024).
Research highlights the need for comprehensive training programs that not only develop technical proficiency but also emphasize
pedagogical strategies for integrating technology into instructional design (Glover et al., 2016; Mariscal et al., 2023). Effective
technology integration requires educators to move beyond basic digital skills and adopt pedagogical frameworks that enhance student
engagement and learning outcomes (Arora & Chander, 2020).
In the Philippines, efforts to implement digital transformation in higher education remain a challenge due to limited access to software,
hardware, and reliable internet infrastructure (Second Congressional Commission on Education, 2025). While initiatives to provide
schools with digital resources are ongoing, disparities in technological accessibility persist, creating a digital divide among educators
(Tortola, 2024). Research suggests that conventional technology use dominates teaching practices, with limited engagement in
advanced pedagogical approaches that incorporate technology as a transformative learning tool (Morales et al., 2021). Therefore,
targeted training programs emphasizing the pedagogical application of digital tools are essential to closing this gap (Bustos, 2024;
Manliquez & Travero 38/53
 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Cadiz, 2024; Tortola, 2024).

At the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines-Claveria (USTP-Claveria), faculty training during the COVID-
19 pandemic primarily focused on the implementation of the university’s Learning Management System (LMS) to support flexible
learning, as mandated by CHED’s Memoranda Order No. 4 and No. 6 s. 2020. These training sessions equipped faculty with essential
digital skills to sustain education amidst the crisis. As conditions improved in 2022, the university adopted a hybrid learning approach,
combining face-to-face and online modalities (OVPAA Memo No. 45, s. 2022). However, despite these advancements, faculty training
remained largely reactive, addressing immediate instructional challenges rather than fostering long-term competence in technology
integration (Akram et al., 2021). Faculty members expressed the need for continuous professional development that not only enhances
technical proficiency but also deepens pedagogical knowledge to effectively integrate technology into teaching and learning processes
(Kolb, 2020).
To address these challenges, this study aims to design and develop a technology-integrated module for educators using the Triple E
Model. The Triple E Model (Engagement, Enhancement, and Extension) provides a structured framework for evaluating and
implementing technology in education, ensuring that digital tools support active learning, deepen conceptual understanding, and extend
learning beyond the classroom (Kolb, 2020). Through the alignment of the module with this model, the study seeks to provide faculty
with a comprehensive, research-based training program that fosters meaningful and effective technology integration. This initiative
will contribute to the enhancement of faculty competence, ultimately improving teaching practices and student learning experiences in
the digital era.
Methodology
Research Design
This study employed Design and Development Research (DDR), an approach used in education, instructional design, and technology
development to create, test, and refine instructional products. DDR involves a systematic investigation to establish an empirical basis
for instructional materials and models. It emphasizes an iterative process in which instructional products undergo continuous refinement
based on real-world implementation and feedback.
The focus of this study was on the design and development of an instructional module and the evaluation of the module by a panel of
experts. To ensure a structured and systematic development process, the study utilized the ADDIE Model—Analyze, Design, Develop,
Implement, and Evaluate—as a guiding framework. This model facilitated an iterative approach to instructional design, ensuring that
the module was rigorously planned, developed, and evaluated. The ADDIE framework allowed for continuous feedback, enhancing
the effectiveness and relevance of the instructional material.
Procedure
The research process followed the phases of the ADDIE Model of Dick et al. (2015) to guide the design, development, and evaluation
of the instructional module.
The study initiated with a detailed needs assessment to acquire insights from faculty members and experts regarding their digital
competence in higher education. This phase was critical for identifying instructional gaps and informing the module's content and
structure. The needs assessment involved conducting interviews with experts to determine essential content areas and performing a
literature review to benchmark existing training programs and best practices in technology-enhanced learning. The insights gathered
from these activities established a robust foundation for the instructional module, ensuring its relevance and efficacy in addressing the
needs of faculty.
Subsequent to the needs analysis, the findings informed the creation of a competence framework that shaped the structure of the
instructional module. This design phase focused on defining clear learning outcomes and module-specific objectives, alongside
selecting instructional strategies that corresponded to the identified needs. Additionally, the relevant materials and technologies were
identified to support the module. The design integrated Kolb's Triple E Model—Engage, Enhance, and Extend—ensuring a progressive
and meaningful faculty development experience. Furthermore, a Task Analysis Blueprint was developed to align the instructional
content with the established learning objectives, enhancing the module’s clarity, structure, and adaptability for diverse learners.
During the development phase, the instructional module was created based on the competence framework established in the design
phase. The module consisted of several key topics, including "Navigating the Digital World as Responsible Citizens," which focused
on digital literacy and ethical considerations; "Engaging Minds with Tech Tools," exploring various digital tools for effective teaching
and learning; "Optimizing Outputs with AI Partners," highlighting the role of artificial intelligence in enhancing instructional
efficiency; and "Steering Instruction with Triple E," which addressed the application of Kolb’s Triple E Model in instructional design.
The completed module underwent validation by a panel of experts who assessed content accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness. The
evaluation criteria were adapted from existing instructional design frameworks to ensure the module’s effectiveness, and feedback
from the experts was incorporated into subsequent revisions to enhance its quality.
In the evaluation phase, the instructional module was rigorously assessed by a panel of four specialists, each covering relevant domains

Manliquez & Travero 39/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

such as content and technology, instructional design, instructional systems design, and assessment. Their collective expertise ensured
that the module was pedagogically sound, technologically relevant, and effectively structured for faculty training. The evaluation
process involved thorough reviews and validation, which ensured the module’s alignment with pedagogical standards and its ability to
meet the needs identified during the initial analysis phase and design activities. This structured approach facilitated the development
of an instructional module that not only addressed the current requirements of faculty but also adhered to high standards of educational
quality and technological integration.
Data Analysis
This study utilized mean and standard deviation and thematic analysis to treat data. In the needs assessment phase, thematic analysis
identified challenges in technology integration, while survey data were analyzed using mean and standard deviation. In the design
phase, thematic analysis guided the development of the competence framework and training modules, with statistical measures of
means and standard deviation validating their effectiveness. The evaluation and feedback from the panel of experts informed the module
revisions.
Ethical Considerations
The study emphasized adherence to ethical principles outlined by the University's Research Ethics Committee (REC) to ensure the
integrity of the research process. A primary focus was on the respect for persons and voluntary participation, which involved treating
faculty participants as autonomous individuals with the right to make informed decisions. Informed consent was prioritized, requiring
transparent communication about the research's objectives, methods, potential risks, and benefits. Participants were encouraged to
engage voluntarily and could withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions.
The study also adhered to principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Researchers aimed to enhance the well-being of participants
through skill development and professional growth, while actively avoiding any harm or negative consequences associated with
participation. The benefits of participating included improved teaching effectiveness and recognition for their contributions.
Finally, the principle of justice was highlighted, necessitating that the study avoided discrimination, bias, or favoritism among
participants. Efforts were made to ensure that all faculty members had equitable access to training opportunities. These ethical
principles were integral to maintaining fairness, transparency, and respect for the faculty involved in the research.
Results and Discussion
Analyzing the Needs of the Faculty
The analysis of the faculty’s needs utilized a researcher-made questionnaire validated by experts. The questionnaire made use of the
UNESCO ICT CFT Framework 2018. This framework is designed as a training tool for using ICT in education (UNESCO, 2018). It
can be a foundation for teachers to define and regulate their digital and technology integration competence (Rashiva, 2023). It assessed
23 competencies across three key aspects: pedagogy, application of digital skills, and teacher professional learning. Most of these
competences were mapped to the Knowledge Acquisition level of the UNESCO ICT CFT with four competencies classified under the
Knowledge Deepening level. These competences focused on advanced skills such as utilizing interactive edtech applications,
employing edtech tools for sharing and collaboration, applying gamification strategies, and integrating AI tools in teaching. The
selection of these competences was grounded in the interview data, which contextualized the specific challenges, issues, and problems
faced by the faculty regarding technology use and integration in college classes.
The ICT-enhanced teaching pedagogy aspect of the technology integration survey evaluated faculty competences in effectively
integrating technology to enrich teaching and foster student-centered learning. It included six key items: selecting appropriate
technology tools to support content acquisition, aligning tools with learning objectives, designing technology-based activities that
enhance collaboration, communication, and creative thinking, adopting student-centered strategies using technology, and
demonstrating familiarity with frameworks for technology integration. It also assessed the ability to apply these frameworks in lesson
planning, ensuring purposeful use of technology to achieve instructional goals.
The application of the digital skills aspect of the technology integration survey assessed faculty proficiency in utilizing digital tools for
teaching and learning. It included basic operational skills, such as operating projectors and troubleshooting technical issues, as well as
productivity tasks like creating text documents, designing presentations with PowerPoint and Canva, and producing instructional
videos. Advanced skills included using interactive tools like Padlet and Google Workspace for collaboration, gamification tools like
Kahoot to engage students, and generative AI for lesson preparation. Moreover, it included using tools like Grammarly and ensuring
academic honesty. These competencies reflected the faculty's ability to create interactive and ethical technology-enhanced learning
environments. The Teacher Professional Learning aspect of the survey, focusing on digital literacy, evaluates faculty competencies in
fostering responsible and ethical technology use in educational settings. It included understanding and modeling the principles of digital
citizenship, emphasizing the responsible, respectful, and ethical use of technology. Key items assessed awareness of digital well-being,
promoting balanced and healthy technology use in the classroom, and practicing constructive communication and respect when utilizing
mobile technologies. Additionally, it highlighted the importance of adhering to digital etiquette in online interactions, ensuring

Manliquez & Travero 40/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

professional and respectful engagements. These competences reflected a comprehensive approach to equipping educators with the
skills to navigate and teach in a digitally connected world responsibly.
The following table shows the least mastered competences of the teacher-participants as exhibited in the survey.
Table 1. TIC Survey Results Showing Least Mastered Competencies
Competences Mean SD Description
Being familiar with a framework for technology integration in teaching and learning. 3.20 0.66 Moderately Competent
Devising lesson plans that follow a framework for technology integration. 3.13 0.78 Moderately Competent
Utilizing interactive edtech applications (like Padlet, Mentimeter, Socrative, and 2.33 0.88 Less Competent
others) that encourage students to collaborate, share ideas, and communicate with
others.
Integrating edtech tools and applications such as Google Workspace to work on 2.70 0.92 Moderately Competent
activities, share mindsets, and create content among students.
Using gamification applications (such as Kahoot, Quizlet, and others) to infuse learning 2.37 0.93 Less Competent
with fun and excitement.
Using generative AI to help create and prepare learning content, expound lessons, 2.93 0.91 Moderately Competent
and/or supplement educational materials and learning resources.
Use appropriate technology tools and applications (like Grammarly) to ensure 3.13 0.78 Moderately Competent
academic honesty and integrity in student submissions and activities.
Understanding the concept of digital citizenship. 3.03 0.93 Moderately Competent
Modeling the principles of digital citizenship. 2.83 0.83 Moderately Competent

The survey results revealed that the faculty demonstrated moderate competence in seven (7) items and least competence in two (2)
items of the technology integration survey.
The area of application of digital skills had the lowest means (ranging from 2.33 to 3.13). Interactive education technology tools like
Padlet and Mentimeter, and gamification applications like Kahoot and Quizlet were identified as areas of least competence. On the
other hand, the faculty exhibited moderate competence in using Google Workspace tools, generative AI tools, and academic integrity
tools such as Grammarly. Regarding digital citizenship, faculty members demonstrated moderate competence in understanding its
concept (3.03) and modeling its principles (2.83). Also, the faculty displayed moderate competence in applying technology-integrating
frameworks, specifically in familiarity with them (3.20) and in devising lesson plans that align with them (3.13).
The findings on applying digital skills indicated that the faculty members are familiar with essential productivity tools. However, they
may need additional support to enhance their proficiency using interactive and engaging educational technologies that promote student
participation and motivation. They may be highly skilled in some standard digital tools and technologies used in teaching. However,
their moderate and low competence in emerging and advanced digital tools, including gamification, interactive applications, and AIs,
suggested limited confidence in integrating these tools into teaching. This gap highlighted the need for focused training on these
innovative technologies to enhance teaching practices, promote engagement, and adapt to evolving educational demands.
With technology in the classroom and the need to prepare students for the 21st century, teachers are commissioned to effectively plan
for technology and pedagogy integration (Bonfiglio-Pasivich, 2018). Teachers need the knowledge, skills, and understanding to do this
effectively. Developing technological skills topped the methods adhered to in professional development programs for enhancing
technology integration. Davies et al. (2014) emphasized that these approaches are intended to help teachers gain experience and
confidence with technology and provide them with models for how it might be used effectively. Professional development initiatives
and training programs should focus on practical skills and hands-on experience to provide faculty support and enhance competence in
using technology (Mariscal et al., 2023).
In a survey of EFL teachers, Liang (2021) found that among the different technologies, teacher respondents utilized traditional
technologies like Microsoft Word to create and edit text and PowerPoint to make presentations; emerging technologies like Moodle to
share course materials and WeChat to communicate; technological applications like SoJump & Kahoot to design in-class quizzes and
gaming tools like Second Life to engage students in virtual worlds and simulations. Teachers mostly used traditional technologies to
plan and deliver instructions. Their use of emerging technologies was limited to interaction with students, and their use of applied
technological applications was much less frequent. They rarely implemented these relatively new and emerging technologies in the
classroom to enhance students' learning experience (Liang, 2021). These teachers might need to become more familiar with emerging
technologies and need more knowledge and skills to integrate them into the English classroom, leading to their less frequent use.
Amhag et al. (2019) surveyed higher education teachers' competence in using digital tools. Almost half of the respondents used a
stationary computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, and interactive boards (i.e., smart boards) in their work. The faculty's most commonly
used tools and services and programs were its learning a digital student platform)Skype, Hangouts, Zoom, and Adobe Connect for
communication and meetings, and other mobile applications such as Box and Google Drive. The study revealed that teacher educators
should have used digital tools primarily for pedagogical purposes. Extensive and continuing pedagogical support is needed in creating
digital teaching and learning environments. According to Tortola (2024), professional development should prioritize teacher
opportunities focusing on technical skills and pedagogical strategies for seamless technology use. Teacher educators must understand
Manliquez & Travero 41/53
 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

the potential of digital tools in education and identify the pedagogical value in their teaching and learning context (Amhag et al., 2019).
Akram et al.’s (2022) research found teacher participants to have high competence in content knowledge. However, it marked their
technological knowledge at the lowest level, thus acknowledging the need for guidance to update their technological skills. Their
inadequacy in technological competence caused them difficulties in adopting ICT in their instructional practices.
These studies highlight the critical need for professional development initiatives prioritizing practical, hands-on training. Programs
should focus on enhancing educators' technological skills and confidence while demonstrating effective models for classroom
integration. Such initiatives can empower teachers to maximize the pedagogical potential of digital tools, bridging the gap between
current practices and the demands of 21st-century education.
The results in digital citizenship indicated that while the faculty recognizes the importance of responsible and ethical use of technology,
they can improve in consistently integrating these principles into their teaching practices. Strengthening their ability to model digital
citizenship can help guide students in navigating the digital world responsibly and ethically.
There is an urgent need for training programs that equip educators with the knowledge and skills to practice digital citizenship and
ethically and responsibly integrate technology into their teaching (Balbaa et al.,2023; Gómez-Trigueros, 2023; Pulijala, 2024; Atencio
& Acuña, 2024). Integrating digital technologies in education has transformed teaching and learning, offering opportunities and
challenges. A recurring theme in recent research is the critical need for faculty to undergo comprehensive training in the ethical and
responsible use of technology.
Balbaa et al. (2023) highlighted the multifaceted ethical challenges in digital education, emphasizing educators' pivotal role in
addressing these issues. They recommended ongoing professional development to empower educators to navigate the ethical
complexities of digital integration. Similarly, Pulijala (2024) called for continuous professional development and regular training to
ensure that technology integration is effective and ethically grounded. Being frontline implementers of technology, they must be
supported in addressing issues of digital well-being along with privacy, equity, and transparency in educational technology
implementation. Gómez-Trigueros (2023) revealed a gap in teacher training related to ethical knowledge despite advancements in
pedagogical and technological instruction. He emphasized that understanding digital ethics is as crucial as mastering content and
pedagogy. This ethical preparedness is essential for developing digitally competent educators who can foster responsible technology
use among learners. Atencio and Acuña (2024) identified a lack of ethical training and institutional support as significant barriers to
responsible technology use. Their findings called for an integrative approach that includes ongoing faculty training, updated policies,
and collaboration to ensure that technology serves equitable and sustainable educational goals.
Adding to these perspectives, Lapuzina (2023) stressed the societal importance of understanding technology's power and potential
misuse. Through mastering computer ethics, educators and society can prevent negative consequences and address moral dilemmas
related to technology use. Tortola (2024) stressed the essentialness of teachers being educated on responsible technology use and
promoting ethical behavior.
Collectively, these studies emphasize the urgent need for teacher training programs that ensure educators are well-equipped to handle
ethical challenges, enabling them to integrate technology responsibly and effectively into their teaching.
The result in the following frameworks for ICT-enhanced teaching suggested that for the faculty to have a foundational grasp of
technology integration principles, further support is needed to enhance their ability to design lessons that effectively incorporate
technology to meet learning objectives. Providing more opportunities for faculty to explore and apply various technology integration
models can help them develop more structured and meaningful learning experiences.
A sound framework is essential for effective technology integration in education (Bonfiglio-Pavisich, 2018; Arora & Chander, 2020;
Bajracharya, 2021; Crompton et al., 2024)—these range from systemic to frameworks specific to guide the steps in lessons integrating
technology. Crompton et al. (2024) introduced a systemic model addressing the limitations of traditional training, aligning technology,
pedagogy, and curriculum objectives to ensure meaningful learning outcomes. Similarly, Arora and Chander (2020) stressed the
thoughtful use of frameworks to integrate technology logically, enhancing learning and guiding lesson designs. Bajracharya (2021)
critiqued popular technology integration models and highlighted the need for actionable steps to bridge the gap between theoretical
concepts and practical classroom applications. Bonfiglio-Pavisisch (2018) underscored the importance of merging pedagogy and
technology to create impactful students-centered lessons by adhering to a matrix to align instructional strategies with technology for a
meaningful learning environment. These studies resonated with the survey's findings on the need for a sound framework for technology
integration lessons.
Aside from emphasizing guiding frameworks, several studies highlighted the need for pedagogically grounded technology integration
to enhance teaching and learning. Davies and West (2014) advocated aligning technological tools with learning goals to engage students
actively. Teacher training must prioritize purposeful applications rather than the comfort of using technology. Similarly, Uslu and
Usluel (2019) stressed the importance of using ICT tools to design compelling learning experiences and build better confidence for
classroom application. This preparation supported smoother integration and aligned tools with educational objectives. Mariscal et al.
(2023) underlined the importance of strengthening pedagogical competence in technology integration, enabling teachers to select
appropriate tools, design activities suited to students' technical skills, and foster meaningful learning. Lawrence et al. (2020) extended
Manliquez & Travero 42/53
 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

this by calling for theoretically informed pedagogy that used technology not as a mere substitute but as a means for innovative,
transformative learning outcomes. Systematic training programs should align technology use with pedagogical theories to create
student-centered approaches. Panakaje et al (2024) focused on the shift toward multimodal pedagogical strategies in higher education,
highlighting the dual competency of subject expertise and innovative teaching enabled by technology. Faculty reported designing
lessons aligned with objectives, staying updated in their fields, and leveraging technology for engaging and effective learning
environments.
These studies advocated for a comprehensive approach to technology integration rooted in sound pedagogical frameworks and
purposeful application.
Designing the Competence Framework
Based on the survey results, the faculty needed to enhance their technology integration competences in ICT-enhanced teaching, digital
citizenship, interactive edtech tools, gamification apps, co-creating and sharing documents, and generative AI. These competencies
form the foundation for the competence framework that directs the design of the training and development of the modules. Data from
the interviews with faculty, students, administrators, and experts revealed some challenges and problems in the faculty’s integration of
technology in their daily classes. The two overarching major issues were administrative and instructional challenges.
The administrative category’s key themes included infrastructure problems—highlighting issues like inadequate facilities, limited
internet connectivity, and students' connectivity challenges—and faculty development, encompassing the need for faculty training and
problems with utilizing the official LMS, USTeP.
The instructional category, on the other hand, focused on the theme of technological knowledge, covering basic technical competence
(operating projection technology and MS Word utilization), multimedia integration (challenges in PowerPoint design and video
productions, and using generative AI (issues on academic integrity). The second theme is technological pedagogical knowledge
emphasizing the effective use of interactive learning resources and apps for student engagement. The third theme is the ethical and
responsible use of technology, addressing digital well-being, ethics in technology use, and issues in responsible online communication.
This structured grouping stressed the diverse challenges in both administrative and instructional dimensions, providing a
comprehensive framework for addressing them.
Several studies resonated with the issues, problems, and challenges identified in this study. Vatanartiran and Karadeniz (2015), Harrel
& Bynum (2018), Alvarez Jr. (2020), and Mastul et al. (2023) emphasized the multifaceted nature of these issues, underscoring the
need for comprehensive solutions to support technology use in education effectively.
Vatanartiran and Karadeniz (2015) identified three main issues related to technology integration: executive, infrastructural, and
instructional. Executive challenges involved poor communication and insufficient funding, infrastructural issues including no-slow-
outdated technology and connectivity problems, and instructional challenges focused on lack of materials, time constraints, and gaps
in readiness, particularly technological pedagogical knowledge. Harrel and Bynum (2018) stipulated that poor infrastructure,
inadequate technology, and lack of sufficient professional development are external factors that limit educators' integration of
technology in school. Similarly, Alvarez (2020) highlighted technological and technical support problems as key "roadblocks," where
a lack of technological knowledge, hardware issues, and system malfunctions disrupt effective instruction, while Mastul et al. (2023)
declared that lack of infrastructure, teacher training, resistance to change and technical difficulties are significant barriers to effective
implementation of technology integration.
Other studies also identified key challenges to effective technology integration, including insufficient technological competence,
inadequate infrastructure, and limited resources. Nagy and Dringó-Horváth (2024) noted that the lack of resources hindered the teachers'
ability to integrate technology into their instruction. Several studies highlight the importance of training and support. Lawrence (2020)
emphasized that a lack of pedagogical guidance and training leads to reluctance and feeling overwhelmed, while Edouard (2023)
stressed the need for faculty development in technology proficiency. Karkouti (2023) found that foundational skills and access to digital
confidence are crucial for successful integration. Teacher training is a central theme, with Jorge-Vazquez (2021) identifying it as a
primary obstacle. Akram (2022) pointed to the combined effects of inadequate ICT training, infrastructure, and professional
knowledge.
These studies aligned with the issues identified in this research, reinforcing the challenges educators face in technology integration.
They emphasized the need to address issues on technological competence, pedagogical competence, infrastructure, resources, and
comprehensive training and support for teachers.
Of the two major issues identified in the interviews conducted, instructional issues--technological knowledge, technological
pedagogical knowledge, and ethical and responsible use of technology—— relate closely to the endeavors to enhance the faculty's
competence in technology integration. These themes matched the survey results conducted with the faculty following the UNESCO
ICT CFT, which gave the aspects of applying digital skills, pedagogy, and teacher’s professional learning. These aspects' competences
are infusion, ICT-enhanced teaching, and digital citizenship. These competences formed the foundation of the technology integration
competence framework.

