Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 47 no. 7 (2025)

Level of Use of Technology Learning Tools and Learning Outcomes among Junior and Senior High School Learners

Phoebe Jane Fulgencio | Anjero Marcia

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study aimed to determine the relationship between the perceived level of technology learning tools and learning outcomes among junior and senior high school learners at Mt. Nebo Integrated School, Valencia City, Bukidnon for the School Year 2024–2025. Guided by the theory of Connectivism, the research explored the learners' perceptions of technological tools in terms of accessibility, engagement, and usefulness, and how these perceptions correlated with their academic performance. A quantitative, descriptive-correlational research design was employed, utilizing a total of 166 students from Grades 7 to 12. Data were gathered using a validated researcher-made questionnaire and learners' academic records. The instrument measured learners' perceptions using a 5-point Likert scale and assessed their academic outcomes based on grade-based descriptors. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to analyze the data, while Pearson's r was applied to determine correlations between the variables. Findings revealed that learners had a very high perception of engagement and usefulness, as well as a high perception of accessibility in using technology learning tools. Their academic performance, however, was classified as "moderately high." Among the variables tested, only accessibility showed a significant positive correlation with learning outcomes, while engagement and usefulness did not display statistically significant relationships. The study concludes that while learners perceive technology tools as beneficial and engaging, their impact on academic outcomes is most influenced by the accessibility of these tools. This suggests that educational institutions should prioritize equitable access to digital learning resources to enhance student achievement. It also recommends targeted strategies for improving teacher training and infrastructure to optimize the use of educational technology.



References:

  1. Abdulrahaman, M. D., Faruk, N., Oloyede, A. A., Surajudeen-Bakinde, N. T., Olawoyin, L. A., Mejabi, O. V., ... & Azeez, A. L. (2020). Multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes: A systematic review. Heliyon, 6(11).
  2. Abidoye, F., Adebisi, A. M., Rihanat, A. A., & Aliyu, M. Z. (2022). AVAILABILITY OF LABORATORY FACILITIES ON STUDENTS'PERFORMANCE IN UPPER BASIC SCHOOLS IN KWARA STATE, NIGERIA. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 7(4), 262-267.
  3. Adams, A., & Wilson, C. (2024). Gen Z students are filling our online classrooms. ERIC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1407503.pdf.
  4. Akintayo, O. T., Eden, C. A., Ayeni, O. O., & Onyebuchi, N. C. (2024). Evaluating the impact of educational technology on learning outcomes in the higher education sector: A systematic review. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(5), 1395-1422.
  5. Almarzooq, Z. et al. (2020). A student-centered approach using modern technologies in distance education. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 1-15. https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-023-00280-8
  6. Almarzooq, Z. I., Lopes, M., & Kochar, A. (2020). Virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a disruptive technology in graduate medical education. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 75(20), 2635-2638.
  7. Ananda, S. (2019). Learning outcomes are central to the evaluation of effective teaching and learning processes.
  8. Ariza-Colpas, P., Ariza-Colpas, P., Piñeres-Melo, M., Morales-Ortega, R., Rodriguez-Bonilla, A. F., Butt-Aziz, S., Naz, S., & Romero-Mestre, M. (2023). Augmented Reality and Tourism: A Bibliometric Analysis of New Technological Bets in the Post-COVID Era. Sustainability, 15(21), 15358.
  9. Asif, Muhammad, Sheeraz, Muhammad, & Sacco, Steven J. (2022). Evaluating the impact of technological tools on the academic performance of English language learners at tertiary level: A pilot investigation. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(1), 272-282. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.01.2812  
  10. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the 'digital natives' debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students' technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x
  11. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2020). The "digital natives" debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 375-390.
  12. Bozkurt, S. (2024). Use of instructional videos to teach mechanical systems analysis based on the finite element method in a class with local and overseas students. https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.12880
  13. Brew, E. A., Nketiah, B., & Koranteng, R. (2021). A literature review of academic performance, an insight into factors and their influences on academic outcomes of students at senior high schools. Open Access Library Journal, 8(6), 1-14.
