1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has

reshaped many sectors including education. In classroom settings,

Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools have markedly improved the

educational experience (Gamis, 2024). They facilitate complex

activities, provide immediate feedback, and reduce the administrative

burden on teachers and further enhance both educational and

administrative processes (Lawrence et al., 2024). AI-powered tools

also enrich learning by analyzing cognitive behaviors to support

personalized instruction and by improving students’ thinking skills and

reading abilities (Alharbi, 2023).

Technology has been a fundamental part of education since the

advent of computers (Campbell-Kelly et al., 2023). Artificial intelligence

presents an innovative approach to education that is more

personalized, adaptable, inclusive, and engaging (Tapalova &

Zhiyenbayeva, 2022; Uunona & Goosen, 2023). AI alongside the vast

influx of real-time data holds significant potential (Luan et al., 2020). AI,

a branch of computer science, focuses on developing intelligent

machines that mimic human intelligence (Sarker, 2022). The field has

expanded rapidly, influencing various aspects of life, including

education, where its importance cannot be overstated. AI’s applications

range from humanoid robots like Yuki and Sophia (Tahiru, 2021) to lip-
 2

reading (Deocampo et al., 2024) to game-based learning methods

(Hafeez & Hasbi, 2023). However, the integration of new technologies

like AI in education introduces new challenges (Luan et al., 2020).

Globally, AI-powered tools such as intelligent tutoring systems,

automated assessment platforms, adaptive learning software, and AI-

based chatbots have been increasingly integrated into teaching and

learning environments (Holmes et al., 2021). These tools provide

opportunities for personalized instruction, efficient administrative tasks,

and enhanced student engagement.

In the Philippine context, the Department of Education (DepEd)

has initiated efforts to strengthen digital literacy and innovation in

schools through programs such as the Digital Rise Program (DepEd,

2021). However, despite the growing availability of digital technologies,

teachers’ effective use of AI-powered tools largely depends on their

digital competence and attitudes toward technology adoption

(Caballero & Bernardo, 2022).

Digital competence, defined as a teacher’s ability to effectively

use digital tools for instruction, communication, collaboration, and

professional development, is increasingly recognized as a foundational

skill in modern education (Vuorikari et al., 2016). However, a persistent

problem lies in the uneven development of these competencies across

different educational contexts, particularly in under-resourced or rural

schools. Compounding this issue are teachers’ attitudes toward AI-

powered tools, which reflect their perceptions of usefulness, ease of

use, and potential risks. These attitudes significantly influence whether

 3

educators embrace or resist AI integration. Research has shown that

higher levels of digital competence and more positive attitudes toward

AI-powered tools are associated with better classroom integration of

emerging technologies (Scherer et al., 2019). Yet, many teachers

remain hesitant or ill-equipped to adopt these tools, creating a gap

between technological potential and practical implementation.

Addressing this problem requires targeted interventions that build

digital skills and foster supportive attitudes, ensuring that all educators

can participate meaningfully in the digital transformation of education.

Currently, educational research is increasingly oriented towards

robotics and intelligent tutoring systems with a renewed focus on

human-centric pedagogies that emphasize cognition and learning

(Adel, 2024; Bringula, 2020). AI techniques have facilitated the creation

of smart learning environments that employ deep learning,

recommendation systems, analytics, and classification to meet

educational objectives (Bringula, 2023; Zhai et al., 2021).

According to Holmes and Tuomi (2022), tools like Google Docs

and Sheets represent the forefront of AI-assisted educational

technologies (Malhan et al., 2024). Additionally, platforms such as

YouTube, TikTok, WeChat, and WhatsApp are increasingly used to

enhance learning (Holmes & Tuomi, 2022), although the efficacy of AI

technologies like activity trackers remains under debate (Nguyen et al.,

2023; Zhai et al., 2021). In addition, understanding teachers’

perceptions of integrating AI tools into traditional classrooms is crucial

for their successful implementation and adoption (Choi et al., 2023).

 4

Teachers play important roles in pioneering educational

innovations and shaping new pathways. Their attitudes towards AI

suggestively influence the effectiveness and acceptance of its

integration into educational processes, which is vital for creating

enriching learning environments and enhancing student experiences

(Alqahtani et al., 2021; Polak et al., 2022).

Past researches have highlighted that the success of integrating

technology in education largely depends on teachers’ beliefs and

attitudes towards such AI-powered tools (Dogan et al., 2021). Their

perceptions are essential in determining the effectiveness of integrating

information and communication technology in classrooms (Abel et al.,

2022). Furthermore, a teacher’s readiness to embrace new

technologies is a decisive factor in their effective integration into

classroom instruction (Kim & Kwon, 2023).

However, challenges remain, especially in rural districts such as

Maigo in Lanao del Norte, where teachers may have limited training,

exposure, and resources to effectively utilize AI-powered tools

(Tolentino, 2022; Cudal, 2023). Understanding teachers’ attitudes

toward AI-powered tools alongside their digital competence is therefore

crucial in promoting digital transformation and improving instructional

practices in Philippine basic education.

In the evolving landscape of Philippine basic education, digital

transformation is a national priority—but its implementation remains

uneven, especially in rural districts like Maigo in Lanao del Norte.

Teachers in these areas often face compounded challenges: limited

 5

access to digital infrastructure, minimal exposure to emerging

technologies, and insufficient professional development opportunities.

These constraints directly impact their digital competence, which is

essential for effectively integrating AI-powered tools into classroom

instruction. This research seeks to explore the intersection of digital

competence and teacher attitudes toward AI-powered tools within this

rural context. By examining how educators in Maigo perceive and

engage with AI, the study aims to uncover the underlying factors that

shape their readiness and capacity for digital innovation.

This study seeks to determine the relationship between

teachers’ attitudes toward AI-powered tools and their digital

competence in the Maigo District. The findings may provide valuable

insights into how teacher readiness and openness to innovation

influence the success of AI integration in the local educational setting.

Ultimately, this research hopes to offer actionable recommendations

that can enhance teachers’ professional development, strengthen their

digital competence, and improve the effective use of AI-powered tools

in classroom instruction within the Maigo District, Division of Lanao del

Norte.
 6

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

This study is anchored on two complementary frameworks: the

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the European Framework

for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu). Together,

they provide both a psychological and pedagogical lens for analyzing

teachers’ readiness to adopt Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools in

education. TAM focuses on the cognitive and attitudinal processes that

underlie technology acceptance, while DigCompEdu outlines the

multidimensional skills educators need to use digital technologies

effectively in professional practice (Davis, 1989; Vuorikari, Punie,

Carretero, & Van den Brande, 2016).

The Technology Acceptance Model, proposed by Davis (1989),

explains that two key beliefs—perceived usefulness (PU) and

perceived ease of use (PEOU)—shape an individual’s attitude toward

technology, which in turn influences behavioral intention and actual

system use. In the teaching profession, PU refers to the degree to

which teachers believe AI-powered tools improve instructional

effectiveness, while PEOU reflects the extent to which they perceive

such tools as easy and convenient to operate. When both beliefs are

positive, teachers are more likely to embrace AI integration in their

classrooms.

Research consistently affirms TAM’s relevance to education.

Scherer, Siddiq, and Tondeur (2019), through a meta-analytic review,

demonstrated that PU and PEOU significantly predict teachers’

 7

acceptance of digital innovations, including AI-powered learning

platforms. Teachers are more inclined to adopt tools they perceive as

useful for enhancing student learning and manageable within their

workload. Conversely, when technologies are viewed as time-

consuming, complex, or unreliable, attitudes shift negatively, limiting

adoption despite potential benefits (Holmes, Bialik, & Fadel, 2021).

In the context of AI-powered tools, perceived usefulness is

particularly associated with its capacity to personalize learning,

automate assessment, and provide rich feedback. For instance,

adaptive systems can tailor learning paths to students’ needs, while

intelligent tutoring systems can identify misconceptions in real time

(Holmes et al., 2021; Zawacki-Richter, Marín, Bond, & Gouverneur,

2019). Teachers who see such improvements in learning outcomes are

more likely to adopt AI in practice. This highlights the centrality of

usefulness perceptions in fostering openness to innovation.

Perceived ease of use is equally critical. Teachers operate in

resource-constrained and time-sensitive environments; thus, if AI-

powered tools are perceived as difficult to navigate or requiring

extensive technical skills, adoption is unlikely (Davis, 1989). Ease of

use is not limited to interface design but also encompasses

professional training, leadership support, and peer collaboration, which

collectively reduce barriers and foster confidence (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2010). When teachers feel capable of navigating AI

technologies without undue cognitive load, their willingness to integrate

them increases.
 8

Alongside usefulness and ease, the construct of perceived risks

has gained attention in contemporary applications of TAM. Teachers

may express concerns about data privacy, algorithmic bias, ethical

dilemmas, or overreliance on machines for educational decisions

(Luckin, 2022). These apprehensions can negatively influence attitudes

toward AI, even when usefulness and ease are judged favorably. Thus,

perceived risks are incorporated in this study as an important

dimension of attitudes, potentially moderating or constraining

acceptance (Scherer et al., 2019; Luckin, 2022).

Digital competence refers to teachers’ ability to effectively use

digital tools for instruction, communication, collaboration, and

professional development (Vuorikari et al., 2016). Attitudes toward AI-

powered tools, on the other hand, reflect teachers’ perceptions of their

usefulness, ease of use, and potential risks. Research has shown that

positive attitudes toward AI-powered tools and higher levels of digital

competence are associated with better classroom integration of

emerging technologies (Scherer et al., 2019).

Complementing TAM’s focus on attitudes, the DigCompEdu

framework defines the competences teachers need to use digital tools

effectively and responsibly. Developed by Vuorikari et al. (2016),

DigCompEdu covers six areas: Professional Engagement, Digital

Resources, Teaching and Learning, Assessment, Empowering

Learners, and Facilitating Learners’ Digital Competence. These

domains extend digital literacy beyond technical proficiency,

 9

emphasizing pedagogical, ethical, and critical use of technology in

professional practice (Cabero-Almenara & Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020).

Each DigCompEdu domain is highly relevant to AI integration.

Professional engagement involves communication, collaboration, and

continuous professional development, all of which are crucial in

adapting to AI innovations. Digital resources encompass the ability to

create, adapt, and evaluate materials, including AI-generated content.

Teaching and learning emphasizes the design of student-centered, AI-

enhanced instructional strategies. Assessment highlights responsible

use of AI-powered analytics. Empowering learners ensures inclusion,

accessibility, and differentiation, while facilitating learners’ digital

competence focuses on cultivating students’ critical thinking and

responsible use of AI (Vuorikari et al., 2016; Cabero-Almenara &

Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020).

Empirical evidence suggests that competence and attitudes are

interrelated. Sang, Liang, Chai, Dong, and Tsai (2022) found that

teachers with higher digital competence expressed more positive

attitudes toward educational technologies and demonstrated greater

willingness to explore AI applications. This link is further supported by

Bandura’s (1997) Social Cognitive Theory, which highlights self-

efficacy as a determinant of attitudes and behaviors. Teachers who feel

competent and confident in their digital abilities are more likely to

perceive AI as useful and easy to use, reinforcing TAM’s pathways.

From a conceptual standpoint, digital competence and attitudes

may reinforce one another. Teachers with higher competence are

 10

better equipped to navigate AI interfaces, interpret analytics, and

critically assess content, which enhances perceptions of ease and

usefulness (Davis, 1989; Vuorikari et al., 2016). Conversely, positive

attitudes can motivate teachers to seek training opportunities and

deepen their digital competences. This bidirectional relationship

underscores the importance of integrating TAM and DigCompEdu in

analyzing AI adoption in education.

The policy context also shapes this interaction. National

initiatives such as the DepEd Digital Rise Program aim to provide

digital infrastructure, teacher training, and innovative learning systems

that lower barriers to adoption (Department of Education [DepEd],

2021). Similarly, international frameworks emphasize system-level

support in ensuring equitable, effective integration of technology

(OECD, 2022). These contextual factors influence both TAM variables

(usefulness and ease) and DigCompEdu domains, reinforcing the

necessity of situating this study within broader institutional efforts.

In synthesis, this study conceptualizes teachers’ attitudes

toward AI-powered tools—encompassing perceived usefulness,

perceived ease of use, and perceived risks—as predictors of their

adoption willingness (Davis, 1989; Luckin, 2022). At the same time, it

evaluates digital competence across DigCompEdu’s six domains as

the underlying capability enabling effective AI use (Vuorikari et al.,

2016; Sang et al., 2022). By integrating these frameworks, the study

assumes that competence enhances perceptions of usefulness and

ease, while attitudes mediate the translation of competence into

 11

behavioral intentions. This dual-lens approach offers a holistic

framework for examining the readiness of teachers in Maigo District to

integrate AI-powered tools into educational practice.

Teachers’ Teacher’s Teachers’

Attitudes Profile Digital
toward AI- Competence
Powered Tools

Perceived Age Professional

Usefulness Engagement

Perceived Ease Gender

Digital Resources
of Use

Perceived Risks Position Teaching and

Learning

Number of years Assessment

in service

Training in AI Empowering
Learners

AI Tools Usage
Facilitating
Learners’ Digital
Competence
 12

Types of AI
Tools Used

Figure 1
Schematic Diagram of the Study
Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the relationship between teachers’

attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools and their

digital competence in the Maigo District, Division of Lanao del Norte,

during the School Year 2025–2026.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the teachers in terms of age, gender,

position, years in service and training in ICT/AI?

2. What is the level of teachers’ attitudes toward Artificial

Intelligence (AI) powered tools in terms of perceived usefulness,

perceived ease of use and perceived risks?

3. What is the level of teachers’ digital competence in terms of

professional engagement, digital resources, teaching and

learning, assessment, empowering learners and facilitating

learners’ digital competence?

4. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the

teachers and their attitudes toward AI-powered tools?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the attitudes of the

teachers toward AI-powered tools and their level of digital

competence?
 13

Hypotheses

Ho₁: There is no significant relationship between the profile of

the teachers and their attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence (AI)

powered tools.

Ho₂: There is no significant relationship between the attitudes of

the teachers toward Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools and their

level of digital competence.

Significance of the Study

The outcomes of this study will have a meaningful impact on the

following:

Department of Education (DepEd). The results of this study

may help DepEd in creating more developmental programs, training

modules, and curriculum plans that integrate Artificial Intelligence (AI)

powered tools into classroom practice. It may also inform policies

aimed at enhancing teachers’ digital competence, ensuring that

 14

innovations in education are aligned with the needs of both teachers

and learners.

Educational Administrators. The conclusions drawn from this

study may enable school heads and administrators to identify areas

where teachers need support in adopting AI-powered tools and

strengthening digital competence. This may guide the design of

professional development programs, mentoring systems, and school-

level initiatives that foster innovation in teaching.

Teachers. The findings of this study may present relevant

insights regarding the attitudes and competencies required to

successfully integrate AI-powered tools in education. Teachers may

use these insights to reflect on teachers’ professional practice, develop

positive dispositions toward digital innovations, and enhance their

capacity to deliver effective, technology-enriched instruction.

Learners. This study may indirectly benefit learners as they will

experience improved quality of instruction from teachers who are

competent and confident in using AI-powered tools. When teachers

possess both the right attitudes and skills, learners are more likely to

receive personalized, engaging, and meaningful learning experiences.

 15

Future Researchers. The findings of this study may provide

adequate information and serve as a credible reference for those who

wish to investigate similar themes. It may inspire future studies on AI

integration, digital literacy, and teacher development, thus contributing

to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of educational

technology in the Philippine context.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study will be limited to the teachers’ attitudes toward

Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools, the demographic profile of

teachers, and their level of digital competence in Maigo District of the

Division of Lanao del Norte during the school year 2025–2026.

As the independent variable, the teachers’ attitudes toward AI-

powered tools will be specifically measured in terms of perceived

usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived risks as adapted

from Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). As the

dependent variable, the digital competence of the teachers will be

measured in terms of professional engagement, digital resources,

teaching and learning, assessment, empowering learners, and

facilitating learners’ digital competence as defined by Vuorikari, Punie,

Carretero, and Van den Brande (2016) in the DigCompEdu framework.

This study will be limited to public school teachers in Maigo

District, including elementary and secondary schools under the Division

of Lanao del Norte. The respondents will be determined through total

 16

population sampling or stratified random sampling, depending on the

actual number of teachers available during the conduct of the study.

To assess the level of teachers’ attitudes toward AI-powered

tools, a researcher-made questionnaire adapted from the constructs of

the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) will be used. To

measure teachers’ level of digital competence, the instrument will be

aligned with the European Framework for the Digital Competence of

Educators (DigCompEdu) developed by Vuorikari et al. (2016).

Findings of this study therefore covered only the variables and

the corresponding components as above cited, and are limited to the

identified respondents, specific place, and period of time in which the

study was conducted.

Definition of Terms

The terminologies below were herein defined operationally

and/or conceptually for better understanding of this research proposal.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)- Powered Tools. In this study, these

refer to digital applications or platforms that simulate aspects of human

intelligence to support teaching and learning, such as intelligent

tutoring systems, chatbots, adaptive learning software, automated

grading systems, and data analytics tools (Holmes, Bialik, & Fadel,

2021; Zawacki-Richter, Marín, Bond, & Gouverneur, 2019).

Teachers’ Attitudes. This pertains to the perceptions, beliefs,

and dispositions of teachers toward the use of AI-powered tools in their

professional practice. In this study, attitudes are measured in terms of

 17

perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived risks,

following the constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis,

1989; Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur, 2019).

Perceived Usefulness. This refers to the degree to which

teachers believe that the use of AI-powered tools can enhance their

teaching effectiveness and improve student learning outcomes (Davis,

1989; Holmes et al., 2021).

Perceived Ease of Use. This denotes the extent to which

teachers find AI-powered tools user-friendly, manageable, and

requiring minimal effort to operate in their instructional practices (Davis,

1989; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

Perceived Risks. This refers to teachers’ concerns and

apprehensions regarding the integration of AI-powered tools in

education, which may include issues of data privacy, fairness, ethical

dilemmas, and dependency on technology (Luckin, 2022; Zawacki-

Richter et al., 2019).

Digital Competence. This is defined as the ability of teachers to

effectively, responsibly, and critically use digital technologies for

teaching and professional development. In this study, it is measured

using the six areas of the DigCompEdu framework (Vuorikari, Punie,

Carretero, & Van den Brande, 2016; Cabero-Almenara & Palacios-

Rodríguez, 2020).

Professional Engagement. This refers to teachers’ use of

digital technologies to collaborate with colleagues, communicate with

 18

stakeholders, and participate in professional development activities

(Vuorikari et al., 2016).

Digital Resources. This refers to teachers’ ability to select,

create, adapt, and share digital learning materials that are

pedagogically sound and contextually relevant (Vuorikari et al., 2016;

Cabero-Almenara & Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020).

Teaching and Learning. This pertains to teachers’ integration

of digital tools, including AI, into instructional practices to design,

implement, and manage student-centered learning (Vuorikari et al.,

2016; Sang, Liang, Chai, Dong, & Tsai, 2022).

Assessment. This refers to teachers’ use of digital and AI-

powered tools to monitor student progress, analyze learning data, and

provide timely and effective feedback (Vuorikari et al., 2016; Holmes et

al., 2021).

Empowering Learners. This pertains to the use of digital tools

to support learner autonomy, inclusion, differentiation, and accessibility

in education (Vuorikari et al., 2016; OECD, 2022).

Facilitating Learners’ Digital Competence. This refers to

teachers’ role in guiding students to critically, safely, and responsibly

use digital technologies for learning, creativity, and problem-solving

(Vuorikari et al., 2016; Sang et al., 2022).

 19

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter discusses related literature and studies which are

relevant to the present study.

Related Literature

Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools have become

increasingly integrated into educational contexts through adaptive

learning platforms, intelligent tutoring systems, automated

assessments, and chatbots. These technologies are designed to

personalize learning, provide immediate feedback, and streamline

instructional delivery (Holmes, Bialik, & Fadel, 2021). When teachers

adopt AI, they gain opportunities to enhance student engagement and

diversify learning strategies. However, adoption is not merely about

access to technology but about teachers’ readiness to embrace and

integrate AI into their teaching practices.

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) proposed by Davis

(1989) has been widely applied to explain technology adoption in

education. According to TAM, perceived usefulness (PU) and

perceived ease of use (PEOU) significantly predict users’ acceptance

 20

of a given technology. In the case of AI, PU is reflected in how teachers

view the potential of AI-powered tools to improve teaching

effectiveness, while PEOU relates to how easily they can incorporate

these tools into instruction. When both conditions are met, attitudes

toward AI are generally more positive (Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur,

2019).

Despite the promise of AI, teachers also express concerns

about risks associated with its use. Luckin (2022) emphasized that

issues such as data privacy, algorithmic fairness, transparency, and

ethical implications can hinder teachers’ willingness to adopt AI tools.

Moreover, overreliance on AI for decision-making in teaching and

learning may raise doubts about teacher autonomy and professional

judgment. These risks complicate attitudes, suggesting that teachers’

adoption of AI involves a careful balance between enthusiasm for

innovation and caution toward potential drawbacks.

Studies further suggest that contextual factors influence

teachers’ attitudes toward AI. For example, access to professional

development, institutional support, and adequate infrastructure

enhances teachers’ confidence and reduces apprehensions (Ertmer &

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Teachers in resource-rich contexts are

more likely to perceive AI tools as useful and easy to use, whereas

those in under-resourced areas may experience heightened skepticism

due to barriers in implementation. Thus, attitudes toward AI are shaped

not only by individual beliefs but also by systemic and environmental

conditions.
 21

Digital competence has emerged as a core professional

requirement for 21st-century educators. Vuorikari, Punie, Carretero,

and Van den Brande (2016) defined it as the confident, critical, and

creative use of digital technologies in teaching, learning, and

professional engagement. The European Framework for the Digital

Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) identifies six areas of

competence: professional engagement, digital resources, teaching and

learning, assessment, empowering learners, and facilitating learners’

digital competence. This holistic view highlights that digital competence

extends beyond technical ability, encompassing pedagogical and

ethical dimensions as well.

Cabero-Almenara and Palacios-Rodríguez (2020) reinforced this

perspective, noting that digital competence requires not only

knowledge of tools but also the ability to integrate them effectively in

diverse educational contexts. Teachers must evaluate digital content

critically, adapt resources for inclusivity, and apply digital assessment

strategies to monitor learning progress. These tasks require both

technical fluency and pedagogical insight. Without these dual aspects,

digital competence remains superficial and fails to impact learning

meaningfully.

The role of professional engagement in digital competence is

also emphasized. Teachers who participate in digital communities of

practice, engage in online professional development, and collaborate

with peers through digital platforms demonstrate stronger competence

(Redecker & Punie, 2017). Such engagement allows teachers to stay

 22

updated with technological trends and fosters confidence in applying

new tools, including AI. Consequently, professional engagement forms

a critical link between individual teacher capacity and collective

institutional improvement.

Moreover, research has shown that digital competence is

context-dependent. Teachers in urban areas with greater access to

technology often report higher competence than those in rural contexts

(Caballero & Bernardo, 2022). This discrepancy reflects inequalities in

infrastructure, training opportunities, and support systems. In the

Philippine context, rural districts like Maigo face challenges in digital

readiness, underscoring the importance of studying teachers’

competence alongside their attitudes toward AI-powered tools to

address systemic gaps (Tolentino, 2022).

The relationship between teachers’ digital competence and their

attitudes toward technology has been well documented. Sang, Liang,

Chai, Dong, and Tsai (2022) found that teachers with higher digital

competence tend to hold more positive attitudes toward the adoption of

educational technologies, including AI. Competence enhances

teachers’ sense of control and reduces the cognitive load associated

with learning new tools, thereby increasing the likelihood of favorable

perceptions and adoption.

Bandura’s (1997) Social Cognitive Theory provides a theoretical

basis for this connection. The theory posits that self-efficacy, or the

belief in one’s capabilities to perform tasks, plays a crucial role in

shaping attitudes and behaviors. Teachers with strong digital

 23

competence develop greater self-efficacy in handling AI-powered tools,

which positively influences their attitudes toward adoption. Conversely,

low competence may undermine self-efficacy, leading to resistance or

avoidance of AI integration.

The bidirectional relationship between attitudes and competence

is also worth noting. Teachers with positive attitudes are more likely to

pursue digital training, engage in experimentation with AI tools, and

sustain long-term integration efforts (Scherer et al., 2019). In turn, as

they build competence, their confidence and enthusiasm for technology

deepen, creating a reinforcing cycle. This dynamic highlight the

importance of addressing both attitudes and competence

simultaneously in teacher professional development programs.

Ultimately, the literature suggests that successful integration of

AI in education depends on the interplay between teachers’ attitudes

and their digital competence. Policies and training initiatives that focus

solely on providing access to technology may fall short if teachers’

beliefs, concerns, and pedagogical capacities are not addressed

(OECD, 2022). By investigating both dimensions in the context of the

Maigo District, this study contributes to a more comprehensive

understanding of how AI adoption can be effectively supported in

Philippine basic education.

Related Studies

Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) emphasized that

teachers’ adoption of technology is shaped primarily by their underlying

 24

attitudes and pedagogical beliefs rather than by access to resources

alone. Their study revealed that even in well-resourced contexts,

teachers who lack confidence or hold negative perceptions toward

digital tools are less likely to integrate them meaningfully into

instruction. This underscores the importance of considering attitudinal

and motivational factors in technology adoption, which applies directly

to teachers’ willingness to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools

in classrooms.

Scherer, Siddiq, and Tondeur (2019), through a meta-analysis of

technology acceptance studies in education, demonstrated that

perceived usefulness and digital competence are among the strongest

predictors of teachers’ adoption of digital innovations, including AI-

powered systems. Their findings suggest that when teachers believe

technology improves learning outcomes and when they feel capable of

using it, their likelihood of adoption increases significantly. This aligns

with the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) and highlights

the critical role of competence in shaping teacher attitudes.

In addition, Cansoy and Parlar (2018) examined the relationship

between digital competence and teachers’ openness to AI tools. Their

study indicated that teachers with higher levels of digital competence

are more adaptive, experimental, and innovative in their teaching

practices. The researchers noted that competence not only equips

teachers with technical skills but also strengthens their self-efficacy,

which in turn fosters a more positive disposition toward adopting AI

applications in education.
 25

Similarly, Zawacki-Richter, Marín, Bond, and Gouverneur (2019)

investigated the integration of AI in higher education and concluded

that teachers’ digital literacy and attitudes are decisive factors in

determining the success of AI adoption. Their findings pointed out that

AI integration is less about the availability of sophisticated systems and

more about whether educators possess the competence and

confidence to use them effectively. This reinforces the view that

teacher readiness, shaped by both attitudes and digital competence, is

essential for AI-enhanced learning environments.

Collectively, these foreign studies reveal a consistent pattern:

teachers’ attitudes toward AI tools and their digital competence operate

as intertwined determinants of technology adoption. While

infrastructure and access provide necessary conditions, successful

integration ultimately depends on whether teachers value AI as useful,

perceive it as easy to use, and possess the competence to apply it

effectively.

In the Philippine setting, Tolentino (2022) found that teachers

with higher levels of digital competence were more open to the use of

AI platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study emphasized

that competence in using digital tools not only increased teachers’

confidence but also shaped their willingness to experiment with

innovative AI-driven applications for remote instruction. This finding

illustrates how digital competence enhances teachers’ adaptability

during times of crisis, making it a critical factor in sustaining quality

teaching and learning.

 26

Similarly, Bautista (2021) revealed that positive attitudes toward

technology were strongly correlated with higher proficiency in

managing digital resources. Teachers who viewed technology as

beneficial for improving learning outcomes demonstrated greater skill in

creating, curating, and utilizing digital content. The study concluded

that attitudes toward technology serve as motivational drivers that can

either facilitate or hinder teachers’ digital proficiency. This reinforces

the idea that competence and attitudes work hand-in-hand in

determining teachers’ readiness for AI adoption.

In another study, Cudal (2023) examined teachers in Northern

Mindanao and discovered that while educators acknowledged the

usefulness of AI in enhancing instruction, they also expressed

reservations regarding ethical issues, the availability of technical

support, and data privacy concerns. Teachers highlighted

apprehensions about overreliance on AI and its potential risks in terms

of learner safety and fairness. These findings reveal that while

openness to AI exists, successful adoption requires addressing

contextual challenges such as infrastructure, training, and ethical

guidelines.

Together, these local studies suggest that Filipino teachers’

readiness for AI integration is shaped by both their digital competence

and their attitudes toward emerging technologies. While competence

equips teachers with the technical and pedagogical skills needed,

attitudes reflect their perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and

associated risks. Addressing both dimensions is therefore necessary

 27

for policies and professional development initiatives aimed at fostering

meaningful AI integration in Philippine basic education.

Therefore, most research on teachers’ attitudes toward Artificial

Intelligence (AI) powered tools and their digital competence that were

mentioned above have focused on a wide range of factors influencing

technology adoption and classroom integration. This research therefore

considers a few of these variables with the aim of providing an in-depth

understanding of the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and their

competence. The studies reviewed also show differences with regard

to respondents and settings compared to the present study. While most

of the above-mentioned research focused on teachers in higher

education or international contexts, the present study focuses on public

school teachers in the District of Maigo, Division of Lanao del Norte.

The respondents include all the 115 public school teachers in the

district, distributed across different schools as follows: Atanacia L.

Logronio Integrated School (7), Balagatasa Elementary School (13),

Baybay Kulasihan Elementary School (4), Camp 1 Elementary School

(6), Claro M. Recto Elementary School (13), Kulasihan Elementary

School (5), Labuay Elementary School (9), Liangan West Elementary

School (8), Maigo Central Elementary School (27), Maliwanag Primary

School (3), Mentring Integrated School (9), and Santa Cruz Elementary

School (4). This comprehensive coverage situates the study within the

realities of Philippine basic education, particularly in the context of

Lanao del Norte.

 28

To conclude, the studies conducted and reviewed above show

both similarities and differences in terms of results between teachers’

attitudes toward AI-powered tools and their digital competence. Most

research has pointed to the fact that positive attitudes and higher

competence play a crucial role in the successful adoption of AI and

other emerging technologies in education. However, the present study

uniquely contributes by examining these variables among the 115

public elementary and secondary school teachers of Maigo District. By

analyzing both attitudes and competence in this localized context, the

study aims to provide evidence-based insights into how readiness for

AI integration can be enhanced in Philippine classrooms.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The chapter presents the research design, research setting,

research respondents, research instrument and validation, data-

gathering procedure, and statistical tools to be used in the study.

Research Design

This study will employ a descriptive-correlational research

design. The descriptive component will be used to present the profile of

teachers in terms of age, gender, position, years in service, and ICT/AI

training, as well as to describe the attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence

(AI) powered tools of the teachers and their level of digital competence.

The correlational component, on the other hand, will be applied to

determine whether significant relationships exist between the profile of

 29

the teachers and their attitudes toward AI-powered tools, and between

the attitudes of the teachers and their digital competence. According to

Polit and Beck (2021), a descriptive-correlational design is appropriate

when the objective of the study is to describe existing conditions and

examine associations among variables without manipulating them. This

design is therefore suitable for the present study, which aims to provide

a comprehensive understanding of how teachers’ attitudes and digital

competence interact within the natural school setting in Maigo District,

Division of Lanao del Norte.

Research Setting

This study will be conducted in the twelve (12) public schools in

the District of Maigo, Division of Lanao del Norte. The said locale is

chosen because it represents a complete coverage of both elementary

and integrated schools in the district, thereby providing a

comprehensive view of the teachers’ attitudes toward Artificial

Intelligence (AI) powered tools of the teachers and their digital

competence. Maigo District is also selected because of its ongoing

efforts to strengthen digital literacy despite the limited resources and

training opportunities available to many of its teachers.

Geographically, Maigo is one of the municipalities of Lanao del

Norte. It is located along the coastal area northwest of Iligan City, the
 30

commercial center of the province. It is bounded by the municipalities

of Bacolod and Kauswagan on the east, Kolambugan on the west.

Being a rural district with both coastal and upland barangays, Maigo

faces contextual challenges in terms of access to technology and

professional development opportunities, making it an ideal site for

investigating issues of teacher competence and attitudes toward AI-

powered tools.

Specifically, all public elementary schools of Maigo District are

included in the study. Alphabetically arranged, the schools are as

follows: Atanacia L. Logronio Integrated School, Balagatasa

Elementary School, Baybay Kulasihan Elementary School, Camp 1

Elementary School, Claro M. Recto Elementary School, Kulasihan

Elementary School, Labuay Elementary School, Liangan West

Elementary School, Maigo Central Elementary School, Maliwanag

Primary School, Mentring Integrated School, and Santa Cruz

Elementary School.
 31

Figure 2
Map of the Maigo District

Research Respondents

The respondents of the study include all the 115 public

elementary school teachers from the district of Maigo, Division of

 32

Lanao del Norte. The number of teachers is listed down by school as

follows:

Name of School Number of Teachers

Atanacia L. Logronio Integrated School 7

Balagatasa Elementary School 13

Baybay Kulasihan Elementary School 4

Camp 1 Elementary School 6

Claro M. Recto Elementary School 13

Kulasihan Elementary School 5

Labuay Elementary School 9

Liangan West Elementary School 8

Maigo Cenral Elementary School 27

Maliwanag Primary School 3

Mentring Integrated School 9

Santa Cruz Elementary School 4

Total = 115

Research Instrument

This study will employ a questionnaire as its primary research

instrument. The questionnaire for this study is composed of three (3)

 33

major parts which respectively include: the profile of the teachers, their

attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools, and their

digital competence.

The first part was about the profile of the teachers which include

age, gender, position, years in service, and training in ICT/AI. These

variables are included to determine whether demographic and

professional characteristics influence teachers’ attitudes and

competence.

The second part encompassed an evaluation of teachers’

attitudes toward AI-powered tools. To assess these attitudes, the

researcher will use an instrument adapted from the Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM) developed by Davis (1989). The evaluation

will cover three (3) dimensions: perceived usefulness with six (6) items,

perceived ease of use with six (6) items, and perceived risks with six

(6) items. Specific adjustments will be made to the items in this part to

suit the respondents’ context in Philippine basic education. For

example, the wording is simplified and contextualized to classroom

practices so that teachers can easily understand and respond to each

item.
 34

To describe the level of teachers’ attitudes toward AI tools, a

five-point Likert scale will be used. Respondents will be asked to

indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each

statement using the scale below. The computed means are interpreted

according to the following continuum:

Scale Response Interpretation

4.20–5.00 Strongly Agree Highly Positive

3.40–4.19 Agree Positive

2.60–3.39 Neutral Fair

1.80–2.59 Disagree Negative

1.00–1.79 Strongly Disagree Highly Negative

The last part is about the digital competence of teachers. In this

part, the study it employs items adapted from the European Framework

for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) developed by

Vuorikari et al. (2016). This framework requires every teacher as a

respondent to evaluate and rate his/her capability in six (6) key areas

of digital competence, namely: professional engagement with five (5)

items, digital resources with six (6) items, teaching and learning with

six (6) items, assessment with five (5) items, empowering learners with
 35

five (5) items, and facilitating learners’ digital competence with five (5)

items.

The teachers as respondents will choose among the options in

the following continuum:

Scale Response Interpretation

4.20–5.00 Always Very Competent

3.40–4.19 Often Competent

2.60–3.39 Sometimes Moderately Competent

1.80–2.59 Seldom Less Competent

1.00–1.79 Never Not Competent

Validation of Research Instrument

The research instrument in gathering the data for this study is

the questionnaire. The first part on the profile of the teachers was

drafted by the researcher himself. The second part on teachers’

attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools was adapted

from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) developed by Davis

(1989). The third part on teachers’ digital competence was adapted

from the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators

 36

(DigCompEdu) formulated by Vuorikari, Punie, Carretero, and Van den

Brande (2016).

Obviously, the questionnaire will consist of Parts II and III, which

will be adapted from established frameworks. Validation will be

undertaken to ensure that the items will be suited to the purpose of this

study and the local context of the respondents. Minor adjustments will

be made in the wording of several items, particularly in Part II on

attitudes, where technical terminologies will be simplified into terms

more familiar to teachers in Philippine classrooms. In Part III on digital

competence, examples will be localized to reflect common digital

practices in schools, thereby ensuring better understanding and more

accurate responses.

Specifically, the validation will be carried out through the

guidance of the adviser and the thesis panel, who will be given

sufficient opportunities to objectively and thoroughly read and review

every item in the questionnaire for corrections and suggestions for

improvement. Their feedback will ensure that the instrument will be

aligned with the study objectives, will measure the constructs

accurately, and will be clear and appropriate for the respondents.

 37

Data-Gathering Procedures

Prior to distributing the questionnaires to the teachers as

respondents, the researcher will request permission to conduct the

study from the concerned authorities. Specifically, permission will be

sought from the Schools Division Superintendent of the Division of

Lanao del Norte through the Coordinating Principal of the Maigo

District. Afterward, the permission of the principals and school heads of

the twelve (12) public schools in Maigo District will likewise be obtained

to facilitate the distribution and retrieval of the questionnaires from the

respondents.

Upon approval, the questionnaires will be personally

administered to all teacher-respondents in their respective schools.

The researcher will coordinate with the school heads to ensure the

smooth facilitation of the data collection process. After the respondents

have accomplished the questionnaires, the researcher will collect them

promptly to ensure a high retrieval rate. The completed questionnaires

will then be consolidated for statistical treatment and analysis.

Ethical Considerations

Throughout the entire process, the researcher will ensure

adherence to ethical considerations, including voluntary participation,

 38

informed consent, and the right of the respondents to withdraw from

the study at any time. The confidentiality of the respondents’ identities

and the security of their responses will be strictly maintained. The

tabulation and presentation of results will be conducted in aggregate

form only, with no disclosure of individual data.

Statistical Tools

The following statistical tools will be used to analyze and

interpret the results.

Frequency and Percentage. These will be used to determine

the distribution of the responses in terms of the teachers’ profile such

as age, gender, position, years in service, and ICT/AI training.

Formula:

f
P= x 100
N

Where:

P= percentage

f= frequency

N= number of respondents
 39

Average- Weighted Mean. This will be used to arrive at specific

interpretations of the results, particularly on the attitudes toward AI-

powered tools of the teachers and their level of digital competence.

Formula:

∑ fx
x =
∑f

Where:

x = average-weighted mean

∑ fx = sum of all the products of f and x: where f is the frequency of

each option.

∑f = sum of all subjects

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (Pearson r). This will

be used to test the significance of the relationship between (a) the

profile of the teachers and their attitudes toward AI-powered tools, and

(b) the attitudes of the teachers and their digital competence.

Formula:

Where:

𝑟= Pearson correlation coefficient

𝑛= number of paired scores

 40

𝑥= values of the first variable

𝑦= values of the second variable

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gamis, A. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions and readiness for AI tools in

Mindanao schools. Mindanao Journal of Education, 18(1), 101–
115. Retrieved from: [Link]

Lawrence, J., Smith, P., & Abdullah, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in

secondary schools: An international survey. International
Review of Education, 70(1), 1–23. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Alharbi, A. (2023). Teachers’ concerns on using AI in Saudi

classrooms.
Arab World English Journal, 14(3), 224–239. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Campbell-Kelly, M., Aspray, W., Ensmenger, N., & Yost, J. R. (2023).

Computer: A history of the information machine (4th ed.).
Routledge. Retrieved from: [Link]

Tapalova, O., & Zhiyenbayeva, B. (2022). Artificial intelligence in

education: Trends and applications. International Journal of
Educational Technology, 39(4), 55–72. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Uunona, S., & Goosen, L. (2023). Teachers’ perspectives on AI-

powered
educational technologies in Namibia. African Journal of
Education and Technology, 13(1), 14–28. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Luan, H., Geczy, P., Lai, H., Gobert, J., Yang, S., Baltes, J., … &
Ogata,
H. (2020). Challenges and future directions of Big Data and
artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,
580820. Retrieved from: [Link]

Sarker, I. H. (2022). Machine learning: Algorithms, real-world

applications and research directions. SN Computer Science, 3,
161. Retrieved from: [Link]

Tahiru, F. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Benefits and

concerns. International Journal of Education and Development,
7(2), 1–12. Retrieved from: [Link]
 41

Deocampo, J., Villanueva, M., & Santos, P. (2024). Teachers’

perceptions of AI-based tools in Philippine classrooms. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education Research, 7(1), 44–59. Retrieved
from: [Link]

Hafeez, M., & Hasbi, M. (2023). Exploring AI’s role in teacher

professional development. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 18(5), 102–118. Retrieved from:
[Link]
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in
education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning.
Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Department of Education. (2021). Digital rise: Transforming education

through technology. Pasig City: DepEd. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Caballero, R., & Bernardo, A. (2022). Teachers’ readiness and

challenges in integrating artificial intelligence in Philippine
schools. Philippine Journal of Education, 95(2), 23–37.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., Carretero, S., & Van den Brande, G. (2016).
DigCompEdu: European framework for the digital competence
of educators. Publications Office of the European Union.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation
modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital
technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Adel, R. (2024). Teacher preparedness for AI integration: Evidence

from
Middle Eastern schools. Journal of Education and Information
Technologies, 29(3), 399–415. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Bringula, R. (2020). Digital competence of teachers in Philippine

schools: Implications for 21st century teaching. Philippine
Journal of Computing, 15(1), 11–23. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Bringula, R. (2023). Integrating artificial intelligence tools in Philippine

classrooms: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of ICT in
Education, 20(2), 67–84. Retrieved from: [Link]

Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., & Spector, J.
 42

M. (2021). A review of artificial intelligence in education research

(2010–2020). Educational Technology Research and
Development, 69(6), 2615–2638. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of AI in education: Challenges

and
policy perspectives. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 623–
639. Retrieved from: [Link]

Malhan, R., Kumar, P., & Sharma, N. (2024). Exploring the ethical
challenges of artificial intelligence in school education.
Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 345–360.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Nguyen, T., Hoang, H., & Pham, L. (2023). Digital literacy and AI
readiness among teachers in Vietnam. Journal of Educational
Technology Development and Exchange, 16(2), 77–93.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Lukianets, O., & Lukianets, S. (2023). Ethical concerns of AI integration

in K-12 education. Journal of Ethics in Education, 12(2), 65–80.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Choi, J., Lee, K., & Park, H. (2023). AI and teacher workload: Evidence
from South Korea. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 24(3), 477–
490. Retrieved from: [Link]

Alqahtani, A., Rajab, H., & Zubairi, A. (2021). Teacher readiness for AI
adoption in higher education. Education and Information
Technologies, 26(5), 5365–5383. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Polak, M., Javorcik, M., & Novák, T. (2022). Barriers to AI adoption

among teachers: A European perspective. European Journal of
Education Research, 11(2), 289–305. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Dogan, Y., Bayram, M., & Sahin, S. (2021). Teachers’ attitudes toward
AI-based assessment tools. International Journal of Assessment
Tools in Education, 8(4), 722–739. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Abel, R., Brown, S., & Hudson, T. (2022). Teacher training in the era of
AI: A case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(4), 455–470.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Kim, S., & Kwon, Y. (2023). Exploring Korean teachers’ digital

 43

competence and attitudes toward AI. Korean Journal of

Educational Technology, 39(1), 55–74. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Tolentino, A. (2022). Teachers’ digital competence and openness to AI

platforms in Philippine schools during the pandemic. Philippine
Normal University Research Journal, 15(1), 77–92.

Cudal, J. (2023). Ethical and technical concerns of AI use among

teachers in Northern Mindanao. Mindanao Journal of
Educational Research, 17(2), 88–104. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and

user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,
13(3), 319–340. Retrieved from: [Link]

Luckin, R. (2022). The ethical challenges of artificial intelligence in

education. Oxford Review of Education, 48(5), 567–584.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019).

Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence in higher
education. International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, 16(39), 1–27. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology

change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture
intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(3), 255–284. Retrieved from: [Link]

Cabero-Almenara, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Digital

competence of educators: Conceptualization, measurement,
and implementation in higher education. Education Sciences,
10(6), 167. Retrieved from: [Link]

Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2022). Predicting
ICT
integration in teacher education: Assessing attitudes and digital
competence. Computers & Education, 179, 104406. Retrieved
from: [Link]

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:

W.H. Freeman. Retrieved from: [Link]
 44

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). AI

and the future of skills, volume 1: Capabilities and assessments.
OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: [Link]

Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital
competence of educators: DigCompEdu. EUR 28775 EN.
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and

assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters
Kluwer. Retrieved from: [Link]

Questionnaire
on
ATTITUDES TOWARD ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)
POWERED TOOLS AND DIGITAL COMPETENCE
AMONG TEACHERS IN MAIGO DISTRICT

General Directions: The purpose of this study is to determine the

relationship between the attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence (AI)
powered tools of the teachers and their digital competence in the
Maigo District.

This questionnaire consists of three (3) major parts. Part I is about your
profile, Part II is about your attitudes toward AI tools, and Part III is
about your digital competence as a teacher. Please answer the
following questionnaires honestly as possible; your response will be
treated anonymously and will never be linked to you personally.

Part I: Teacher Profile

Directions: Listed below are choices about your profile. Please check(/)
the bracket of your choice.

Name: (Optional)________________________________

Age: [ ] 30 years old and below [ ] 51-60 years old

[ ] 31-40 years old [ ] Above 60 years old
[ ] 41-50 years old

Gender: [ ] Male [ ] Female

Position:
 45

[ ] Teacher I [ ] Master Teacher I

[ ] Teacher II [ ] Master Teacher II
[ ] Teacher III

Number of years in current position:

[ ] 10 year and below
[ ] 11-20 years
[ ] 21-30 years
[ ] Above 30 years
ICT/AI Training Attended:
[ ] None
[ ] School-based Training
[ ] District/Division Training
[ ] Regional/National Training
[ ] Online/Independent Training

Frequency of ICT/AI Training:

[ ] Never
[ ] Once
[ ] 2–3 times
[ ] 4–5 times
[ ] More than 5 times

Part II: Teachers’ Attitudes Toward AI-Powered Tools

Directions: Below are statements about your attitudes toward AI-
powered tools, categorized into three domains: Perceived Usefulness,
Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Risks. Please check (✓) the
box that best reflects your level of agreement. Kindly use the code
below.
5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neutral
2 – Disagree
 46

1 – Strongly Disagree

PERCEIVED USEFULNESS
1 2 3 4 5

1. AI-powered tools improve my teaching

effectiveness.

2. AI-powered tools enhance the quality of

student learning.
3. Al-powered tools make instructional tasks
easier to accomplish.
4. Using AI-powered tools increases my
productivity as a teacher.
5. AI-powered tools help me provide timely
feedback to students.
6. AI-powered tools contribute to innovation in
my classroom practices.
PERCEIVED EASE OF USE
1 2 3 4 5

1. AI-powered tools are easy to use in my

teaching.
2. Learning how to use AI-powered tools is
simple for me.
3. AI-powered tools are user-friendly and
manageable.
4. Interacting with AI-powered tools does not
require much mental effort.
5. I can easily integrate AI-powered tools into my
classroom activities.
6. I quickly become skillful in using new AI-
powered tools when introduced.

PERCEIVED RISKS
1 2 3 4 5

1. I am concerned about data privacy when using

AI-powered tools.
2. AI-powered tools may create dependency that
reduces teacher control.
 47

3. AI-powered tools could have biases that affect

fairness in education.
4. I am uncertain about the long-term impact of
AI-powered tools in education.
5. AI-powered tools may increase my workload
instead of reducing it.
6. AI-powered tools could replace certain aspects
of human teaching.

Part III: Teachers’ Digital Competence

Directions: Listed below are statements seeking to measure your level
of digital competence as a teacher. Please check (✓) the box that best
describes you based on the code below.
5 – Always
4 – Often
3 – Sometimes
2 – Seldom
1 – Never
PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT
1 2 3 4 5

1. I use digital technologies to communicate with

colleagues.
2. I participate in online professional networks or
communities.
3. I use digital tools to collaborate with peers on
teaching resources.
4. I engage in professional development activities
using digital platforms.
5. I reflect on my teaching practices with the help
of digital tools.
DIGITAL RESOURCES
1 2 3 4 5
 48

1. I search and select appropriate digital

resources for teaching.
2. I create my own digital teaching materials.

3. I modify existing digital resources to fit my

teaching needs.
4. I share digital resources with colleagues and
students.
5. I consider copyright and licensing when using
digital materials.
6. I organize digital resources for easy access
and use.

TEACHING AND LEARNING

1 2 3 4 5

1. I integrate digital tools into lesson planning.

2. I use digital technologies to support classroom

instruction.
3. I adapt teaching strategies with the help of
digital tools.
4. I facilitate collaborative learning activities
through digital platforms.
5. I guide students in using digital tools for
learning.
6. I balance face-to-face and digital learning
approaches.
ASSESSMENT
1 2 3 4 5

1. I use digital tools to design and administer

assessments.
2. I provide feedback to students using digital
platforms.
3. I analyze student performance data with digital
tools.
4. I use digital tools to track students’ learning
progress.
 49

5. I adjust teaching strategies based on digital

assessment results.
EMPOWERING LEARNERS
1 2 3 4 5

1. I use digital tools to support personalized

learning.
2. I adapt teaching to meet students’ diverse
learning needs with digital technologies.
3. I encourage student autonomy using digital
platforms.
4. I provide digital learning opportunities for
students with special needs.
5. I foster inclusion through the use of digital
resources.
FACILITATING LEARNERS’ DIGITAL COMPETENCE
1 2 3 4 5

1. I guide students in safely using digital

technologies.
2. I teach students to evaluate the reliability of
digital content.
3. I encourage students to create digital content
responsibly.
4. I help students develop problem-solving skills
with digital tools.
5. I promote students’ critical awareness of digital
technologies.