Manliquez & Travero 43/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Infusion of technology is a competence emphasizing that basic ICT skills are a prerequisite for integrating technology into a teacher's
duties. Educators must seamlessly and meaningfully integrate digital tools into teaching and learning (UNESCO, 2018). This
necessitates a strong theoretical foundation and the ability to apply technology in instructional practice effectively. Thus, this
competence lies in the intersection of knowledge (K) and skills (S). It cannot be classified as Skills only because it requires a deep
understanding of pedagogical and technological principles and practical application. Skill without knowledge can lead to ineffective
use of technology. ICT skills may strongly influence ICT intention use (Bras, 2018); however, ICT use may be random or disconnected
from meaningful learning without knowledge of instructional strategies. Using technology is not enough; teachers must select the right
tools to match them with learning goals and assess their impact. It has been indicated that teachers who lack the knowledge and skills
to teach with technology would choose not to use it in their classrooms (Korucu-Kis & Ozmen, 2018). This classification ensures that
technology integration is informed and practiced rather than just theoretical.
ICT-enhanced teaching encourages teachers to acquire ICT skills to support effective teaching and learning methods. This refers to
effectively integrating technology into teaching and learning to improve instructional delivery, enhance student engagement, and foster
deeper learning (UNESCO, 2018). This competence requires a strong theoretical foundation in technology-enhanced instructional
strategies and a positive attitude toward adopting and integrating ICT in teaching to facilitate meaningful and student-centered learning
experiences. This competence cannot be classified as knowledge (K) only because knowing theories and frameworks alone does not
guarantee the faculty's application of ICT-enhanced teaching strategies. A positive attitude is needed to embrace and implement these
approaches effectively. Although successful technology integration requires a positive attitude toward technology (Peng et al., 2024),
it cannot be Attitude (A) only. Willingness to use technology is not enough, and educators must also understand the pedagogical
principles and theories behind effective ICT integration (Becirovic, 2023). Since ICT-enhanced teaching requires both an openness to
using technology and a strong understanding of how to use it effectively in teaching, it is placed in the intersection of Attitudes (A)
and Knowledge (K).
Digital literacy competence focuses on digital citizenship and examines how teachers can develop their digital citizenship and use ICT
for professional improvement. Digital Citizenship is a key competence emphasizing the responsible, ethical, and effective use of digital
technologies in education (UNESCO, 2018). This encompasses the practical ability to engage responsibly in digital environments and
the ethical commitment to responsible technology use. This classification recognizes that being a good digital citizen is about knowing
the principles of online behavior and actively demonstrating responsible and ethical digital practices. Digital Citizenship cannot be
classified as Attitudes (A) only because it requires practical application. Ethical beliefs alone are insufficient—a person must
demonstrate responsible digital behavior. It involves active participation. UNESCO (2018) emphasized that digital citizenship is about
how people engage online, not just what they believe about digital ethics. Without skills, attitudes remain passive. While attitude is a
crucial foundation of digital citizenship, it must be demonstrated through action. The competence in digital literacy, focused on digital
citizenship, is classified as Skills (S) + Attitudes (A), falling in the intersection between the two.
Figure 1 is the framework that guides the development of modules for the training on technology integration competence enhancement.

Figure 1. Technology Integration Competence Framework

Technology integration competence is not simply a combination of separate constructs—knowledge, skills, and attitudes—but a
dynamic blend of these elements. Koehler and Mishra (2009) and Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2018) emphasize this interconnected nature
in their respective frameworks on technology integration.
Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework highlights how content knowledge
(CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK) do not function in isolation. Instead, they interact and overlap,

Manliquez & Travero 44/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

creating the flexible understanding necessary for teachers to integrate technology into their instruction effectively. Expanding on this
idea, Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2018) present a broader perspective on technology integration by incorporating subject matter,
technology, pedagogy, and a teacher's technological awareness, beliefs, and skills. This framework acknowledges that these
components may appear distinct but become inseparable. A teacher's decision to use technology is not based solely on individual
knowledge areas but is influenced by the complex interplay of these interconnected elements.
Studies by Suarez et al. (2018) and Falloon (2020) supported this claim of a complex interplay of interconnected elements. The teacher's
ICT competence is the key element to using digital technology and resources in teaching (Suarez et al., 2028). Their technological and
pedagogical competences and the teacher's ICT competence significantly influence their professional and instructional use of
technology. Falloon (2020) has a more expanded view as his framework recognizes the interaction of three competencies: curriculum,
personal-ethical, and personal-professional in the teacher's digital competence to integrate technology in teaching.
These frameworks reinforce the idea that successful technology integration requires more than technical know-how—it demands
a holistic and adaptive approach in which knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and skills continuously interact to shape instructional decisions.
Developing the Modules
Based on the framework, the training program on enhancing faculty competence in technology integration is structured around the
interplay of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The knowledge + skills component focuses on applying digital skills through various tools
and activities. These include interactive applications like Padlet for collaboration, Google Docs for co-creation and content sharing,
Kahoot for gamified learning, and AI tools like ChatGPT for teaching and learning enhancement. Additionally, tools like Grammarly
support academic integrity in students' submissions. The skills + attitude component centers on teachers' professional learning,
emphasizing digital literacy and digital citizenship to foster responsible and ethical technology use in education. Lastly, the attitude +
knowledge component centers on pedagogy, specifically ICT-enhanced teaching, guided by the Technology-Integration Framework,
including the Triple E Framework.
Table 2. Components of the Training on Enhancing Faculty's Competence in Tech Integration
Classification Key Aspect UNESCO’s Topics
Competence
Knowledge + Skills Application of Digital Skills Infusion Interactive applications for collaboration and
communication learning activities
• Padlet
Edtech tools and applications for co-creation and
content sharing
• Google Docs
Gamification applications
• Kahoot
AI tools for teaching and learning
• ChatGPT
Academic Integrity in Students’ Submissions
• Grammarly
Skills + Attitude Teachers’ Professional Digital Literacy
Digital Citizenship
Learning
Attitude + Pedagogy ICT-Enhanced Technology-Integration Framework
Knowledge Teaching • Triple E Framework
The topics in the training follow hierarchical sequencing, teaching simpler components first before moving to more complex ones,
adhering to the Elaboration Theory in Instructional Design of Reigeluth (Cakiroglu & Ozturk, 2014), supporting that content
organization should be presented in increasing order of difficulty, information is introduced from the simplest to the more complex.
Also, the sequencing of topics and the planning of the faculty participants' activities uphold the pedagogy-first principle.
Using technology for technology's sake does not allow meaningful learning (Bonfiglio-Pavisich, 2018), so teaching with technology is
about learning first and tools second (Arora & Chander, 2020). The trainees experienced the strategy in the training before the
technology was chosen or introduced.
From the training syllabus, the plan for each module was developed through the Task Analysis Blueprint (TAB). The TAB covered the
topics, learning outcomes, tasks and strategies, expected output, materials and applications, time frame, and references adapted from
Micayabas (2017) and Ramirez (2022). The TABs are appended in Appendix F.
Module 1 tackles the topic of the Attitude + Skill component, which is on Digital Citizenship, which was offered first in training on
technology integration. This commenced with the shaping of the heart to be more accepting of the prevalence of technology, its
influence in teaching and learning, cultivating ethics, and living to be a responsible citizen of this digitally-driven world. The concept,

Manliquez & Travero 45/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

elements, and importance of digital citizenship were tackled. Faculty trainees were equipped with the rights, responsibilities, and ethics
they must teach their students to navigate safely and respectfully in the digital world.
Modules 2 and 3 are the knowledge + Skills component of the training. This module is focused on enhancing the faculty's ICT
integration skills in teaching and learning activities. This involved training the hands and the mind to understand and use technology
tools and applications to enhance students' engagement, collaboration, and communication. The trainees' experience was highlighted
by including active learning strategies paired with appropriate technology tools and applications for student collaboration,
communication, critical thinking, and creativity. The trainees were refreshed on technology applications such as Padlet, Google Docs,
and Kahoot and were required to complete a technology tool competence checklist at the end of each session. They were also required
to reflect on their practices using these technology tools in their classes.
Module 3 dealt with AI technology such as ChatGPT and Grammarly. This module enhanced the faculty's proficiency in using these
AI tools to enable them to generate diverse ideas to create various educational materials and foster a more interactive learning
environment. They learned how to navigate these two powerful AI tools and explore possibilities of promoting active learning and
collaboration skills in the classroom. The trainees went through an interactive workshop and guided practice to sharpen their skills in
utilizing these tools. At the end of each lesson, the faculty participants were required to do a competence assessment of their competence
in the use of the AI tools. Also, they were made to indicate topics in class in which they are to use the AI tools they have learned. As
an extension of their learning experience, to end the session, the faculty were expected to plot the promise of these AI tools to enhance
their teaching practice.
The last module, Module 4, positioned the right perspectives on the link between pedagogy and technology use, followed by the shaping
of the mind (Knowledge + Attitude component). This was done so the faculty could practice integrating the learned technologies by
drafting lesson plans. This module guided the faculty's technology integration endeavor by learning the Triple E Framework and
exploring sample lessons. Participants were required to write a lesson plan on a topic of their field of specialization, integrating
technology tools and applications. Lastly, they were asked to reflect on the suitability of the Triple E as a model to follow in preparing
lessons that integrate technology.
These topics for the training are analogous to the lessons and modules of the Technology for Teaching and Learning Massive Open
Distance eLearning (MODeL) Course of the University of the Philippines-Open University (UP-OU, 2024). The three courses have
core lessons on using modern ICTs in teaching and learning, social and ethical responsibility in using technology tools and resources,
and designing lessons using technology tools and resources. This attested to the alignment of this faculty technology integration
competence enhancement to the professional development endeavor offered by the Philippines' leading university.
The task analysis blueprint warrants the modules' clarity, structure, and effectiveness. Breaking the tasks into manageable components
ensures alignment with learning objectives, standards, and learner needs. The blueprint supports logical organization, identifies
necessary resources, and guides appropriate instructional strategies. Timula (2024) sustained this idea and emphasized that the blueprint
provides the skills and standards, instructional objectives, tasks, lesson time allocation, and relevant references.
The task analysis blueprint was designed based on the needs analysis results (Micayabas, 2017; Alava, 2017; Ramirez, 2022; Llumuljo,
2023; Segumpan, 2023; Anar, 2024). The TAB directed the development of the modules. A well-designed blueprint is a foundation for
well-constructed and well-developed modules.
Modules’ Instruction Design
The faculty respondents' interview data indicated their comfortable use of technology in their classes. Some indicated their use of
technology centered on student engagement, enhancement of learning, and extension of learning to required tasks and activities.
Technology tools were used to activate learning as a motivation part of the lesson.
“I am comfortable using technology to align my topics, especially in icebreakers, games, and entertainment.” – Participant
Some used technology in their lesson proper to aid them in the lesson's presentation, discussion, and elaboration to make students learn
more efficiently and better.
“It helps my students visualize ideas, making them more engaged with our lesson.” -Participant 29
Some technology was also used to prepare and make activities and task requirements for the class.
“I feel comfortable using technology in the classroom as a powerful tool for enhancing learning experiences.” -Participant 19
“I integrate technology most of the time, considering that it helps create a more interactive and engaging teaching-learning process.”-
Participant 25
“Teaching is much easier with technology. It makes me feel confident that my students learned in a deep broader sense.” -Participant
23

Manliquez & Travero 46/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

In some instances, technology combined students' engagement and learning enhancement, while others used it to enhance and extend
learning tasks and assignments.
“Sometimes, I use technology for students' performance of an innovative task.” -Participant 28
The faculty's use of technology in their classes varied from engaging students to enhancing their learning by supporting them in
activities and tasks. This variation of faculty’s technology use in their classes can be best guided using an ICT-enhanced teaching
framework. This framework defined the experience that learners go through as technology tools are integrated into teaching and
learning. To provide the faculty practice of this framework, the modules in this training adhered to the instructional design of Kolb’s
Triple E framework (2020) for technology integration. The Triple E Framework is a practical tool combining instructional strategies,
learning goals, and purposeful technology selection. It is not a tool-centric but a learning-centered framework; the goals, not the
technology, are the lesson's focus (Kolb, 2020). The ultimate rationale is learning participation, which is central to active and
cooperative learning. It starts by defining the learning goals, selecting appropriate technology with pedagogy, engaging students, and
connecting student learning with the real-world context (Gaer & Reyes, 2022). It has three levels: Engage, Enhance, and Extend.
The Engage phase captures faculty participants' interests and keeps them engaged in the content. The learners' engagement followed a
pedagogy or strategy following the pedagogy-first principle. The trainees were prepared for the topic through an activity that allowed
them to discuss their thoughts and share their ideas: gallery walk, brainstorming, jigsaw, online quiz, graphic organizer, think-pair-
share.
The Enhance phase provided depth of the topics and aided, assisted, and scaffolded learning. In this phase, the faculty trainees were
exposed to the content of the modules in four steps: learn, explore, experience, and check. First, they were given a lecture-discussion
on the topic. There was a demonstration of how the technology tool is accessed and used. They were allowed hands-on experience
through a guided workshop. Lastly, they were encouraged to do a quick recap and lay out the topic and possible technology tool
applications in teaching and learning. To close this phase, the faculty must assess their competence in the technology tool and
application.
The Extend phase encouraged meaningful learning where knowledge and skills gained were utilized to create new knowledge that was
valuable for technology integration endeavors. In this phase, the faculty-trainees were ushered to reflect on the technology tools'
strengths, promises, limitations, and challenges and plan ways of utilizing them in teaching and learning.
Experiences of UP-OU (2024) and Pratama (2022) attested to the feasibility of the Triple E framework in lesson design. The MODeL
on Technology for Teaching and Learning Series (UP-OU, 2024) matched Triple E's framework in its class activities. Students were
presented with videos to engage with the lessons; to further learning, discussion forums, and quizzes were required, and to extend
learning, students were tasked with activities that applied their learning in their real-world teaching-learning setting. The engage-
enhance-extend phases marked the design of their course. Additionally, Pratama (2022) disclosed that the Triple E framework has
shown that technology use in class has effectively assisted students and teachers in meeting their learning objectives. The teacher's
competence highly influences the framework's effectiveness, which reflects digital literacy and modern classroom management. After
all, technology integration effectiveness goes back to how teachers design the learning activity and how they employ those parts to
reach the objectives.
Content Evaluation of the Modules
The panel of experts evaluated the modules on the criteria of content and content accuracy, clarity, appropriateness, and its overall
impact.
Table 3. Summary Result of the Experts’ Validation of the Modules
Criteria Mean SD QD QS
Content and Content Accuracy 4.33 0.30 VME Very much adequately met
Clarity 4.28 0.00 VME Very much adequately met
Appropriateness 4.44 0.24 VME Very much adequately met
Overall 4.35 0.22 VME Very much adequately met
*Legend: 4.20 – 5.00 VME; 3.40 – 4.19 ME; 2.60 – 3.39 E; 1.80 – 2.59 LE; 1.00 – 1.79 NE

The modules have high mean scores across all content and content accuracy criteria, clarity, and appropriateness. These scores showed
that the modules adequately met all the provisions in all three criteria. The experts' overall evaluation indicated their favorable rating.
The standard deviation value reflected low response variability, demonstrating that the evaluators' ratings were fairly consistent.
The consistency of the ratings, coupled with the high overall mean, indicated that the modules are thoughtfully designed and effectively
meet the standards for content and instructional quality. Well-crafted instructional modules have significantly enhanced the intended
learners' learning, knowledge, and understanding (Torrefranca & Rodriguez, 2017).
These modules should be user-friendly, featuring engaging content, assignments, and activities well-aligned with the targeted skills
and audience (Tarmizi & Janan, 2022). Furthermore, training modules that received high satisfaction ratings in the evaluations are
more likely to be highly effective in developing the skills and competencies of the intended participants (Micayabas, 2017; Alava,
2017; Segumpan, 2023; Llumuljo, 2023; Anar, 2024).

Manliquez & Travero 47/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

The evaluation results on the content and content accuracy indicated that the modules were highly effective in addressing content and
content accuracy, as their overall mean rating was classified as adequately met. The modules aligned their stated learning objectives
and incorporated relevant information on best practices. Comprehensive coverage of topics, activities, and exercises to enhance
understanding was also noted as a strength, as these were described as adequately meeting these criteria. However, areas for
improvement include the applicability of content to heterogeneous learners and ensuring error-free material, both of which received
ratings described as adequately met.
The results suggested that the modules aligned highly with its objectives and effectively met expectations of content and content
accuracy. The high ratings for addressing learning objectives and incorporating current and relevant advancements in technology
integration reflected a strong relevance and responsiveness to contemporary educational needs. The evaluation aligned with the insights
of these studies, emphasizing the importance of clear, well-formulated objectives, accurate content, and error-free instructional
materials fostering effective learning experiences and addressing the diverse needs of learners.
An effective module is characterized by clear and attainable learning outcomes (Sulman et al., 2023). These outcomes should be
realistic and achievable, guiding teaching and learners' progress toward intended goals. Modules designed with such clarity are more
likely to foster effective learning experiences. Tugade (2016) evaluated instructional modules based on specific criteria, one of which
was content characteristics. This criterion encompassed the qualities of the topics in terms of objectives, clarity, and relevance.
Evaluators strongly agreed that the objectives of each lesson were clearly defined, providing explicit expectations for learners.
Furthermore, the module objectives emphasized developing achievable critical and analytical thinking skills. These objectives
promoted activities that foster critical thinking, making the modules engaging and intellectually stimulating for students.
Similarly, Torrefranca and Rodriguez (2017) found that the objectives in the evaluated modules were clearly stated, behaviorally
framed, specific, measurable, and attainable. Evaluators strongly agreed that the objectives were carefully planned, well-formulated,
organized, and relevant to each lesson's topics. The content was also found to align directly with the objectives, be presented clearly,
and be supported by illustrative examples and practice tasks appropriate for the learners' level. The language used in the modules was
clear, concise, engaging, and accessible, contributing to their overall effectiveness.
Yongco and Del Valle (2022) underscored the importance of instructional modules in equipping learners with essential knowledge and
skills. However, their evaluation revealed that despite a satisfactory rating for content, the modules needed more topics and activities
in some subject areas. Moreover, typographical mistakes and inaccuracies in the content compromised the material's intellectual and
logical quality. These issues affected learners' mental engagement, potentially leading to cognitive neglect and poor academic
performance. Such errors also distracted learners, disrupted focus, and caused confusion, ultimately undermining the modules'
credibility and learners' confidence in their effectiveness.
These studies highlight the importance of clear, measurable learning objectives, accurate content, and engaging activities in effective
instructional modules. While the modules evaluated met these standards, issues like content errors and applicability to diverse learners
were identified as areas for improvement. Applicability to heterogeneous learners and freedom from errors were highlighted for further
refinement with their slightly lower ratings.
This suggested a need for more inclusive content that caters to the diverse needs of learners. Overall, the results demonstrated that the
modules are valuable resources, although with minor opportunities for enhancement.
Experts pointed out that the lessons could be improved in their applicability to diverse learners by specifying the heavy content of some
topics in the modules and varying the content and activities for each lesson.
“Provide variations in the activities for each lesson.”
“Observe variety also in the activities you are providing in the modules.”
“A module may have several lessons. Perhaps you can group your content topics in one module.”
“Some topics are too heavy; you might want to break them into two lesson or topics.”
The primary step was grouping the modules according to themes. Three (3) modules on interactive education technology applications
promoting engagement were fused into one (1) module, and two (2) modules on using AIs were fused into one module, too. Thus,
instead of seven (7) modules, there are now four (4) modules.
Some modules' fusion varied the lessons and activities, making them more responsive to the learners' diverse needs. The modules were
also reviewed for typographical errors and corrected, giving them a more polished look.
The evaluation results on the criterion of clarity revealed that the module's design and presentation effectively supported faculty
understanding, as the overall evaluation was adequately met. The highest ratings were given to the content organization, clarity of
language use, suitability of presentations, and integration of learning activities and examples, all of which were deemed to have met
the criteria very adequately. Nevertheless, clarity of instructions and guidelines received a slightly lower rating, described as much
adequately met.

Manliquez & Travero 48/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

These results implied that the content is well-organized and presented. The modules met the expectations in terms of logical structure,
clarity of language, and the integration of learning activities and examples. The high ratings on these criteria aligned with the
instructional design principles, emphasizing that content and presentation clarity are crucial for effective learning
Well-organized and presented instructional modules, with logical sequencing of topics, examples, and activities, play a vital role in
enhancing clarity, promoting progressive knowledge-building, and ensuring effective learning experiences for students (Tugade, 2016;
Torrefranca & Rodriguez, 2017; Yongco & Valle, 2022).
Tugade’s (2016) findings underscored the importance of well-structured content, where examples and activities are presented with
clear explanations and increasing difficulty levels, allowing students to grasp fundamental concepts and principles quickly. Similarly,
Torrefranca and Rodriguez (2017) emphasized that the logical and sequential arrangement of topics and activities is essential for
helping learners build knowledge progressively. This structure guarantees clarity, improves retention, and creates a more effective
learning experience. Expanding on these insights, Yongco and Valle (2022) affirmed that instructional modules with a clear flow of
ideas and an orderly arrangement of content enhance usability and facilitate meaningful insights. Well-organized materials make it
easy for learners to understand and apply concepts effectively. The clarity and logical progression of lessons and topics in instructional
modules are the foundation for fostering comprehension, retention, and overall engagement in the learning process.
Adding clarity to the modules, Munfaati et al. (2022) emphasized the value of incorporating visuals—such as pictures, diagrams,
photos, and cartoons. These visuals make the learning process more engaging and enjoyable and aid in simplifying complex concepts,
enhancing learner comprehension. On the other hand, Tugade (2016) focused on the importance of clear instructions in instructional
modules. He highlighted that clear, well-structured guidance helps learners navigate the material effectively, reducing confusion and
fostering better engagement, which is essential for achieving learning outcomes. These studies demonstrate that visuals enhance
engagement and understanding, and clear instructions provide the necessary structure, ensuring a cohesive and impactful learning
experience.
While logical structure, clarity, and engaging visuals are crucial for enhancing comprehension and retention, clear instructions and
guidelines are equally essential. They provide the necessary support for learners to navigate the material effectively, ensuring a cohesive
and impactful learning experience. This study's slightly lower mean for clarity of instructions and guidelines indicated an opportunity
for improvement. While instructions were mostly clear, the evaluators may have needed clarification on some aspects of the instructions
for activities and assessments.
This discrepancy highlighted an area of concern regarding the instructions for activities and assessments. Comments from the evaluators
show this discrepancy.
“Write your directions and guidelines.”
“Please supplement your textual instructions with pictures or visuals, especially when providing instructions to navigate an app or
software, to ensure learners can follow the process effectively.”
The modules were revisited to check on the instructions and guidelines to make them more explicit. Moreover, instructions or directions
in textual forms were provided with visuals to make them clearer and easier to follow. The revisions were made to improve the ease
with which the learners can engage with and complete the tasks, further enhancing the modules' effectiveness.
The evaluation on appropriateness revealed that the modules were well-designed and highly appropriate, effectively addressing the
faculty's learning and professional development needs, as the overall rating is described as very much adequately met. The modules
excelled in tailoring content to meet specific faculty requirements, engaging participants, offering hands-on, real-world applications,
and promoting collaboration and connections with prior knowledge, as indicated by the description of adequately met. However,
opportunities for self-assessment and reflection gained a slightly lower rating, described as much adequately met.
These evaluation results indicated that the modules fit the faculty's technology integration needs. The high ratings for tailoring content,
fostering engagement, and incorporating real-world applications reflected the modules' effectiveness in aligning with current
educational demands and the professional context of the faculty participants. Moreover, the high ratings for promoting collaboration
and building connections with prior knowledge highlighted the modules' ability to support interactive and contextually relevant learning
experiences. The low scores for self-assessment and reflection suggested the need for structured opportunities for faculty to engage in
reflective practices that deepen their learning.
The findings of the study resonated strongly with the perspectives presented by Tugade (2016), Torrefranca and Rodriguez (2017), and
Tongco and Valle (2022), emphasizing the appropriateness and effectiveness of the instructional modules. The modules' high ratings
for addressing the faculty's learning and professional development needs align with Tugade’s (2016) assertion that well-designed
modules adapt to diverse learning contexts and foster independence. Similarly, the modules' ability to engage participants, promote
collaboration, and connect new knowledge with prior understanding echoed Torrefranca’s (2017) emphasis on fostering active learning
and motivation. Yongco and Valle’s (2022) focus on providing adequate time and contexts for knowledge application is also evident,
as the modules excelled in offering hands-on, real-world learning opportunities. However, the slightly lower ratings for opportunities
for self-assessment and reflection manifested the ongoing need to integrate the principles highlighted by Mallillin et al. (2024),
Manliquez & Travero 49/53
 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Darmiany et al. (2024), and Seden et al. (2023). These researches advocate for including self-paced exploration, reflective learning,
and self-assessment in instructional design to promote deeper understanding, self-regulation, and evaluative judgment. While the
modules effectively addressed content relevance and engagement, strengthening self-assessment and reflective practices could further
empower faculty to internalize learning and enhance professional growth. These insights highlighted the importance of balancing
content appropriateness with reflective and self-assessment opportunities to create transformative learning experiences.
While the experts agree that the opportunities for self-assessment and reflection were present and adequate, this score was lower than
the other criteria, suggesting room for enhancement in this area. The evaluator's comment provided direction in the revision.
“Provide a space or activity where you can reflect as indicated in the learning outcomes; provide prompts and guides.”
The modules were reviewed to address this concern and provide reflection prompts and activities. By enriching this reflection aspect,
the modules were able to promote deeper learning better and provide more opportunities for students to reflect on their progress and
understanding.
Conclusions
The study successfully developed and evaluated an instructional module aimed at enhancing faculty members' digital competence in
technology integration within higher education. Through a systematic Design and Development Research approach utilizing the
ADDIE Model, the module was designed based on comprehensive needs assessments involving stakeholder interviews and expert
evaluations. The resulting instructional resources were rigorously refined, ensuring alignment with best practices and pedagogical
principles.
The evaluation outcomes indicated that while the instructional modules were effective and met several key standards, such as content
organization, clarity of presentation, and engagement, they also revealed opportunities for improvement. Some content areas were
identified as needing refinement to enhance inclusivity and applicability for diverse learner needs. Furthermore, while the modules
provided sufficient opportunities for self-assessment and reflection, scores suggested that this aspect could benefit from further
enhancement to deepen learning experiences.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed:
Tailor instructional materials to ensure they cater to a variety of learning styles and competencies. This could involve further describing
complex topics and varied activities to meet diverse learner needs more effectively.
Incorporate additional prompts, reflection activities, and spaces for self-assessment within the modules. This would encourage faculty
members to engage in deeper self-reflection and professional growth.
Establish continuous feedback loops from faculty who utilize the instructional module. Regular input will provide insights into how
the modules can be improved and adapted over time, addressing any emerging challenges in technology integration.
Conduct workshops and training sessions focused on the implementation of the module, emphasizing not only content delivery but also
pedagogical strategies that foster active learning and effective technology use in the classroom.
Encourage further research exploring the long-term impacts of the module on faculty teaching practices and student learning outcomes,
as well as examining variations in technology integration competence across different faculty demographics.
References
Akram, H., Abdelrady, A. H., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in teaching-
learning practices: A systematic review. In Frontiers in Psychology (Vol. 13). Frontiers Media S.A.
[Link]
Akram, H., Yingxiu, Y., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Alkhalifah, A. (2021). Technology integration in higher education during COVID-19:
An assessment of online teaching competencies through technological pedagogical content knowledge model. Frontiers in Psychology,
12. [Link]
Alava, W. G. (2017). Learning package for pre-service teachers to develop lesson plans in Biology using ASSURE model. [Bukidnon
State University].
Alvarez Jr, A. V. (2020). Learning from the problems and challenges in blended learning: Basis for faculty development and program
enhancement. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 112–132. [Link]
Amhag, L., Hellström, L., & Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher educators’ use of digital tools and needs for digital competence in higher
education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(4), 203–220. [Link]
Añar, L. E. (2024). Practice teachers professional development learning induction program in the new milieu. [Bukidnon State
University].

Manliquez & Travero 50/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Arora, C., & Chander, S. (2020). Integrating technology into classroom learning. Indian Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 84–
105.
Atencio, G. S., & Acuña, E. A. (2024). The path to education 5.0: digital ethics as a driver of innovation in higher education institutions.
[Link]
Bajracharya, J. R. (2021). Technology integration models and frameworks in teaching and training. Journal of Training and
Development, 6. [Link]
Balbaa, M.E., Abdurashidova, M., Khalikov, U., & Ismailova, N. (2023). Educational ethics in the digital age: Addressing
contemporary challenges. Proceedings of the International Conference on Academic Studies in Technology and Education, 86-96.
[Link]
Bećirović, S. (2023). Digital pedagogy: The use of digital technologies in contemporary education. Springer.
Bonfiglio-Pavisich, N. (2018). Technology and pedagogy integration: A model for meaningful technology integration. Australian
Educational Computing, 33(1), 1–16.
Bras, P. M. F. R. T. (2018). Strategies for teachers’ professional development: Fostering ICT proficient use [Dissertation]. Universidade
de Lisboa.
Bustos, R. (2024). Bridging the Gap: Aligning higher education priorities with the shifting job landscape in the Philippines. Recoletos
Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(1), 9-24. [Link]
Cadiz, M.C.D., Manuel, L.A.F., Reyes, M.M., & Natividad, L.R. (2024). Technology integration in the Philippine higher education: A
content-based bibliometric analysis. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 8(1), 35-47.
[Link]
Cakiroglu, U., & Ozturk, M. (2014). Implementation of elaboration theory in material design for distance education. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 143–151.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Nickel, C., & Chigona, A. (2024). The SETI framework and technology integration in the digital age. Asian
Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 2024. [Link]
Darmiany, D., Istiningsih, S., Nurmawanti, I., Nurwahidah, N., & Mauldya, M. A. (2024). Student’s self-regulated learning in online
class design based on reflective learning. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 16(1), 440–449.
[Link]
Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools handbook of Research on Educational Communications and
Technology (4th Edition) Technology Integration in Schools.
[Link]
om/abstract=2719053Electroniccopyavailableat:[Link]
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction. Pearson.
Edouard, G. (2023). Why and how colleges and universities should leverage technology mentoring to maximize faculty’s technology
integration efforts. TechTrends, 67(1), 124–132. [Link]
Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 1-24. [Link]
Gaer, S., & Reyes, K. (2022). Finally, some guidance! Using the Triple E framework to shape technology integration. Adult Literacy
Education: The International Journal of Literacy, Language, and Numeracy, 4(3), 34–40. [Link]
Glover, I., Hepplestone, S., Parkin, H. J., Rodger, H., & Irwin, B. (2016). Pedagogy first: realizing technology enhanced learning by
focusing on teaching practice. In British Journal Of Educational Technology (Vol. 47, Issue 5). [Link]
Gómez-Trigueros, I. M. (2023). Digital skills and ethical knowledge of teachers with TPACK in higher education. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 15(2), 1–8. [Link]
Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the classroom. Alabama Journal of Educational
Leadership, 5, 12-18.
Jorge-Vázquez, J., Náñez Alonso, S. L., Fierro Saltos, W. R., & Pacheco Mendoza, S. (2021). Assessment of digital competencies of
university faculty and their conditioning factors: Case study in a technological adoption context. Education Sciences, 11(10).
[Link]
Karkouti, I. M. (2023). Integrating technology in Qatar’s higher education settings: What helps faculty accomplish the job. Technology,

Manliquez & Travero 51/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Knowledge and Learning, 28(1), 279–305. [Link]

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kolb, L. L. (2020). Learning First, Technology Second in Practice (First). International Society for Technology in Education.
Korucu-Kis, S., & Ozmen, K.S. (2018). Toward an integrated technology integration framework for teacher preparation: Instructional
technological competence. I-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 14(1), 31-50.
Lapuzina, O. (2023). Computer ethics training in higher educational institutions as one of the factors of forming the social responsibility
of future specialists. Bulletin of the National Technical University “KhPI”. Series: Actual Problems of Ukrainian Society Development,
2, 56–61. [Link]
Lawrence, G., Ahmed, F., Cole, C., & Johnston, K. P. (2020). Not more technology but more effective technology: Examining the state
of technology integration in EAP programmes. RELC Journal, 51(1), 101–116. [Link]
Liang, W. (2021). University teachers’ technology integration in teaching English as a foreign language: evidence from a case study
in mainland China. SN Social Sciences, 1(8). [Link]
Llumuljo, R. P. (2023). Digital learning resources for college physical education instructors [Bukidnon State University].
Mallillin, L. L. D., Canda, E. G., & Caday, Ma. A. T. (2024). Self-learning module assessment and feebdack in Mathematics. European
Journal of Education Studies, 11(9). [Link]
Mariscal, L. L., Albarracin, M. R., Mobo, F. D., & Cutillas, A. L. (2023). Pedagogical competence towards technology-driven
instruction on basic education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(5), 1567–1580.
[Link]
Mastul, A.H., De Vera C.T., & Jayme, C.B. (2023). Understanding the use of edutech in schools in the Philippines: Recommendations
for effectiveness. Engineering Science Letter, 2(2), 37-40. [Link]
Micayabas, N. B. (2017). Developing environmental attitude and internationalization among pre-service teachers through climate
change integration. Bukidnon State University.
Morales, M.P.E., Avilla, R.A., Butron, B.R., Ayuste, T.O.D.,Masangcay, D.B., & Laureano, R.A. (2021). Technology integration,
traditions, transitions, and best practices in Philippines higher STEAM education. Philippine Journal of Science, 150(5), 1265-1278.
Munfaati, F., Nasihah, M., Ni, U., Nur Senta, A., & Aini Tsuroyah, N. (2022). A Content analysis of English teaching module entitled
“practical english.” Journal of English for Academic and Specific, 5(2), 323–337.
Nagy, J. T., & Dringó-Horváth, I. (2024). Factors influencing university teachers’ technological integration. Education Sciences, 14(1).
[Link]
Padilla A., Travero A., and Quirino KK. (2024). Vlogging and Students’ Self-Regulated Learning Skills in Mathematics. International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications (IJMRAP), Volume 6, Issue 9, pp. 64-67, 2024.
Panakaje, N., Ur Rahiman, H., Parvin, S. M. R., Shareena, P., Madhura, K., Yatheen, M., & Irfana, S. (2024). Revolutionizing
pedagogy: navigating the integration of technology in higher education for teacher learning and performance enhancement. Cogent
Education, 11(1). [Link]
Peng, R., Razak, R. A., & Halili, S. H. (2024). Exploring the role of attitudes, self-efficacy, and digital competence in influencing
teachers’ integration of ICT: A partial least squares structural equation modeling study. Heliyon, 10(13).
[Link]
Pratama, P.Y.S. (2022). Viewing technology integration in current classroom through Triple E framework. Proceedings of Digital
Literacy in Education and Science.12-17. [Link]
Pulijala, S. (2024). Ethical considerations in educational technology : Balancing innovation and responsibility. International Journal of
Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 10(5), 315–325.
[Link]
Ramirez, I. A. L. (2022). Technological pedagogical content knowledge e-training package for secondary pre service teachers: A
capability building model. Bukidnon State University.
Second Congressional Commission on Education (2025). Fixing the foundations: A matter of national survival, EDCOM II, year 2
report. Congress of the Philippines.
Seden, K., Thomas, D. A., & Rinchen, S. (2023). Effects of self-assessment on students’ evaluative skills: A convergent mixed-methods

Manliquez & Travero 52/53

 Psych Educ, 2025, 39(1): 38-53, Document ID:2025PEMJ3742, doi:10.70838/pemj.390106, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

study at Samtse College of Education. Assessment Matters. [Link]

Segumpan, S. M. I. (2023). Instructional e-package: Building digital competence for pre-service teachers. Bukidnon State University.
Suárez-Rodriguez, J., Almerich, G., Orellana, N., & Díaz-Gracía, I. (2018). A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers:
competence and use. Education Technology Research and Development, 66(5),1165-1187. [Link]
Sulman, N., Naz, S., Ali, S., & Hameed, A. R. (2023). Measuring the validity of the modules for capacity building training of teachers
(CBTT) for ensuring inclusive education practices in Sindh province. International Journal of Trends and Innovations in Business &
Social Sciences, 1(4), 156–164. [Link]
Tarmizi, M. H. M., & Janan, D. (2022). Content validity of the reading skills teaching module through a foreign language teaching
Approach. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 7(12), e001990. [Link]
Timula, I. K. G. (2024). Cultural preservation learning package for pre-service teachers. [Bukidnon State University].
Torrefranca, E. C., & Rodriguez, E. (2017). Development and validation of instructional modules on rational expressions and variations.
The Normal Lights, 11(1).
Tortola, R.L.(2024). Evaluating technology integration in the Philippines: A narrative review on enhancing elementary teachers’
classroom management practices. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research, 8(6), 188-193.
Travero, A. S. & Padilla, A. T. (2025). Students’ Feedback on Vlogging as an Educational Tool in Probability and Statistics: A
Qualitative Study. Tamansiswa International Journal in Education and Science.
[Link]
Tugade, G. (2016). Development and validation of learning modules in TLE dressmaking. UNP Research Journal, 25.
UN DESA. 2024. The sustainable development goals report 2024 – June 2024. New York, USA: UN DESA. © UN DESA.
[Link]
UNESCO. (2018). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers: version 3. [Link]
skills/ict-cft
University of the Philippines-Open University. (2024). Technology for teaching and learning series. Massive Open Distance eLearning
(MODeL).
Uslu, N. A., & Usluel, Y. K. (2019). Predicting technology integration based on a conceptual framework for ICT use in education.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(5), 517–531. [Link]
Vatanartiran, S., & Karadeniz, S. (2015). A needs analysis for technology integration plan: challenges and needs of teachers.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(3), 206–220.
Wiltermark, S., Olofson, A.D., Lindberg, J.O. (2014). Digitalization and digital competence in education contexts: A Nordic
perspective from policy to practice. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.
Yongco, J. O., & Del Valle, J.M. (2022). Development and evaluation of instructional module for special program in journalism.
International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 3(4), 97-117. [Link]
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Ma Liza D. Manliquez
University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines – Philippines
Arnel S. Travero
University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines – Philippines

Manliquez & Travero 53/53

Copyright of Psychology & Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal is the property of
SciMatic Inc., Adnan Menderes Technocity and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.