  14. Brown, A. (2019). Impact of digital devices on learning outcomes of primary school children.
  15. Budianti, Y., Rikmasari, R., & Oktaviani, D. (2023). Penggunaan Media Powerpoint Interaktif Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Sekolah Dasar. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Sekolah Dasar. https://doi.org/10.24036/jippsd.v7i1.120545
  16. Byrd, A., & León, R. (2017). Assistive Technologies: Learning resources to promote the inclusion and communication of students with disabilities. Nuevos Escenarios de la Comunicación, 2(1), 167-178.
  17. Byrd, A., & León, R. (2017). Assistive Technologies: Learning resources to promote the inclusion and communication of students with disabilities. Nuevos Escenarios de la Comunicación, 2(1), 167-178.
  18. Cahyani, A., Kumalasani, M., & Wasitah, R. (2023). Penerapan model problem based learning berbasis powerpoint untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar siswa pada materi kegiatan ekonomi masyarakat kelas 5 sdn sawojajar 1 kota malang. pendas : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar. https://doi.org/10.23969/jp.v8i1.8315
  19. Ceylan, S. (2020, May). Using Virtual Reality to Improve Visual Recognition Skills of First Year Architecture Students: A Comparative Study. In CSEDU (2) (pp. 54-63).
  20. Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. (2023). The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such  as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers?. Smart learning environments, 10(1), 60.
  21. Chen, S., & Huang, Y. (2021). The impact of distance education on nursing students' course engagement and academic performance. BMC Nursing, 21(1), 1-10. https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-022-01136-1
  22. Chipangura, A., & Aldridge, J. (2017). Impact of multimedia on students' perceptions of the learning environment in mathematics classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 20, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10984-016-9224-7
  23. Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2014). The effects of multimedia learning on student engagement and achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 361–380.
  24. Cohen, J., & Morrison, L. (2021). Generation Z and the Future of Education: A Review of Current Research. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101-115.
  25. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Dissolving the Dichotomies Between Online and Campus-Based Teaching. Springer. Retrieved from Springer.
  26. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
  27. Criollo-C, S., González-Rodríguez, M., Guerrero-Arias, A., Urquiza-Aguiar, L.F., & LujánMora, S. (2023). A review of emerging technologies and their acceptance in higher education. Education Sciences, 14(1), p.10. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010010
  28. D'Angelo, C. (2018). The impact of technology: Student engagement and success. Technology and the Curriculum: Summer 2018.
  29. Darwish, M., Kamel, S., & Assem, A. M. (2023). A theoretical model of using extended reality in architecture design education. Engineering Research Journal (Shoubra), 52(1), 36-45.
  30. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  31. De Vera, R. (2022). The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Technology Access in Philippine Education: A Study on Rural vs Urban Students. Philippine Journal of Education, 101(3), 45-60.
  32. Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education, 78, 312-320.
  33. Demitriadou, E., Stavroulia, K. E., & Lanitis, A. (2020). Comparative evaluation of virtual and augmented reality for teaching mathematics in primary education. Education and information technologies, 25(1), 381-401.
  34. Deshpande, A. (2019). Validation of a questionnaire to measure success in financial computing literacy. https://doi.org/10.21100/msor.v17i3.785
  35. Dianati, S., Nguyen, M., Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2020). Student perceptions of technological tools for flipped instruction: The case of Padlet, Kahoot! and Cirrus. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(5), 1-16.
  36. Dodier, T. M. (2019). Effects of tart cherry juice supplementation on biochemical markers of bone metabolism in women aged 65-80 years. https://core.ac.uk/download/588590784.pdf
  37. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public interest, 14(1), 4-58.
  38. Euler, D., & Wilbers, K. (2019). Student Engagement with Technology-Enhanced Resources in Higher Education. MDPI. Retrieved from MDPI.
