Lunday

Research Journal of the Graduate School of Bulacan State University

Print ISSN 1656-3514

Online ISSN 2980-4353

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-0736

Abstract

The integration of technology into classroom instruction presents immense potential to improve educational outcomes. Yet, numerous public secondary schools in the Philippines, particularly in Bulacan, continue to rely on traditional teaching methods such as chalkboards, printed materials, and dictation. This study aims to identify and analyze the barriers hindering effective technology integration in these educational settings. Utilizing a descriptive quantitative research design, data were collected through a structured survey distributed to public secondary school teachers in Bulacan using convenience sampling. The survey focused on four key areas: technological infrastructure, teacher competency and training, institutional and policy support, and resource constraints. Results revealed that the most pressing issues include inadequate access to digital tools, unstable internet connectivity, insufficient technical support, and limited teacher training. Institutional challenges, such as unclear ICT policies and budget limitations, further impede progress. The study recommends increasing government support, enhancing infrastructure, offering continuous professional development for teachers, and establishing inclusive policies to promote equitable access to technology in education.

Keywords: ICT integration, educational technology, public secondary schools, teacher competency, infrastructure barriers, Bulacan, digital learning

Introduction

Many public schools in the Philippines still rely on traditional instructional tools such as chalkboards, printed materials, and dictation-based methods. Teachers often conduct lessons through oral dictation, requiring students to copy notes, an approach that reduces student concentration, causes cognitive fatigue, and limits learning engagement. Despite the potential of educational technology to improve instruction, its adoption in public schools remains limited due to persistent challenges. Budget constraints hinder the procurement of essential digital tools such as laptops, tablets, and projectors. Even in schools with available hardware, unstable internet connectivity, unreliable electricity, and inadequate maintenance systems, especially in rural areas, further restrict effective ICT use. Teacher-related barriers also persist. Many educators lack access to the continuous professional development needed to build digital competencies. Outdated curricula and vague ICT policy directives delay the implementation of innovative teaching practices, leaving schools dependent on conventional approaches. As a result, students miss opportunities to develop 21st-century skills such as digital literacy, critical thinking, and creativity.

Jordan et al. (2021) identified key obstacles to ICT integration, including insufficient infrastructure, weak internet access, and a lack of up-to-date devices. Organizational challenges such as poor institutional support, inadequate planning, and resistance to change compound the problem. Policy-related issues, including unclear ICT guidelines, and end-user barriers like low digital literacy and fear of technology, also inhibit progress. Jordan stressed the importance of addressing these challenges through infrastructure upgrades, teacher training, and inclusive policy reforms. Similarly, Del Mundo (2022) found that although teachers recognize the importance of digital skills, they face barriers such as limited digital resources, insufficient training, and weak institutional support. These findings underscore the urgent need for capacity-building programs and improved infrastructure to promote effective technology integration.

While several studies have explored ICT challenges in education, most focus on urban centers or national-level data, often overlooking provincial realities. This study addresses that gap by examining public secondary schools in Bulacan, a region that exemplifies both the ambitions and constraints of ICT integration in the Philippine education system. By focusing on the localized barriers faced in this setting, the research introduces contextual novelty and practical insights that may inform ICT initiatives in similarly underserved areas.

This study aimed to identify and analyze the barriers to effective integration of technology in classroom instruction in public secondary schools in Bulacan. Specifically, it sought to examine the demographic profile of teacher-respondents in terms of age, educational attainment, and years of teaching experience. It also aimed to assess the level of agreement among teachers regarding four major dimensions related to ICT integration: technological infrastructure, teacher competency and training, institutional and policy support, and resource constraints. Furthermore, the study sought to identify the most significant barriers that hinder the effective use of technology in teaching. Finally, it explored whether notable differences in teachers' perceptions of ICT integration exist when categorized by age group.

Review of Related Literature and Study

To better understand the underlying factors influencing teachers’ willingness and ability to integrate technology, this study draws on several theoretical frameworks. These models help frame the relationship between technology use, teacher behavior, institutional context, and system-level adoption.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) – Davis (1989)

The integration of technology in education has been extensively examined through various theoretical frameworks that explore factors influencing adoption, implementation challenges, and overall effectiveness. One widely used framework is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), developed by Fred D. Davis in 1989. TAM posits that an individual's decision to adopt technology is primarily influenced by two key perceptions: perceived usefulness, the extent to which a person believes that using a system will enhance job performance, and perceived ease of use, the extent to which a person believes that using the system requires minimal effort.

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) outlines several core concepts that help explain how individuals decide to adopt and use new technologies. One key idea is Perceived Usefulness (PU), which refers to the belief that a particular technology can enhance job performance, efficiency, or productivity. Another is Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), which describes the belief that a technology is user-friendly and requires minimal effort to learn and operate. Attitude Toward Using represents an individual’s overall perception—either positive or negative—regarding the use of the technology. Behavioral Intention to Use reflects the likelihood or willingness of an individual to adopt and continue using the technology in the future. Finally, Actual System Use refers to the practical application of the technology in real-world tasks, signaling its successful adoption and integration. This model is particularly relevant to the present study as it provides a framework for understanding how users—specifically teachers—accept and adopt educational technologies based on their perceptions. The model identifies several barriers associated with each component. For instance, Perceived Usefulness (PU) examines the extent to which teachers and students believe that technology can improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning. If educators do not recognize these benefits, they may hesitate to integrate technology. Barriers include a lack of evidence demonstrating improved learning outcomes, minimal administrative support, and unclear advantages of technology in pedagogy. Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) refers to how effortless teachers perceive the use of technology to be. When technology is perceived as complicated or difficult to implement, resistance tends to increase. Barriers in this area include insufficient training, frequent technical issues, outdated equipment, and limited IT support.

Meanwhile, a teacher’s Attitude Toward Using (ATU) plays a major role in their openness to technology. Positive attitudes encourage adoption, while negative ones create resistance. Barriers that contribute to this include fear of failure, frustration with complex systems, resistance to change, especially among teachers familiar with traditional methods, and previous negative experiences with technology. Some educators may also believe that digital tools increase their workload rather than simplify it. The Behavioral Intention (BI) to use technology refers to a teacher’s motivation to adopt and continue using ICT tools in instruction. Even when resources are available, lack of motivation may result from skepticism, negative experiences, or the absence of institutional encouragement. Barriers include fear of failure, limited incentives, and inertia against change. Lastly, Actual System Use (ASU) measures how frequently and effectively teachers apply technology in their classrooms. Barriers to this include teachers attending training sessions but failing to apply what they’ve learned, a lack of institutional monitoring or evaluation of technology use, insufficient access to functional devices or software, and the tendency of some teachers to limit technology use to administrative tasks such as grading, rather than instructional purposes.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework – Mishra & Koehler (2006)

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework, developed by Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler in 2006, emphasizes the critical need for integrating technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge to achieve effective teaching in the digital age. This framework posits that for successful technology integration, teachers must possess expertise in three interconnected domains: content knowledge (CK), which refers to a teacher’s understanding of the subject matter; pedagogical knowledge (PK), which involves the methods and strategies used to facilitate learning; and technological knowledge (TK), which pertains to the teacher's ability to use and incorporate technology into the classroom effectively. The intersection of these three areas is key to enhancing teaching and learning, as it allows teachers to apply technology in ways that support and enrich both their content and pedagogical practices, ultimately fostering a more dynamic and effective learning environment for students.

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework highlights the essential knowledge domains teachers must integrate to use technology in education effectively. At the foundation is Content Knowledge (CK), which refers to a deep understanding and mastery of the subject matter being taught. Teachers must possess expertise in their specific academic content to provide accurate and meaningful instruction. Alongside this is Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), which encompasses knowledge of effective teaching methods, instructional strategies, and learning theories. This enables teachers to design and implement lessons that engage students and support diverse learning needs. Complementing CK and PK is Technological Knowledge (TK), or a teacher’s proficiency in using digital tools, software, and resources to enhance learning. This includes familiarity with educational platforms, multimedia tools, and online resources that can support instruction. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), a more integrated domain, involves understanding how technology reshapes and influences teaching strategies. Teachers must not only know how to use tools but also how to align them with pedagogical approaches to improve student engagement and comprehension. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to the ability to connect technology with subject matter, using digital tools to enhance understanding of specific content.

For example, using simulations in science or interactive maps in geography demonstrates TCK in action. Meanwhile, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) involves the effective delivery of subject content through instructional strategies tailored to the subject area, ensuring students grasp complex ideas through the right pedagogical approach.  At the intersection of all these domains is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)—the core of the framework. TPACK represents the comprehensive and seamless integration of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, enabling educators to design instruction that is engaging, effective, and suited for 21st-century learners. It is this balanced intersection that empowers teachers to transform their classrooms through meaningful and thoughtful use of educational technology.

This theory is highly relevant to the present study as it emphasizes the interconnectedness of technology, pedagogy, and content in achieving effective teaching. The TPACK framework provides a valuable lens through which to analyze how teachers' knowledge and skills influence their ability to integrate technology into instruction, as well as what specific barriers may hinder this process. Technological Knowledge (TK) refers to a teacher’s ability to understand and effectively use technology tools in educational settings. Obstacles in this area include insufficient training, limited digital literacy, and inadequate access to necessary devices and internet connectivity. These issues prevent teachers from confidently and competently incorporating digital tools into their lessons. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) involves understanding and applying effective teaching methods and strategies. Some teachers may find it difficult to adapt their instructional approaches to incorporate technology, especially if they are more accustomed to traditional teaching styles. This can lead to resistance or ineffective use of digital tools in the classroom. Content Knowledge (CK) relates to a teacher's expertise in the subject matter they are teaching. Even when teachers are highly knowledgeable in their content area, they may lack the skills to use technology in ways that enrich subject delivery and enhance student learning. This limits the impact and potential of digital resources. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) encompasses an understanding of how technology can improve various teaching strategies. Without sufficient guidance or training in selecting appropriate technologies to match instructional goals, teachers may experience difficulty implementing digital tools effectively, resulting in inefficient or disconnected integration.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to the ability to align technology with subject-specific content. Some educators may struggle to locate or create digital materials that support their subject matter, leading to underutilization of available technological tools. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) involves effectively delivering subject content using sound instructional strategies. Teachers may find it challenging to redesign lesson plans that successfully blend content expertise with pedagogical methods when incorporating technology, particularly if such planning requires additional time or skills they have not yet developed. At the core of the framework is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which represents the seamless integration of all three domains: technology, pedagogy, and content. Achieving this balance is essential for meaningful and effective technology integration in the classroom. However, the lack of ongoing professional development, limited institutional resources, and resistance to change are persistent barriers that hinder teachers from fully reaching this integration. As a result, instructional practices may remain outdated or technologically superficial, despite the presence of digital tools.

Diffusion of Innovation Model

Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory explains how new ideas, practices, and technologies are communicated and adopted within a society or organization. The theory divides individuals into five distinct adopter categories based on their openness to adopting innovations: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Each group plays a vital role in the overall adoption process, influencing the speed and success of an innovation's diffusion. Innovators are the first to embrace new ideas, followed by early adopters who influence others to follow suit. The early majority adopts innovations more cautiously, while the late majority is more skeptical and adopts later. Lastly, laggards are the most resistant to change, often holding on to traditional methods. The theory highlights the importance of understanding these different adopter groups to promote and facilitate the effective spread of innovations.

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework highlights the essential knowledge domains teachers must integrate to use technology in education effectively. At the foundation is Content Knowledge (CK), which refers to a deep understanding and mastery of the subject matter being taught. Teachers must possess expertise in their specific academic content to provide accurate and meaningful instruction. Alongside this is Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), which encompasses knowledge of effective teaching methods, instructional strategies, and learning theories. This enables teachers to design and implement lessons that engage students and support diverse learning needs. Complementing CK and PK is Technological Knowledge (TK), or a teacher’s proficiency in using digital tools, software, and resources to enhance learning. This includes familiarity with educational platforms, multimedia tools, and online resources that can support instruction. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), a more integrated domain, involves understanding how technology reshapes and influences teaching strategies. Teachers must not only know how to use tools but also how to align them with pedagogical approaches to improve student engagement and comprehension. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to the ability to connect technology with subject matter, using digital tools to enhance understanding of specific content.

For example, using simulations in science or interactive maps in geography demonstrates TCK in action. Meanwhile, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) involves the effective delivery of subject content through instructional strategies tailored to the subject area, ensuring students grasp complex ideas through the right pedagogical approach.  At the intersection of all these domains is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)—the core of the framework. TPACK represents the comprehensive and seamless integration of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, enabling educators to design instruction that is engaging, effective, and suited for 21st-century learners. It is this balanced intersection that empowers teachers to transform their classrooms through meaningful and thoughtful use of educational technology.

This theory is highly relevant to the present study as it emphasizes the interconnectedness of technology, pedagogy, and content in achieving effective teaching. The TPACK framework provides a valuable lens through which to analyze how teachers' knowledge and skills influence their ability to integrate technology into instruction, as well as what specific barriers may hinder this process. Technological Knowledge (TK) refers to a teacher’s ability to understand and effectively use technology tools in educational settings. Obstacles in this area include insufficient training, limited digital literacy, and inadequate access to necessary devices and internet connectivity. These issues prevent teachers from confidently and competently incorporating digital tools into their lessons. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) involves understanding and applying effective teaching methods and strategies. Some teachers may find it difficult to adapt their instructional approaches to incorporate technology, especially if they are more accustomed to traditional teaching styles. This can lead to resistance or ineffective use of digital tools in the classroom. Content Knowledge (CK) relates to a teacher's expertise in the subject matter they are teaching. Even when teachers are highly knowledgeable in their content area, they may lack the skills to use technology in ways that enrich subject delivery and enhance student learning. This limits the impact and potential of digital resources. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) encompasses an understanding of how technology can improve various teaching strategies. Without sufficient guidance or training in selecting appropriate technologies to match instructional goals, teachers may experience difficulty implementing digital tools effectively, resulting in inefficient or disconnected integration.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to the ability to align technology with subject-specific content. Some educators may struggle to locate or create digital materials that support their subject matter, leading to underutilization of available technological tools. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) involves effectively delivering subject content using sound instructional strategies. Teachers may find it challenging to redesign lesson plans that successfully blend content expertise with pedagogical methods when incorporating technology, particularly if such planning requires additional time or skills they have not yet developed. At the core of the framework is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which represents the seamless integration of all three domains: technology, pedagogy, and content. Achieving this balance is essential for meaningful and effective technology integration in the classroom. However, the lack of ongoing professional development, limited institutional resources, and resistance to change are persistent barriers that hinder teachers from fully reaching this integration. As a result, instructional practices may remain outdated or technologically superficial, despite the presence of digital tools.

Diffusion of Innovation Model

Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory explains how new ideas, practices, and technologies are communicated and adopted within a society or organization. The theory divides individuals into five distinct adopter categories based on their openness to adopting innovations: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Each group plays a vital role in the overall adoption process, influencing the speed and success of an innovation's diffusion. Innovators are the first to embrace new ideas, followed by early adopters who influence others to follow suit. The early majority adopts innovations more cautiously, while the late majority is more skeptical and adopts later. Lastly, laggards are the most resistant to change, often holding on to traditional methods. The theory highlights the importance of understanding these different adopter groups to promote and facilitate the effective spread of innovations.

Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory provides a comprehensive explanation of how new ideas, practices, or technologies are communicated and adopted within a social system. The theory identifies five key concepts that influence the diffusion process. First is Innovation, which refers to individuals who are willing to take risks and are the first to adopt new ideas. These innovators drive early experimentation and are essential for initiating change. Second, Communication Channels are the various means through which information about an innovation is disseminated, including word of mouth, media, training workshops, and social networks. These channels influence the rate and reach of adoption. Third, the concept of Time highlights how the duration it takes for an innovation to be adopted is shaped by factors such as awareness, perceived benefits, and overall social acceptance. Fourth, the Social System, which includes the cultural, organizational, and societal structures in which individuals operate, affects the adoption process through existing norms, values, and group dynamics. Another vital component of Rogers’ theory is the classification of individuals into Adopter Categories, which illustrate varying degrees of openness to innovation. Innovators are adventurous, risk-taking individuals who embrace uncertainty and lead in exploring new ideas. Early Adopters follow closely behind, showing high receptiveness to innovation and often influencing others by evaluating its practicality and long-term benefits. The Early Majority adopts innovations more cautiously, waiting to see evidence of success before committing to them. These individuals play a key role in bridging the gap between early adopters and the wider public. The Late Majority is more skeptical and typically adopts an innovation only after it has been widely accepted, often due to social pressure or necessity. Lastly, Laggards are the most resistant to change, preferring traditional methods and adopting innovations only when necessary or unavoidable. Understanding these categories helps identify where resistance may lie and informs strategies to facilitate adoption.

This theory is highly relevant to the present study, as it sheds light on how educational technologies are adopted or resisted by teachers and students within a school system. The model enables a structured analysis of why some educators readily adopt ICT tools, while others face significant challenges or delay adoption. Several key aspects influence this process. First, the Innovation Characteristics, such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability, greatly affect how new technologies are perceived. If these features are unclear or difficult to experience, teachers may struggle to see the benefits or compatibility with their current methods. Barriers such as insufficient training, technical issues, or resistance to change can prevent them from viewing technology as an advantage. Second, Communication Channels and Information Flow determine how effectively knowledge about the innovation is shared. Training sessions, peer collaboration, and support from school leadership play a major role in this. When communication is poor or professional development is lacking, teachers may not fully understand the benefits or functionality of the technology, which can hinder adoption. Third, the Time Factor and Adoption Stages come into play, as educators typically move through five phases: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. At any of these stages, adoption may stall due to factors such as skepticism, lack of exposure, or negative initial experiences with technology.

Fourth, the influence of the Social System and Institutional Environment is also critical. A school’s culture, leadership, and policy support determine how receptive and ready the environment is for technological innovation. If administrative support is weak, infrastructure is lacking, or peers are resistant, the social environment can act as a deterrent rather than a facilitator. Finally, Adopter Categories and Resistance to Change reinforce that the pace of innovation adoption varies greatly among individuals. If the majority of teachers in a school fall into the late majority or laggard categories, overall technology integration may progress slowly. This situation necessitates intentional interventions such as mentorship programs, sustained training, and a supportive environment that encourages experimentation and learning. In sum, Rogers’ theory provides a valuable lens through which the dynamics of technology adoption in education can be understood and improved.

Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) – Hall & Hord (1987)

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), developed by Gene E. Hall and Shirley M. Hord in 1987, explores how educators adopt new technologies based on their concerns and levels of engagement. This model identifies various stages of concern and levels of use, providing a framework to understand the psychological and behavioral responses that educators experience during the process of technology integration. By recognizing these stages, the model helps to analyze the evolving concerns of teachers as they move from initial awareness to full integration, offering valuable insights into the challenges and support needed at each phase to facilitate successful adoption and use of technology in the classroom.

The key concepts of technology adoption in education provide a structured understanding of how educators engage with new technologies throughout the implementation process. One essential concept is the Stages of Concern (SoC), which outlines the emotional and cognitive responses teachers experience when faced with a new technology. This framework describes a progression from initial stages of awareness and skepticism to full integration and confidence. Understanding these stages helps administrators and trainers identify and address specific concerns that teachers may have at different points in the adoption journey. Another important concept is the Levels of Use (LoU), which categorizes how extensively and effectively individuals are applying the technology in practice. This system ranges from non-use or minimal engagement, through mechanical or routine usage, to advanced levels where teachers refine and seamlessly integrate technology into their instructional routines. The LoU model is useful for evaluating current usage levels and designing interventions to support educators in deepening their use of technology. Lastly, Innovation Configurations (IC) provide insight into the different ways a new technology can be implemented in diverse educational settings. This concept acknowledges that adoption does not look the same for every teacher or school; instead, it varies depending on contextual factors, specific instructional goals, and the unique needs of learners. By analyzing these configurations, education leaders can develop flexible, supportive strategies that recognize multiple pathways to successful technology integration.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is highly relevant to this study as it offers a structured framework for understanding how individuals adopt and implement innovations, specifically, how teachers integrate technology in education. CBAM helps analyze the evolving concerns, behaviors, and usage patterns of teachers throughout the process of technology adoption. The model identifies three core dimensions: stages of concern, levels of use, and innovation configurations. These dimensions provide insight into both the emotional responses and practical actions of educators as they engage with new technologies in the classroom.

The Stages of Concern (SoC) component of CBAM outlines seven developmental stages that describe how teachers typically feel about technology integration. In Stage 0 (Awareness), teachers are either unaware of or uninterested in using technology. Barriers at this stage often include a lack of exposure, minimal training opportunities, or school policies that fail to promote the use of digital tools. Stage 1 (Informational) is marked by curiosity, as teachers begin to seek more information about the innovation. However, limited access to professional development, unclear benefits, and inadequate administrative support can hinder progress.

In Stage 2 (Personal), teachers start to consider how technology might affect them personally, including concerns about increased workload, threats to job security, or doubts about their technical competence. These fears may reduce their willingness to adopt new tools. At Stage 3 (Management), the focus shifts to the logistical aspects of using technology, such as organizing lesson plans and addressing technical issues. Barriers here include time constraints, lack of IT support, and the complexity of managing technology in real-time classroom settings. Stage 4 (Consequence) involves a more reflective phase, where teachers assess how the use of technology influences student learning outcomes. Challenges at this stage include uncertainty about the effectiveness of technology and difficulties in evaluating student engagement. By Stage 5 (Collaboration), teachers begin working with peers to improve their use of technology. Still, their efforts may be hampered by a lack of peer support, insufficient mentoring programs, or a school culture that does not encourage collaboration. Finally, in Stage 6 (Refocusing), educators seek new ways to enhance or expand their use of technology. However, further innovation can be blocked by resistance to additional changes, lack of advanced training, or institutional barriers that limit experimentation. Together, these stages provide a comprehensive view of the concerns teachers may face and the specific interventions needed at each phase to support successful technology adoption.

The Levels of Use (LoU) component of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) describes how teachers engage with technology at various stages of implementation, ranging from complete non-use to continuous innovation. These levels provide insight into the actual behaviors and practices of educators as they progress in adopting technology in their classrooms. At LoU 0 (Non-Use), teachers are not using technology at all, either due to a lack of awareness or deliberate resistance to change. They may not see the relevance or benefits of technology in their instructional practice. Moving up to LoU 1 (Orientation), teachers begin to explore technological possibilities and gather information and resources, but they still do not implement them in their teaching. At this stage, curiosity exists, but action has yet to follow. In LoU 2 (Preparation), teachers are making plans to use technology, perhaps experimenting or developing lesson plans, but they face challenges that hinder smooth execution. These might include inadequate training, uncertainty about tools, or logistical constraints. Teachers at LoU 3 (Mechanical Use) start incorporating technology, but in a basic and often inefficient manner. Their use may lack strategic integration with pedagogy or content, resulting in a mechanical, tool-based approach with limited impact on learning outcomes. As teachers become more familiar with technology, they reach LoU 4A (Routine Use), where they use digital tools consistently in their teaching, though without significant variation or innovation. This stage reflects a level of comfort but may also signal stagnation if teachers do not adapt or evolve their practices. LoU 4B (Refinement) marks a more dynamic phase where teachers begin refining their use of technology, tailoring it to meet student needs better and improving instructional effectiveness. At LoU 5 (Integration), technology becomes fully embedded in the teacher’s instructional strategies. It is no longer seen as an add-on but as a vital component of the teaching-learning process, aligned with both content and pedagogy. Finally, LoU 6 (Renewal) represents the most advanced stage, in which teachers actively seek innovative ways to expand their use of technology, experimenting with new tools, methods, and strategies to enhance student engagement and learning continuously. These levels help education leaders assess where teachers are in their technology adoption journey and identify the specific support needed to advance to higher stages of effective use.

Many teachers may remain at low levels of use (non-use, orientation, preparation) due to a lack of training, technical support, and institutional encouragement. Innovation Configurations (IC) and Barriers. CBAM recognizes that teachers implement technology differently based on personal, institutional, and contextual factors. Some may use technology only for administrative tasks, while others may fully integrate it into lessons. Schools may lack clear implementation models, leading to inconsistent technology use across classrooms. Without proper guidelines, teachers may underutilize available tools.

Related Studies

This section presents relevant studies that explore the barriers to technology integration in classroom instruction. The studies are categorized under four key themes: (1) Technological Infrastructure, (2) Teacher Competency and Training, (3) Institutional and Policy Support, and (4) Resource Constraints. These themes reflect the critical factors influencing technology adoption in education, particularly in Philippine public secondary schools.

Technological Infrastructure

Technological infrastructure remains a major challenge in the integration of ICT in public schools. In the Philippines, Navarro (2024) identified persistent gaps in internet connectivity, access to digital devices, and electricity supply in many public basic education schools. Similarly, Celeste and Nimfa (2024) emphasized that teachers are often constrained by the lack of essential hardware, software, and network support, which prevents effective classroom use of technology. Turbanada et al. (2025) echoed these findings in their study of Northern Samar public schools, where insufficient infrastructure, such as poor internet service and limited digital tools, was a significant hindrance. Internationally, Gil-Flores et al. (2024) used cross-national data to reveal that weak infrastructure and limited technical support directly correlate with reduced technology adoption in teaching. Gangmei and Thomas (2025) also found that developing countries face similar challenges, particularly in rural areas with unreliable internet and outdated ICT facilities. A related study from Vitasari and David (2024) supported these claims, highlighting that even pre-service teachers face difficulty integrating technology due to poor access to hardware and connectivity.

Teacher Competency and Training

Teacher preparedness is a crucial factor in successful ICT integration. In the Philippine context, Lambunao (2024) found that while teachers possessed intermediate digital skills, they lacked the training to implement these skills effectively in the classroom. Cabansag (2025) further revealed that most elementary teachers in Apayao were confident using basic digital tools but lacked advanced pedagogical knowledge for ICT integration. Turbanada et al. (2025) also emphasized the limited access to ongoing professional development, which restricted teachers from fully utilizing available technology. Globally, similar trends have been observed. Gangmei and Thomas (2025) conducted a scoping review showing that professional development for teachers remains insufficient in many regions, leading to gaps in digital pedagogy. Gil-Flores et al. (2024) found a strong relationship between ICT training and teachers’ willingness to integrate technology into instruction. Meanwhile, a study from Vitasari, P., & David, M. (2024) pointed out that even when technology is available, many educators struggle due to a lack of training in digital tools and methods.

Institutional and Policy Support

Institutional support and policy direction significantly affect how technology is integrated in schools. In the Philippines, Navarro (2024) noted that while national ICT programs exist, their weak implementation and unclear accountability mechanisms have limited their impact on school-level practices. Celeste and Nimfa (2024) also highlighted that the absence of strong institutional backing, such as school-based ICT plans and administrative leadership, restricts teachers’ efforts to incorporate digital tools. Turbanada et al. (2025) added that many schools lack the organizational infrastructure to sustain technology use, including clear guidelines and technical personnel. On the global stage, Gil-Flores et al. (2024) underscored the importance of institutional culture and leadership support in influencing ICT adoption in schools. Gangmei and Thomas (2025) also emphasized that unclear or inconsistent policies at the school or national level contribute to weak technology integration. Findings from Vitasari and David (2024) confirmed that without coherent policy frameworks, even well-resourced schools may struggle to implement ICT-based instruction effectively.

Institutional and Policy Support

Institutional support and policy direction significantly affect how technology is integrated in schools. In the Philippines, Navarro (2024) noted that while national ICT programs exist, their weak implementation and unclear accountability mechanisms have limited their impact on school-level practices. Celeste and Nimfa (2024) also highlighted that the absence of strong institutional backing, such as school-based ICT plans and administrative leadership, restricts teachers’ efforts to incorporate digital tools. Turbanada et al. (2025) added that many schools lack the organizational infrastructure to sustain technology use, including clear guidelines and technical personnel. On the global stage, Gil-Flores et al. (2024) underscored the importance of institutional culture and leadership support in influencing ICT adoption in schools. Gangmei and Thomas (2025) also emphasized that unclear or inconsistent policies at the school or national level contribute to weak technology integration. Findings from Vitasari and David (2024)  confirmed that without coherent policy frameworks, even well-resourced schools may struggle to implement ICT-based instruction effectively.

Resource Constraints 

A recurring challenge in both local and global contexts is the issue of limited resources. In the Philippines, Turbanada et al. (2025) pointed out that many public schools suffer from a lack of digital devices, instructional software, and budget allocations for maintenance. Navarro (2024) further elaborated that chronic underfunding affects not only hardware acquisition but also teacher training and internet access. Celeste and Nimfa (2024) reported that resource scarcity hampers both the delivery and sustainability of technology-enhanced instruction. Internationally, Gangmei and Thomas (2025) documented similar concerns, noting that many developing countries face budget constraints that hinder the procurement and upkeep of ICT resources. Gil-Flores et al. (2024) also found that schools with fewer ICT resources reported significantly lower levels of classroom technology use. Additionally, Vitasari and David (2024)  revealed that unequal distribution of technological resources continues to widen the digital divide, especially in underserved communities.

Methodology

This study employed a descriptive quantitative research design to identify and analyze the barriers to effective integration of technology in classroom instruction. According to McCombes (2023), descriptive quantitative research involves systematically collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe characteristics, trends, or relationships within a population or phenomenon. This method focuses on answering "what" rather than "why" or "how," providing a snapshot of the current state without exploring causality. Common data collection methods include surveys, observations, and existing statistical records. 

The study employed convenience sampling, focusing solely on public secondary schools within the province of Bulacan. Out of the total 36 public high schools in the area, teachers were randomly approached outside of their official class hours to minimize disruption to instruction and ensure voluntary participation. No formal approval process was required, as participation was based entirely on the willingness and availability of teachers to respond to the survey. This method is chosen due to time constraints and accessibility challenges while ensuring that the sample includes teachers who encounter the challenges of technology integration in classroom instruction. According to Nikolopoulou (2022), Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where participants are selected based on their availability and willingness to participate. This approach is often used due to its ease, speed, and cost-effectiveness; however, it may introduce bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. The proponent utilized Slovin’s formula to determine the appropriate sample size. Using Slovin’s formula with a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 5%, the required sample size was calculated as follows:

The estimated population of public secondary school teachers in Bulacan is approximately 7,000. Using Slovin’s formula with a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level, the required minimum sample size was calculated as 378. A total of 378 teachers completed the survey, meeting the target sample size. However, the actual number of teachers approached for participation was not formally recorded, so the response rate could not be determined. Future studies should track this figure for better sampling transparency.

Teachers were approached in person after biometric time-out, typically outside school gates or waiting areas, to ensure responses were given voluntarily and outside official work hours. Only licensed public secondary school teachers currently engaged in classroom instruction in Bulacan were included in the study. Participants who were administrative staff or not directly involved in classroom teaching were excluded. The researcher personally explained the purpose of the research and provided a Google Form link to each willing participant. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was implied through completion of the survey. No personally identifiable information was collected.  Data were collected through a structured online survey questionnaire designed to capture teacher perceptions on four key areas: (1) technological infrastructure, (2) teacher competency and training, (3) institutional and policy support, and (4) resource constraints. The instrument utilized a five-point Likert scale and underwent content validation by two education research experts to ensure relevance and clarity. Although the questionnaire was not pilot-tested formally, revisions were made following expert feedback. The survey was available online for four weeks during the third quarter of the 2024–2025 academic year.

Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, and weighted mean were used to summarize demographic data and analyze perceptions across the four key themes. Given the non-probability nature of the sample, no inferential statistics were applied. Data were processed using spreadsheet software, and weighted mean scores were interpreted using a Likert scale. The study utilized a five-point Likert scale to analyze the survey responses. A scale point of 5, corresponding to a range of 4.21 to 5.00, was interpreted as Strongly Agree, indicating a very high level of agreement with the statement. A scale point of 4, ranging from 3.41 to 4.20, signified Agree, reflecting general agreement. A score of 3, within the range of 2.61 to 3.40, was classified as Neutral, suggesting neither agreement nor disagreement. A scale point of 2, falling between 1.81 and 2.60, indicated Disagree, showing a low level of agreement. Finally, a score of 1, within the range of 1.00 to 1.80, was interpreted as Strongly Disagree, reflecting strong opposition to the statement. This scale allowed for a standardized interpretation of participants' perceptions and experiences related to technology integration in classroom instruction.

Results and Discussion

This section presents and interprets the findings from the 378 public secondary school teachers who responded to the survey, structured under four major categories: technological infrastructure, teacher competency and training, institutional and policy support, and resource constraints. Descriptive statistical tools such as frequency, percentage, and weighted mean were used to summarize survey responses. Weighted mean scores were computed for each item using the 5-point Likert scale to identify the central tendency of reactions and to interpret general sentiment. These results were then analyzed for emerging patterns and their implications on ICT integration. Inferential or comparative statistical analyses were not employed, as the study was designed to be purely descriptive in nature. Given the use of non-probability (convenience) sampling and the exploratory aim of identifying perceived barriers, the analysis focused on frequency, percentage, and weighted mean scores rather than on testing relationships or statistical significance. 

The analysis of Table 1 reveals that the majority of respondents were aged 35 to 44 years (44.18%), held a bachelor’s degree (38.89%), and had 4 to 6 years of teaching experience (48.94%). This demographic composition suggests a workforce in its mid-career phase, potentially open to technological innovation but also requiring targeted support to overcome ingrained traditional methods. 

This is relevant since younger teachers are often more confident and digitally fluent, as shown in similar findings by Jha and Naaz (2021), who reported that early-career teachers possess greater digital readiness due to recent training and personal use of technology.

The results show that teachers generally disagreed with statements regarding the adequacy of digital tools, reliable internet, and the availability of technical support in their schools. The lowest mean (1.86) was for internet reliability, highlighting it as a key challenge. However, for the item on school facilities supporting ICT-based teaching (Q4), the teachers agreed (mean = 4.13), indicating that while facilities may exist, they are not matched by resources or support infrastructure.

These findings are consistent with the study of Navarro (2024), who emphasized that many Philippine public schools lack access to essential ICT infrastructure, particularly in terms of internet connectivity and updated digital devices. Similarly, Turbanada et al. (2025) found that inadequate infrastructure remains a dominant barrier in rural public schools, reinforcing the urgency for targeted investments in technology.

The results for this section suggest that teachers generally feel competent and well-trained in using educational technology. They strongly agreed that they had received sufficient training (Q6) and actively used technology in teaching (Q7). Confidence in using technology (Q5) also received an Agree rating. However, they expressed a neutral stance on receiving ongoing technical assistance (Q8), indicating that while initial training is strong, continuous support is lacking.

This aligns with Lambunao (2024), who reported that while public school teachers possess intermediate digital skills, they are seldom provided with opportunities for continuous development. Likewise, Gangmei and Thomas (2025) identified professional development as a major global gap, particularly in sustaining teachers’ digital competencies through follow-up training and support.

Teachers strongly agreed that administrators support ICT-based education (Q10) and agreed that clear policies exist for technology integration (Q9). However, they strongly disagreed that schools allocate a sufficient budget for digital learning tools (Q11), pointing to a significant financial barrier. The neutral response to the presence of a strategic ICT plan (Q12) indicates inconsistency or lack of awareness regarding long-term planning for technology use.

These results support Celeste and Nimfa (2024), who found that many schools lack well-defined ICT integration plans and suffer from inconsistent policy enforcement. Navarro (2024) further noted that national ICT policies often fail to trickle down effectively to school-level operations, limiting meaningful implementation.

Teachers expressed neutral views on resource-related issues such as shortage of funds (Q13) and insufficient technical staff (Q14), suggesting divided opinions. However, they agreed that the cost of maintaining digital tools and internet access is a challenge (Q15), pointing to ongoing financial constraints that could hinder effective ICT integration.

These findings echo the observations of Gil-Flores et al. (2024), who found that limited ICT resources and high maintenance costs directly correlate with reduced technology use in classrooms. Additionally, Vitasari and David (2024) reported that resource inequities contribute to the widening of the digital divide, particularly in underserved public schools.

Table 6 presents a comparison of mean scores across different age groups for three ICT-related indicators: confidence in using technology (Q5), sufficiency of training received (Q6), and availability of ongoing technical assistance (Q8). Younger teachers, particularly those aged 25 to 34, reported the highest level of confidence in using technology (M = 4.20), with confidence levels gradually decreasing across older age groups. Teachers aged 55 and above recorded the lowest confidence score (M = 3.85), suggesting that younger educators may be more familiar with digital tools due to greater exposure during their formal education or early career. In terms of training, perceptions of having received sufficient ICT training remained consistently high across all age groups, with a slight decline from 4.45 among the 25–34 group to 4.30 for those aged 55 and above. This indicates that while training programs are generally well-received, younger teachers may feel slightly more supported. However, scores related to ongoing technical assistance were relatively lower for all groups and showed a steady decline with age, from 2.90 in the youngest group to 2.45 among the oldest. This trend implies that older teachers may perceive a greater lack of continuous support for ICT use, which could potentially hinder their sustained engagement with educational technologies in the classroom.

This trend is supported by Jha and Naaz (2021), who found that younger teachers tend to have higher digital readiness due to recent exposure to technology in their teacher training programs and daily life.

Conclusion and Recommendation

This study examined the barriers to effective integration of technology in classroom instruction in public secondary schools in Bulacan, focusing on four key dimensions: technological infrastructure, teacher competency and training, institutional and policy support, and resource constraints. The findings reveal a multifaceted challenge that limits the full potential of ICT in education. In terms of technological infrastructure, the majority of respondents indicated a lack of adequate digital tools, unreliable internet connectivity, and insufficient technical support. Although a notable percentage acknowledged that their school facilities support ICT-based teaching, the overall results suggest that the infrastructure necessary for technology-enhanced learning remains inadequate in many schools.

Under teacher competency and training, the findings were relatively positive. Most respondents expressed confidence in using educational technology and reported receiving sufficient training and actively incorporating technology into their lessons. However, the availability of continuous technical assistance remains a concern, indicating a need for sustained support to maintain and improve technology integration efforts.

Regarding institutional and policy support, the results showed that while many educators are aware of policies and feel supported by administrators, there is a significant gap in terms of budget allocation and strategic planning. Most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their schools allocate sufficient funds for digital learning tools or have a clear roadmap for improving ICT use in instruction.

Lastly, the study identified resource constraints as one of the most critical barriers. A significant number of respondents cited a shortage of funds, insufficient technical staff, and high costs of maintaining digital tools and internet access as ongoing challenges. These issues, if left unaddressed, may further widen the digital divide and hinder efforts to modernize classroom instruction.

In conclusion, while there is evident teacher readiness and administrative intent to support ICT integration, these are greatly undermined by infrastructural deficiencies, insufficient funding, and the lack of comprehensive, long-term strategies. Addressing these barriers holistically is crucial for the successful and sustainable integration of technology in education.  However, it is important to acknowledge that the use of convenience sampling limits the generalizability of the findings. Since participants were selected based on availability rather than random sampling, the results may not fully represent all public secondary school teachers in Bulacan. Future studies should consider more representative sampling methods to enhance the validity and applicability of the results.

Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations are proposed to address the identified barriers and enhance the integration of technology in classroom instruction. First, there is a need to improve the technological infrastructure. In collaboration with school administrations, government agencies should invest in upgrading digital tools and ensuring reliable internet connectivity in all public secondary schools. This includes providing adequate computers, projectors, and other instructional devices in every classroom.

Second, schools should establish robust technical support systems by assigning dedicated ICT personnel who can offer timely troubleshooting and maintenance services. This will reduce technology-related downtime and build teachers' confidence in digital tools. Additionally, teacher training and capacity building must be sustained through regular in-service training programs addressing the latest educational technologies and innovative teaching strategies. These trainings should be continuous and adaptable to the evolving needs of digital education.

Moreover, educational institutions should strengthen policy implementation by developing and communicating long-term ICT integration strategies. These plans must outline clear implementation timelines, accountability mechanisms, and regular evaluation procedures to track progress and impact. Increased budget allocation for ICT development is also crucial. The Department of Education and local school boards should prioritize funding for infrastructure, staffing, and maintenance, supported by transparent budgeting and resource monitoring systems to ensure that funds are used effectively.

Public-private partnerships should also be explored, as collaborations with technology companies and non-government organizations can provide additional support through training, donations, and infrastructure development. Lastly, further research is recommended to examine the long-term effects of ICT integration on student performance and teaching practices. Continuous monitoring and evaluation at the school level will help refine strategies, share best practices, and respond proactively to new challenges.

References

Del Mundo, H. (2025). 21st century digital skills, technology integration in instruction, and challenges encountered by senior high school teachers in Muntinlupa National High School. www.academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/86098378/21st_Century_Digital_Skills_Technology_Integration_in_Instruction_and_Challenges_Encountered_by_Senior_High_School_Teachers_in_Muntinlupa_National_High_School

Jordan, R. P. (2021). Barriers to the successful integration of information and Communication technology (ICT) in teaching as perceived by PreService Teachers of Biliran Province State University-Naval, Biliran Philippines. www.academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/63301741/Barriers_to_the_Successful_Integration_of_Information_and_Communication_Technology_ICT_in_Teaching_as_Perceived_by_PreService_Teachers_of_Biliran_Province_State_University_Naval_Biliran_Philippines

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241616687_Technological_Pedagogical_Content_Knowledge_TPACK_A_Framework_for_Teacher_Knowledge

Halton, C. (2023, December 14). Diffusion of Innovations Theory: Definition and Examples. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/diffusion-of-innovations-theory.asp

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. SEDL. https://sedl.org/cbam/

Cabansag, M. O. (2025). Teachers’ competency of ICT integration in teaching elementary teachers in Flora District. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 51(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2025/v51i21785

Celeste, R. J., & Nimfa, O. (2024). Challenges and implementation of technology integration: Basis for enhanced instructional program. American Journal of Arts and Human Science, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.54536/ajahs.v3i2.2656

Gangmei, N., & Thomas, K. A. (2025). Teachers’ technology proficiency for quality learning and teaching—a scoping review. Journal of Educational Services, XX(X). https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879251316213

Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Ortiz-de-Villate, C. (2024). Teaching practices and organisational aspects associated with the use of ICT. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 12, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-024-00215-w

Lambunao, G. B. (2024). Enhancing ICT competency among public elementary teachers: A case study in Manolo Fortich II District, Bukidnon. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803423S

Navarro, A. M. (2024). School infrastructure in the Philippines: Where are we now and where should we be heading? PIDS Research Paper Series, 2024–06. https://doi.org/10.62986/rps2024.06

McCombes, S. (2023). Descriptive Research | Definition, Types, Methods & Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research

Nikolopoulou, K. (2022, August 9). What is convenience sampling? Definition & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/convenience-sampling/

Jha, P. K., & Naaz, I. (2021). ICT for pre-service and in-service teachers: Implications and challenges. In Teacher education generation next: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges (pp. 160–168). Universal Academic Books Publishers & Distributors. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353513080

Turbanada, M. Y., Alvarez, M. D., Chan, C. J., Adriatico, J. D., & Morales, R. A. (2025, June 28). Technology integration among public secondary school teachers in the Division of Northern Samar, Philippines. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 19(6), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2025/v19i61072

Vitasari, P., & David, M. (2024). Toward a new model for the successful implementation of information and communication technologies in education. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1470799. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1470799