  39. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
  40. Girgin, P., & Cabaroğlu, N. (2021). Web 2.0 supported flipped learning model: EFL students' perceptions and motivation. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50(2), 858-876.
  41. Goldie, P. (2016). Connectivism: A learning theory for the 21st century? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064-1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1173663
  42. Granitz, N., Kohli, C., & Lancellotti, M. P. (2021). Textbooks for the YouTube generation? A case study on the shift from text to video. Journal of Education for Business, 96(5), 299-307.
  43. Harris, A., & Rea, A. (2020). The Role of Mobile Technology in Education: A Review of Current Trends and Future Directions for Generation Z Learners. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 543-563.
  44. Howard-Bostic, C. D. (2015). Aggression and Violence in Teen Girls. Black Girls and Adolescents: Facing the Challenges: Facing the Challenges, 349. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928717/full
  45. Huang, Y.-M., & Liaw, S.-S. (2018). Exploring users' attitudes toward the integration of mobile devices in education: A study based on UTAUT2 model. Computers & Education, 119, 94-104.
  46. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in higher education, 38(5), 758-773.
  47. Khasanah, M., & Zahroh, U. (2023). The influence of animated macros-based PowerPoint learning media on the learning outcomes. AMCA Journal of Education and Behavioral Change. https://doi.org/10.51773/ajeb.v3i2.302
  48. Kováčová, K. (2022). Kódování feromonového signálu olfaktorními neurony motýla Agrotis ipsilon. https://core.ac.uk/download/534445914.pdf
  49. Kumar, V., & Kumar, S. (2021). Understanding Generation Z's Learning Preferences: Implications for Educators and Institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(4), 623-635.
  50. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Teacher beliefs and practices in technology integration: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 18-27.
  51. López, J., & Mendoza, C. (2023). Bridging the Digital Divide: Challenges and Opportunities for Educational Technology in Rural Philippines. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 51(2), 134-150.
  52. Lotfi, Y. A. (2023). Virtual Reality as A Tool to Enhance Students' Perceptions of Architectural Historical Spaces. MSA Engineering Journal, 2(2), 596-607.
  53. Lynch, P., Singal, N., & Francis, G. A. (2024). Educational technology for learners with disabilities in primary school settings in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review. Educational Review, 76(2), 405-431.
  54. Mastrolembo Ventura, S., Castronovo, F., Nikolić, D., & Ciribini, A. (2022). Implementation of virtual reality in construction education: a content-analysis based literature review. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 27, 705-731.
  55. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  56. Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning . Cambridge University.
  57. Milovanovic, M., Obradovic, J., & Milajic, A. (2013). Application of interactive multimedia tools in teaching mathematics--examples of lessons from geometry. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(1), 19-31.
  58. Monserate, C. A. (2018). Impact of technology on the academic performance of students and teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Innovations, 6(1), 47-87.
  59. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326.
  60. Murray, D. W., & Rabiner, D. L. (2014). Teacher Use of Computer-Assisted Instruction for Young Inattentive Students: Implications for Implementation and Teacher Preparation. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2(2), 58-66.
  61. Nkomo, L. M., Daniel, B. K., & Butson, R. J. (2021). Synthesis of student engagement with digital technologies: a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 1-26.
  62. Nzaramyimana, E., Mukandayambaje, E., Iyamuremye, L., Hakizumuremyi, V., & Ukobizaba, F. (2021). Effectiveness of GeoGebra towards students' active learning, performance and interest to learn mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics and Computer Research, 9(10), 2423-2430.
  63. O'neill, D. K., & Sai, T. H. (2014). Why not? Examining college students' reasons for avoiding an online course. Higher Education, 68, 1-14.
  64. Oluyinka, S., Endozo, A. N., & Daenos, R. G. (2019, October). Impediments to acceptance of online learning in two developing international locations. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 127-131).
  65. Pandita, A., & Kiran, R. (2023). The technology interface and student engagement are significant stimuli in sustainable student satisfaction. Sustainability, 15(10), 7923.
  66. Park, S., & Weng, W. (2020). The relationship between ICT-related factors and student academic achievement and the moderating effect of country economic index across 39 countries. Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 1-15.pp. 187-202.
  67. Petko, D., Cantieni, A., & Prasse, D. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students' ICT use, ICT-related attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1070-1091.
  68. Plch, L. (2020). Perception of technology-enhanced learning by medical students: an integrative review. Medical science educator, 30(4), 1707-1720.
  69. Reyes, J. D. C. (2023). Teachers' ability, attitude, and acceptance towards distance learning. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 3(2), ep2307.
  70. Reyes, M., & Santos, R. (2023). Digital literacy and student engagement in Philippine higher education: A study of technology integration in learning environments. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 928717.
  71. Santos, R., & Cruz, P. (2022). The Role of Social Media in Enhancing Student Engagement: A Case Study from the Philippines during Remote Learning Periods. Philippine Journal of Communication, 10(1), 75-89.
  72. Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., & Buehler, M. (2017). The impact of technology on student engagement and academic success: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 113, 1-14.
  73. Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace?. California Management Review, 61(3), 5-18.
  74. Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. John Wiley & Sons.
  75. Setiawan, A., Nugroho, W., & Widyaningtyas, D. (2023). Development of interactive powerpoint learning media based on information and communication technologies to improve student learning outcomes. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Nusantara, 9(1), 75-86.
  76. Sharma, P. (2024). EdTech for learning outcomes and impact: A comprehensive approach.
  77. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from https://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
  78. Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013). Online Dating & Relationships: Pew Research Center Report on Technology Use by Young Adults in America. Retrieved from Pew Research Center.
  79. Smith, J., & Dwyer, B. (2020). Educational technology and academic performance.
  80. Srivastava, D., & Srivastav, R.  (2024). Digital Learning Tools Enhancing Educational Outcomes. higher education, 22, 118-125.
  81. Suryadi, S., Masunah, J., Karyono, T., & Soeteja, Z. S. (2024). Interference of digital teaching materials on the ability to draw illustrations of Generation Z. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 197, p. 03004). EDP Sciences.
  82. Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Monés, A. M., & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and information technologies, 28(6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8
  83. Tonui, C. E., & Kimeli, B. (2017). Implementation of ICT in Kenya Primary Schools in the Light of Free Laptops at Primary One, Challenges and Possibilities (A Case Study of Teachers in Nandi County Kenya Implementing ICT into Their Teaching Practice).
  84. Torgersen, G. E., & Boe, O. (2021). Which tools in multimedia are best for learning outcomes? a study grounded in cognitive load structures. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 545335.
  85. Valverde-Berrocoso, J., González-Fernández, A., & Acevedo-Borrega, J. (2022). Disinformation and multiliteracy: A systematic review of the literature. Comunicar, 30(70), 97-110.
  86. Wang, S., Hsu, H., & Chan, K. (2021). The impact of multimedia learning tools on student engagement and retention. Journal of Educational Technology Research, 39(2), 145–162.
  87. Wang, Y., Chen, Y., & Chen, H. (2019). The influence of gender on university students' acceptance of mobile learning: A case study in China. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 13(2), 162-179.
  88. Ye-eun, M. (2021). Inter-Annual and Seasonal Variations of Water Quality and Trophic Status of a Reservoir with Fluctuating Monsoon Precipitation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8499.
  89. Yue, Z., Zhang, R., & Xiao, J. (2024). Social media use, perceived social support, and well-being: Evidence from two waves of surveys peri-and post-COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(5), 1279-1297.
  90. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., & Farkas, G. (2016). The impact of digital literacy on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 94, 69-79.
  91. Zheng, L. (2016) 'The Effectiveness of Self-Regulated Learning Scaffolds on Academic Performance
  92. Zhuang, Y., et al. (2017). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. ScienceDirect. Retrieved from ScienceDirect.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic