Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis, and interpretation of collected data

derived from the questionnaire used and intended for this study. Findings are also

revealed by presenting the statistical tables and corresponding narrative

interpretation showing the results of the assessment of the respondents. This study

aimed to assess the application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching

and learning and its relation to learners’ achievement and engagement at public

secondary schools in the Division of Navotas. The analytical procedures are

arranged according to the sequence of specific questions posted in Chapter 1.

This chapter presents the findings of the study in seven parts. The first part

describes the profile of the teacher-respondents in terms of age, sex, marital

status, highest educational attainment, and number of years in teaching. The

second part measures the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital

tool in teaching and learning in terms of assessment tool, feedback instrument,

learning management system, medium of communication, and teaching delivery

method. The third part presents the level of achievement and engagement of

students when using Google Classroom in terms of assignments and quizzes,

integrative assessment, learning activities, online class discussion, and

performance tasks. The fourth part presents the significant relationship between
the level of application of Google Classroom and the level of achievement and

engagement of students. The fifth part shows the significant difference on the

assessment of the respondents on the level of application of Google Classroom

when grouped according to their profile. The sixth part presents the problems

encountered by the respondents on the use of Google Classroom as a digital tool

in teaching and learning. The last part gives the suggested solutions to the

problems encountered as assessed by the respondents.

Question No. 1 What is the profile of the teacher-respondents in terms of:

Table 1.1
Distribution of Teachers-Respondent
According to Age

Indicators Frequency Percentage Rank

21 - 30 30 25.00% 3

31 - 40 42 35.00% 1

41 - 50 33 27.50% 2

51 - 60 15 12.50% 4

61 and above 0 0 5

Total 120 100%

Table 1.1 reveals the distribution of teachers-respondents according to age,

which shows the indicators, frequency, percentage, and ranking. Referring to the

data in the table above, out of one hundred twenty (120) respondents, most of

them, with frequency of 42 or 35.00% were 31 to 40 years old followed by 33 or

27.50% who were 41 to 50 years old; 30 or 25.00% were 21 to 30 years old; 15 or

12.50% were 51 to 60 years old. Lastly, 0 or 0% of the teacher-respondents was

61 years old and above. It can be said that majority of the teacher-respondents

were 31 to 40 years which implies that most of the teacher-respondents were at

their middle adult age.

Table 1.2
Distribution of Teachers-Respondent
According to Sex

Indicators Frequency Percentage Rank

Female 85 70.83% 1

Male 35 29.17% 2

Total 120 100%

Table 1.2 presents the distribution of the teacher-respondents according to

sex. Out of one hundred twenty (120) respondents, 85 or 70.83% were female,

while 35 or 29.17% were male. Hence, the dominated sex among the respondents

were female.

Iledan (2018) referred to the general observation that female teachers

always outnumber male teachers. The gender orientation divergence was a bigger

academic pattern, women are progressively outnumbering men all through

advanced education including doctorate degree program. Furthermore, in this

study, it is observed that female teachers were more dominant.

Table 1.3
Distribution of Teachers-Respondent
According to Marital Status

Indicators Frequency Percentage Rank

Single 42 35.00% 2

Married 73 60.83% 1

Widow 2 1.67% 4

Legally Separated 3 2.50% 3

Total 120 100%

Table 1.3 presents the distribution of the teacher-respondents according to

civil status. Majority of the respondents with frequency of 73 or 60.83% were

married, 42 or 35.00% were single, 3 or 2.50% were legally separated, and only 2

or 1.67% were widow. It can be depicted from the table that most of the

respondents were married.

Table 1.4
Distribution of Teachers-Respondent
According to Highest Educational Attainment

Indicators Frequency Percentage Rank

Bachelor’s degree 47 39.17% 2

Bachelor’s degree with

65 54.17% 1
MA/MS Units

MA/MS Degree 5 4.17% 3

MA/MS Degree with

3 2.50% 4
PhD/EdD Units

PhD/EdD Degree 0 0 5

Total 120 100%

Table 1.4 presents the distribution of the teacher-respondents according to

highest educational attainment. Majority of the respondents with frequency of 65

or 54.17% were bachelor’s degree graduate with MA/MS units. Forty-seven (47)
or 39.17% were bachelor’s degree graduate, 5 or 4.17% were MA/MS degree

graduate, 3 or 2.50% attained MA/MS Degree with PhD/EdD Units, and 0 or 0%

attained PhD/EdD Degree. It can be concluded that majority of the respondents

attained bachelor’s degree graduate with MA/MS Units.

Table 1.5
Distribution of Teachers-Respondent
According to Number of Years in Teaching

Indicators Frequency Percentage Rank

10 years and below 78 65.00% 1

11 – 20 years 24 20.00% 2

21 years and above 18 15.00% 3

Total 120 100%

Table 1.5 presents the distribution of the teacher-respondents according to

their number of years in teaching. Highest percentage of the respondents with

65.00% or 78 out of 120 respondents have been teaching for 10 years and below.

Then, 24 or 20.00% have length of teaching for 11 to 20 years, while 18 or 15.00%

of the respondents were in the teaching service for 21 years and above. It can be

said that majority of the teacher-respondents were beginner or novice teachers

who have been teaching for just 10 years or below.

Question No. 2. What is the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital

tool in teaching and learning as to the following aspects:

Assessment Tool

Table 2.1
Level of Application of Google Classroom as a Digital Tool in
Teaching and Learning as to Assessment Tool

Indicators
WM VI R
The Google Classroom…
1. Has classwork page to assess students through
4.41 VA 8
assignments and quizzes.
2. Develops gradebook and grading sheet that allows
4.48 VA 5.5
to show the performance of the students.
3. Enables to post and group questions and quizzes
4.48 VA 5.5
under topic.
4. Facilitates the creation of quizzes and provide point
4.50 VA 3
value.
5. Can return work with or without grade. 4.38 VA 9
6. Makes possible to grade or assess students’ work
4.52 VA 2
quickly.
7. Allows to create Google Form assessment. 4.49 VA 4
8. Helps to monitor students’ progress. 4.54 VA 1
9. Permits to have peer evaluation. 4.35 VA 10
10. Helps to design and create rubrics for assessing and
4.44 VA 7
grading.
Average Weighted Mean 4.46 VA
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Very Applicable (VA)
3.40 - 4.19 → Applicable (A)
2.60 - 3.39 → Somehow Applicable (SA)
1.80 - 2.59 → Inapplicable (I)
1.00 - 1.79 → Very Inapplicable (VI)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 2.1 shows the weighted mean of the teacher-respondents’

assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in

teaching and learning as to assessment tool. The indicators about the level of

application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning in terms

of assessment tool were regarded, in average, as “Very Applicable” with an

average weighted mean of 4.46.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.54 and interpreted as “Very

Applicable” was the indicator “Helps to monitor students’ progress”. It is followed

by rank 2 indicator, “Makes possible to grade or assess students’ work quickly”,

with weighted mean of 4.52 equivalently interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Rank 3

with weighted mean of 4.50 interpreted as “Very Applicable” was the indicator,

“Facilitates the creation of quizzes and provide point value”. The indicator, “Allows

to create Google Form assessment”, obtained rank 4 with weighted mean of 4.49,

while the indicators, “Develops gradebook and grading sheet that allows to show

the performance of the students” and “Enables to post and group questions and

quizzes under topic”, obtained rank 5.5 with weighted mean of 4.48, both verbally

interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

Then, the indicator, “Helps to design and create rubrics for assessing and

grading”, obtained rank 7 with weighted mean of 4.44 verbally interpreted as “Very
Applicable”. Rank 8 with a weighted mean of 4.41 was “Has classwork page to

assess students through assignments and quizzes”, verbally interpreted as “Very

Applicable”. Rank 9 with a weighted mean of 4.38 was “Can return work with or

without grade”, verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Lastly, rank 10 with a

weighted mean of 4.35 and interpretation of “Very Applicable” was the indicator,

“Permits to have peer evaluation”.

In terms of assessment, it can be said that Google Classroom is a highly

useful tool for teaching and learning. With Google Classroom, it is easier to keep

track of students' progress, quickly grade or assess their work, create quizzes with

point values, and construct assessments using Google Forms. According to Kate

(2021), Within Google Classroom, it is possible to use Google Forms to create and

share quizzes that are automatically graded as students turn them in. Teachers

will spend less time grading, and the students will get instant feedback on their

work. Teachers can view individual and class data within Forms or an automatically

generated Google Sheet. Bell (2019) stated that the Google Classroom has a

feature of grading tool which gives teachers a workflow for evaluating student work,

leaving feedback, grading, and returning student work.

Feedback Instrument

Table 2.2

Level of Application of Google Classroom as a Digital Tool in

Teaching and Learning as to Feedback Instrument

Indicators
WM VI R
The Google Classroom…
1. Gives students personalized feedback on any type of
4.39 VA 9
file.
2. Can add and leave comments on student work. 4.47 VA 2
3. Maintains a comment bank for storing remarks or
4.46 VA 4.5
feedbacks.
4. Allows students to read feedbacks or comments on
4.46 VA 4.5
their work immediately after their teacher returns it.
5. Enables teachers to provide feedback through
comments on the documents uploaded by the 4.47 VA 2
students.
6. Uses as an instrument to give feedback to students’
4.47 VA 2
work.
7. Provides feedback in different formats. 4.43 VA 6
8. Enables students to give feedback to each other. 4.38 VA 10
9. Allows feedback notetaking and integrates web-
4.42 VA 7.5
based audio recorder.
10. Permits to access or upload voice or audio
4.42 VA 7.5
comments or feedback to students.
Average Weighted Mean 4.44 VA
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Very Applicable (VA)
3.40 - 4.19 → Applicable (A)
2.60 - 3.39 → Somehow Applicable (SA)
1.80 - 2.59 → Inapplicable (I)
1.00 - 1.79 → Very Inapplicable (VI)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 2.2 shows the weighted mean of the teacher-respondents’

assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in

teaching and learning as to feedback instrument. The indicators about the level of

application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning in terms

of feedback instrument were regarded, in average, as “Very Applicable” with an

average weighted mean of 4.44.

The indicators, “Can add and leave comments on student work”, “Enables

teachers to provide feedback through comments on the documents uploaded by

the students”, and “Uses as an instrument to give feedback to students’ work”,

were rank 2 with weighted mean of 4.47 and interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

It is followed by rank 4.5 indicators, “Maintains a comment bank for storing remarks

or feedbacks” and “Allows students to read feedbacks or comments on their work

immediately after their teacher returns it”, with weighted mean of 4.46 equivalently

interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

Rank 6 with weighted mean of 4.43 interpreted as “Very Applicable” was

the indicator, “Provides feedback in different formats”. The indicators, “Allows

feedback notetaking and integrates web-based audio recorder” and “Permits to

access or upload voice or audio comments or feedback to students”, obtained rank

7.5 with weighted mean of 4.42 and interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Rank 9 with
a weighted mean of 4.39 was “Gives students personalized feedback on any type

of file”, verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Lastly, rank 10 with a weighted

mean of 4.38 and interpretation of “Very Applicable” was the indicator, “Enables

students to give feedback to each other”.

It can be concluded that Google Classroom is very applicable as feedback

mechanism in the teaching-learning process. Teachers can give feedback to

students on the documents they submit to Google Classroom by leaving comments

on such documents. By adding and leaving comments on student work, it can be

utilized as a tool to provide feedback on their work. Bell (2019) pointed out that

Google Classroom offers many ways for teachers and students to continue the

feedback loop. Private comments are one of the best features of Google

Classroom. Since these are private, they are only viewable by the teacher and the

individual student. Quadrino (2021) highlighted the 3 ways to provide more

valuable feedback using Google Classroom. Teachers can input, save, search,

and reuse comments in Google Classroom. It has Comment Bank feature, where

teachers have the ability to add a comment that can be used later on. Teachers

can also simply paste recorded feedback into a Google Classroom comment, and

students will be able to listen to the teachers’ valuable feedback.

Learning Management System

Table 2.3
Level of Application of Google Classroom as a Digital Tool in
Teaching and Learning as to Learning Management System

Indicators
WM VI R
The Google Classroom…
1. Features a cloud-based learning management
4.38 VA 10
system that is part of Google Apps for Education.
2. Enables students to access the platform in any
4.50 VA 3
devices (e.g. computers, tablets, and smartphones).
3. Manages assignments through Google Docs, port
4.49 VA 5.5
YouTube videos and attach files from Google Drive.
4. Creates online classrooms for sharing the learning
4.50 VA 3
materials for downloading and viewing.
5. Tracks students’ progress through the creation of
4.46 VA 9
online assignments.
6. Allows students to submit their assignments easily
through the collaboration of Google Classroom with 4.49 VA 5.5
other applications
7. Let the teachers monitor and track learners’ progress
4.50 VA 3
in their subject.
8. Provides an interactive environment for learners. 4.48 VA 7
9. Offers platform to teach the students in a distance
4.52 VA 1
learning.
10. Shares files easily between teachers and students
4.47 VA 8
without having to send emails back and forth.
Average Weighted Mean 4.48 VA
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Very Applicable (VA)
3.40 - 4.19 → Applicable (A)
2.60 - 3.39 → Somehow Applicable (SA)
1.80 - 2.59 → Inapplicable (I)
1.00 - 1.79 → Very Inapplicable (VI)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 2.3 shows the weighted mean of the teacher-respondents’

assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in

teaching and learning as to learning management system. The indicators about

the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and

learning in terms of learning management system were regarded, in average, as

“Very Applicable” with an average weighted mean of 4.48.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.52 and interpreted as “Very

Applicable” was the indicator “Offers platform to teach the students in a distance

learning”. It is followed by rank 3 indicators, “Enables students to access the

platform in any devices (e.g., computers, tablets, and smartphones)”, “Creates

online classrooms for sharing the learning materials for downloading and viewing”,

and “Let the teachers monitor and track learners’ progress in their subject”, with

weighted mean of 4.50 equivalently interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

Rank 5.5 with weighted mean of 4.49 interpreted as “Very Applicable” were

the indicators, “Manages assignments through Google Docs, port YouTube videos

and attach files from Google Drive” and “Allows students to submit their

assignments easily through the collaboration of Google Classroom with other

applications”. The indicator, “Provides an interactive environment for learners”,

obtained rank 7 with weighted mean of 4.48, while the indicator, “Shares files easily
between teachers and students without having to send emails back and forth”,

obtained rank 8 with weighted mean of 4.47.

Then, the indicator, “Tracks students’ progress through the creation of

online assignments”, obtained rank 9 with weighted mean of 4.46. Lastly, rank 10

with a weighted mean of 4.38 and interpretation of “Very Applicable” was the

indicator, “Features a cloud-based learning management system that is part of

Google Apps for Education”.

It can be concluded that Google Classroom is very applicable as a learning

management system. Google Classroom provides a platform for teachers to

instruct students remotely utilizing any technology, including computers, tablets,

and smartphones. It can be used to set up online classrooms where students can

download and see educational materials, allowing teachers to keep track on their

progress in their topic. Elkington (2020) stated that Google Classroom has evolved

as a learning management system (LMS) that facilitates peer discussion, supports

video lectures, supports student messaging, and many more. Google Classroom

is a cloud-based learning management system that is a part of Google Apps for

Education (Software Advice, 2020). Teachers can create online classrooms for

sharing the learning materials for downloading and viewing. Online assignments

can be created to keep the track of students’ progress.

Medium of Communication

Table 2.4
Level of Application of Google Classroom as a Digital Tool in
Teaching and Learning as to Medium of Communication

Indicators
WM VI R
The Google Classroom…
1. Allows the use of video conferencing and live chat or
4.49 VA 2
instant messaging.
2. Permits the teacher to communicate with students via
4.39 VA 9
email.
3. Let the parents or guardians of students to receive
email summaries to keep them informed of current 4.30 VA 10
and upcoming events.
4. Can post announcements to the class Stream. 4.48 VA 3.5
5. Provides reminders, notifications of upcoming events,
4.45 VA 6.5
or other announcements.
6. Qualifies the students, teachers, and parents to
4.50 VA 1
communicate and engage.
7. Brings interactive communication, discussion, and
4.45 VA 6.5
exchange of information and feedback.
8. Facilitate and streamlines discussion post and bi-
4.43 VA 8
directional communication.
9. Supports collaboration through sharing of materials
with other teachers and give privileges to other 4.46 VA 5
teachers to edit and co-teach.
10. Aids in sending notifications to students to start an
online discussion or tell them about certain online 4.48 VA 3.5
learning activities.
Average Weighted Mean 4.44 VA
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Very Applicable (VA)
3.40 - 4.19 → Applicable (A)
2.60 - 3.39 → Somehow Applicable (SA)
1.80 - 2.59 → Inapplicable (I)
1.00 - 1.79 → Very Inapplicable (VI)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 2.4 shows the weighted mean of the teacher-respondents’

assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in

teaching and learning as to medium of communication. The indicators about the

level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning

in terms of medium of communication were regarded, in average, as “Very

Applicable” with an average weighted mean of 4.44.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.50 and interpreted as “Very

Applicable” was the indicator “Qualifies the students, teachers, and parents to

communicate and engage”. It is followed by rank 2 indicator, “Allows the use of

video conferencing and live chat or instant messaging”, with weighted mean of

4.49 equivalently interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Rank 3.5 with weighted mean

of 4.48 interpreted as “Very Applicable” were the indicators, “Can post

announcements to the class Stream” and “Aids in sending notifications to students

to start an online discussion or tell them about certain online learning activities”.

The indicator, “Supports collaboration through sharing of materials with other

teachers and give privileges to other teachers to edit and co-teach”, obtained rank

5 with weighted mean of 4.46, verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

Then, the indicators, “Provides reminders, notifications of upcoming events,

or other announcements” and “Brings interactive communication, discussion, and

exchange of information and feedback”, obtained rank 6.5 with weighted mean of

4.45, interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Rank 8 with a weighted mean of 4.43 was

“Facilitate and streamlines discussion post and bi-directional communication”,

verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Rank 9 with a weighted mean of 4.39

was “Permits the teacher to communicate with students via email”, verbally

interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Lastly, rank 10 with a weighted mean of 4.30 and

interpretation of “Very Applicable” was the indicator, “Let the parents or guardians

of students to receive email summaries to keep them informed of current and

upcoming events”.

It can be concluded that Google Classroom is very applicable as a medium

of communication. Students, teachers, and parents can interact and communicate

using Google Classroom. It permits the usage of live chat and instant messaging

as well as video conferencing. By posting announcements to the class Stream and

sending notifications to students to launch an online conversation or inform them

about specific online learning activities, it can be utilized as a communication tool.

According to GCF Global (2020), Google Classroom allows to communicate with

students via email. It is also possible for parents and guardians to receive email

summaries to keep them informed of current and upcoming events. Instead of

sending emails, teachers can post announcements to the class' Stream. These are

simply posts students will view on the Stream when they sign in to Google

Classroom. They can be helpful as reminders, notifications of upcoming events, or

anything else the teacher would like to share with the class as a whole. It is also

possible for parents and guardians of students to receive email summaries. These

include missing work, upcoming work, and recent class activity. These summaries

are generated automatically and cannot be customized with personal messages

or additional content.

Teaching Delivery Method

Table 2.5 shows the weighted mean of the teacher-respondents’

assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in

teaching and learning as to teaching delivery method. The indicators about the

level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning

in terms of teaching delivery method were regarded, in average, as “Very

Applicable” with an average weighted mean of 4.51.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.55 and interpreted as “very

Applicable” was the indicator “Gives teachers an easy tool for creating prerecorded

video lessons for asynchronous learning”.

Table 2.5
Level of Application of Google Classroom as a Digital Tool in
Teaching and Learning as to Teaching Delivery Method

Indicators
WM VI R
The Google Classroom…
1. Brings the benefits of paperless sharing, assessment,
4.52 VA 3.5
and digital collaboration to classrooms.
2. Utilizes together with Google's Workspace tools for
4.50 VA 6.5
teaching and learning delivery methods.
3. Acts as a digital organizer where teachers keep class
4.50 VA 6.5
materials and share them with students.
4. Enables to deliver teaching and learning process. 4.48 VA 9
5. Streamlined by teachers on how they manage their
4.49 VA 8
classes.
6. Organizes, distributes, and collects assignments and
4.47 VA 10
subject materials.
7. Helps streamline summative and formative
4.51 VA 5
assessments.
8. Permits to post discussion questions for quick
4.52 VA 3.5
collection of students’ insights.
9. Integrates with Google Meet, and teachers can set up
video meetings from within Google Classroom for live, or 4.53 VA 2
"synchronous," instruction.
10. Gives teachers an easy tool for creating prerecorded
4.55 VA 1
video lessons for asynchronous learning.
Average Weighted Mean 4.51 VA
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Very Applicable (VA)
3.40 - 4.19 → Applicable (A)
2.60 - 3.39 → Somehow Applicable (SA)
1.80 - 2.59 → Inapplicable (I)
1.00 - 1.79 → Very Inapplicable (VI)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
It is followed by rank 2 indicator, “Integrates with Google Meet, and teachers

can set up video meetings from within Google Classroom for live, or

"synchronous," instruction”, with weighted mean of 4.53 equivalently interpreted

as “Very Applicable”. Rank 3.5 with weighted mean of 4.52 interpreted as “Very

Applicable” were the indicators, “Brings the benefits of paperless sharing,

assessment, and digital collaboration to classrooms” and “Permits to post

discussion questions for quick collection of students’ insights”. The indicator,

“Helps streamline summative and formative assessments”, obtained rank 5 with

weighted mean of 4.51, verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

Then, the indicators, “Utilizes together with Google's Workspace tools for

teaching and learning delivery methods” and “Acts as a digital organizer where

teachers keep class materials and share them with students”, obtained rank 6.5

with weighted mean of 4.50, verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Rank 8 with

a weighted mean of 4.49 was “Streamlined by teachers on how they manage their

classes”, verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”. Rank 9 with a weighted mean

of 4.48 was “Enables to deliver teaching and learning process”, verbally interpreted

as “Very Applicable”. Lastly, rank 10 with a weighted mean of 4.47 and

interpretation of “Very Applicable” was the indicator, “Organizes, distributes, and

collects assignments and subject materials”.

It can be concluded that Google Classroom is very applicable as a teaching

delivery method. With Google Classroom, it gives teachers an easy tool for

creating prerecorded video lessons for asynchronous learning. Teachers may

schedule video conferences from Google Classroom for live, or "synchronous,"

instruction due to its integration with Google Meet. Kate (2021) states that Google

Classroom allows for the posting of discussion questions for fast gathering of

student perspectives and provides the advantages of paperless sharing,

assessment, and digital collaboration to classrooms. Since Google Classroom is

an LMS that integrates Google Apps for Education, it will tie in Google Docs,

Google Slides and other Google apps along with other Grading tools (exclusive to

Google classroom only).

Summary

Table 2.6 presents the summary of the level of application of Google

Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning. The computed composite

weighted mean was 4.46 which implies that the level of application of Google

Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning was very applicable. As shown,

“Teaching Delivery Method” got first with average weighted mean of 4.51 and

verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

Table 2.6
Summary on the Level of Application of Google Classroom
as a Digital Tool in Teaching and Learning

Indicators AWM VI R

2.1 Assessment Tool 4.46 VA 3

2.2 Feedback Instrument 4.44 VA 4.5

2.3 Learning Management System 4.48 VA 2

2.4 Medium of Communication 4.44 VA 4.5

2.5 Teaching Delivery Method 4.51 VA 1

Composite Weighted Mean 4.46 VA

Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Very Applicable (VA)
3.40 - 4.19 → Applicable (A)
2.60 - 3.39 → Somehow Applicable (SA)
1.80 - 2.59 → Inapplicable (I)
1.00 - 1.79 → Very Inapplicable (VI)
AWM → Average Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank

It is followed by “Learning Management System, which was rank 2 with

average weighted mean of 4.48 and verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

Rank 3 with average weighted mean of 4.46 and verbally interpreted as “Very

Applicable” was the variable, “Assessment Tool”. Lastly, rank 4.5 with average

weighted mean of 4.44 and verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable” were the

indicators, “Feedback Instrument” and “Medium of Communication”.

Question No. 3. What is the level of achievement and engagement of students

when using Google Classroom in terms of:

Table 3.1
Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students When Using
Google Classroom in Terms of Assignments and Quizzes

Indicators
WM VI R
The students…
1. Complete and submit assignments and
4.33 VS 6
quizzes.
2. Provide clear and detailed answers in the
4.31 VS 9.5
assignments and quizzes.
3. Accomplish an informative and well-organized
4.31 VS 9.5
written work.
4. Monitor self-progress through answering. 4.42 VS 1
5. Include all the required elements in the
4.37 VS 3
assignment, and quizzes.
6. Complete the purpose of the
4.32 VS 8
assignment/written work.
7. Present clear, orderly, and logical work. 4.37 VS 3
8. Abide by the instructions in the written work,
4.37 VS 3
assignments, and quizzes.
9. Perform very well in written examination. 4.33 VS 6
10. Align their answers in the content/topic in the
4.33 VS 6
written output.
Average Weighted Mean 4.34 VS
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Outstanding (O)
3.40 - 4.19 → Very Satisfactory (VS)
2.60 - 3.39 → Satisfactory (S)
1.80 - 2.59 → Fair (F)
1.00 - 1.79 → Poor (P)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 3.1 shows the weighted mean of the level of achievement and

engagement of students when using Google Classroom in terms of assignment

and quizzes. The indicators about the level of achievement and engagement of

students when using Google Classroom in terms of assignment and quizzes

were regarded, in average, as “Very Satisfactory” with an average weighted

mean of 4.34.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.42 and interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” was the indicator “Monitor self-progress through answering”. It is

followed by rank 3 indicators, “Include all the required elements in the

assignment, and quizzes”, “Present clear, orderly, and logical work”, and “Abide

by the instructions in the written work, assignments, and quizzes”, with weighted

mean of 4.37 equivalently interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”. Rank 6 with

weighted mean of 4.33 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” were the indicators,

“Complete and submit assignments and quizzes”, “Perform very well in written

examination”, and “Align their answers in the content/topic in the written output”.

The indicator, “Complete the purpose of the assignment/written work”,

obtained rank 8 with weighted mean of 4.32, verbally interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory”. Lastly, rank 9.5 with a weighted mean of 4.31 and interpretation

of “Very Satisfactory” were the indicators, “Provide clear and detailed answers
in the assignments and quizzes” and “Accomplish an informative and well-

organized written work”.

It can be concluded that students' achievement and engagement levels

are quite good when utilizing Google Classroom, especially for assignments and

quizzes. Students were able to incorporate all necessary components in the

assignments and quizzes, present clear, organized, and logical work, and follow

the instructions in the written work, assignments, and quizzes because they

could see their progress through the use of Google Classroom.

Integrative Assessment

Table 3.2 shows the weighted mean of the level of achievement and

engagement of students when using Google Classroom in terms of integrative

assessment. The indicators about the level of achievement and engagement of

students when using Google Classroom in terms of ntegrative assessment were

regarded, in average, as “Very Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of

4.32.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.34 and interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” was the indicator “Consider multiple perspectives and

considerations in the task output”.

Table 3.2
Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students When Using
Google Classroom in Terms of Integrative Assessment

Indicators
WM VI R
The students…
1. Complete the required task and output. 4.29 VS 9
2. Present accurate content and supported with
4.31 VS 8
facts.
3. Exhibit creativeness and resourcefulness. 4.32 VS 6.5
4. Consider multiple perspectives and
4.34 VS 1
considerations in the task output.
5. Reflect in-depth engagement with the topic in
4.33 VS 3.5
the task.
6. Submit complete number of modules and
4.28 VS 10
integrative projects.
7. Integrate the competencies learned in the
4.33 VS 3.5
subjects.
8. Apply the learning in finishing the task. 4.33 VS 3.5
9. Demonstrate understanding of the task. 4.33 VS 3.5
10. Analyze and follow very well the instructions 4.32 VS 6.5
Average Weighted Mean 4.32 VS
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Outstanding (O)
3.40 - 4.19 → Very Satisfactory (VS)
2.60 - 3.39 → Satisfactory (S)
1.80 - 2.59 → Fair (F)
1.00 - 1.79 → Poor (P)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank

It is followed by rank 3.5 indicators which include: “Reflect in-depth

engagement with the topic in the task”, “Integrate the competencies learned in
the subjects”, “Apply the learning in finishing the task”, and “Demonstrate

understanding of the task”, with weighted mean of 4.33 equivalently interpreted

as “Very Satisfactory”. Rank 6.5 with weighted mean of 4.32 interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” were the indicators, “Exhibit creativeness and resourcefulness”

and “Analyze and follow very well the instructions”.

The indicator, “Present accurate content and supported with facts”,

obtained rank 8 with weighted mean of 4.31, verbally interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory”. Rank 9 with a weighted mean of 4.29 and interpretation of “Very

Satisfactory” was the indicator, “Complete the required task and output”. Lastly,

rank 10 with a weighted mean of 4.28 and interpretation of “Very Satisfactory”

were the indicators, “Submit complete number of modules and integrative

projects”.

In terms of integrative assessment, it can be said that students'

achievement and engagement are quite satisfying when using Google

Classroom. When completing the work, students were able to apply and

illustrate what they had learned by taking into account a variety of viewpoints

and factors, reflecting a deep engagement with the subject matter.

Learning Activities

Table 3.3
Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students When Using
Google Classroom in Terms of Learning Activities

Indicators
WM VI R
The students…
1. Complete the learning activity sheets on time. 4.28 VS 10
2. Submit comprehensive and easy to read
4.31 VS 7.5
learning activity output.
3. Provide complete solution and answer in the
4.32 VS 6
learning activities.
4. Present the required elements in the learning
activities such as solutions and instructed 4.31 VS 7.5
included parts.
5. Incorporate reflection or insight in the activity. 4.29 VS 9
6. Contain illustrations or diagrams in the learning
4.36 VS 2.5
activities as needed.
7. Develop the ideas in the activity coherently. 4.33 VS 5
8. Explore ideas and support the points in the
4.36 VS 2.5
learning activities fully.
9. Align the learning activities answers based on
4.35 VS 4
the subject discussion.
10. Engage with the learning activities individually
4.37 VS 1
or by group.
Average Weighted Mean 4.33 VS
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Outstanding (O)
3.40 - 4.19 → Very Satisfactory (VS)
2.60 - 3.39 → Satisfactory (S)
1.80 - 2.59 → Fair (F)
1.00 - 1.79 → Poor (P)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 3.3 shows the weighted mean of the level of achievement and

engagement of students when using Google Classroom in terms of learning

activities. The indicators about the level of achievement and engagement of

students when using Google Classroom in terms of learning activities were

regarded, in average, as “Very Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of

4.33.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.37 and interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” was the indicator “Engage with the learning activities individually

or by group”. It is followed by rank 2.5 indicators, “Contain illustrations or

diagrams in the learning activities as needed” and “Explore ideas and support

the points in the learning activities fully”, with weighted mean of 4.36

equivalently interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”. Rank 4 with weighted mean of

4.35 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator, “Align the learning

activities answers based on the subject discussion”. Rank 5 with weighted mean

of 4.33 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator, “Develop the ideas

in the activity coherently”.

The indicator, “Provide complete solution and answer in the learning

activities”, obtained rank 6 with weighted mean of 4.32, verbally interpreted as

“Very Satisfactory”. It is followed by rank 7.5 indicators, “Submit comprehensive

and easy to read learning activity output” and “Present the required elements in

the learning activities such as solutions and instructed included parts”, with

weighted mean of 4.31 equivalently interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”. Rank 9

with weighted mean of 4.29 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator,

“Incorporate reflection or insight in the activity”. Lastly, rank 10 with a weighted

mean of 4.28 and interpretation of “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator,

“Complete the learning activity sheets on time”.

It can be said that when using Google Classroom for learning activities,

students' achievement and engagement are quite good. Individually or in

groups, students were allowed to participate in the learning activities, include

pictures or diagrams as needed, fully develop ideas and defend their views, and

link the learning activities' findings with the topic under discussion.

Online Class Discussion

Table 3.4 shows the weighted mean of the level of achievement and

engagement of students when using Google Classroom in terms of online class

discussions. The indicators about the level of achievement and engagement of

students when using Google Classroom in terms of online class discussions

were regarded, in average, as “Very Satisfactory” with an average weighted

mean of 4.33.
Table 3.4
Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students When Using
Google Classroom in Terms of Online Class Discussions

Indicators
WM VI R
The students…
1. Make online comments that are informative and
4.36 VS 1
original.
2. Initiate discussion on issues related to the
4.33 VS 4.5
online class topic.
3. Contribute proactively and regularly to class
4.32 VS 6.5
discussion.
4. Promote relevant and deeper analysis of the
4.34 VS 3
topic.
5. Ask questions or comments on material outside
4.30 VS 9.5
the assignment.
6. Communicate with their classmates or peers
4.31 VS 8
during online class discussion.
7. Participate and collaborate in online discussion. 4.35 VS 2
8. Ask questions or clarifications to the teacher. 4.30 VS 9.5
9. Share ideas to the flow of conversation. 4.32 VS 6.5
10. Respond and comment positively to the work of
4.33 VS 4.5
others.
Average Weighted Mean 4.33 VS
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Outstanding (O)
3.40 - 4.19 → Very Satisfactory (VS)
2.60 - 3.39 → Satisfactory (S)
1.80 - 2.59 → Fair (F)
1.00 - 1.79 → Poor (P)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.36 and interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” was the indicator “Make online comments that are informative and
original”. It is followed by rank 2 indicator, “Participate and collaborate in online

discussion”, with weighted mean of 4.35 equivalently interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory”. Rank 3 with weighted mean of 4.34 interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” was the indicator, “Promote relevant and deeper analysis of the

topic”. Rank 4.5 with weighted mean of 4.33 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”

were the indicators, “Initiate discussion on issues related to the online class

topic” and “Respond and comment positively to the work of others”.

The indicators, “Contribute proactively and regularly to class discussion”

and “Share ideas to the flow of conversation” obtained rank 6.5 with weighted

mean of 4.32, verbally interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”. Rank 8 with weighted

mean of 4.31 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator,

“Communicate with their classmates or peers during online class discussion”.

Lastly, rank 9.5 with weighted mean of 4.30 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”

were the indicators, “Ask questions or comments on material outside the

assignment” and “Ask questions or clarifications to the teacher”.

It can be said that when using Google Classroom for online class

discussions, students' achievement and participation are quite good. Students

were able to take part in online discussions, contribute innovative and

educational comments, and cooperate with others. It encourages pertinent and

in-depth topic study during online discussion and starts conversations on topics

connected to the class topic.

Performance Tasks

Table 3.5
Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students When Using
Google Classroom in Terms of Performance Tasks

Indicators
WM VI R
The students…
1. Follows procedures or scaffolding of tasks evident in
4.30 VS 3.5
their output.
2. Apply thinking skills to arrive at accurate task result. 4.29 VS 6
3. Manifest understanding of the concept presented in
4.30 VS 3.5
the task.
4. Express a clear and thoughtful learning and
4.25 VS 10
understanding of the performance task.
5. Use the allotted time productively and efficiently. 4.26 VS 8.5
6. Complete all problems in the task and learning
4.27 VS 7
activities.
7. Present the work in a neat, clear, and organized
4.26 VS 8.5
way.
8. Follow correct procedures in presenting the solution. 4.30 VS 3.5
9. Consider personal experiences and give self-
4.31 VS 1
reflection in doing the activity.
10. Apply the learning competencies acquired. 4.30 VS 3.5
Average Weighted Mean 4.28 VS
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Outstanding (O)
3.40 - 4.19 → Very Satisfactory (VS)
2.60 - 3.39 → Satisfactory (S)
1.80 - 2.59 → Fair (F)
1.00 - 1.79 → Poor (P)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 3.5 shows the weighted mean of the level of achievement and

engagement of students when using Google Classroom in terms of performance

tasks. The indicators about the level of achievement and engagement of

students when using Google Classroom in terms of performance tasks were

regarded, in average, as “Very Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of

4.28.

The first rank with weighted mean of 4.31 and interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” was the indicator “Consider personal experiences and give self-

reflection in doing the activity”. It is followed by rank 3.5 indicators, “Follows

procedures or scaffolding of tasks evident in their output”, “Manifest

understanding of the concept presented in the task”, “Follow correct procedures

in presenting the solution”, and “Apply the learning competencies acquired”, with

weighted mean of 4.30 equivalently interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”. Rank 6

with weighted mean of 4.29 interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator,

“Apply thinking skills to arrive at accurate task result”.

The indicator, “Complete all problems in the task and learning activities”,

obtained rank 7 with weighted mean of 4.27, verbally interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory”. Rank 8.5 with weighted mean of 4.26 interpreted as “Very

Satisfactory” were the indicators, “Use the allotted time productively and
efficiently” and “Present the work in a neat, clear, and organized way”. Lastly,

rank 10 with a weighted mean of 4.25 and interpretation of “Very Satisfactory”

was the indicator, “Express a clear and thoughtful learning and understanding

of the performance task”.

It can be said that the students' performance and engagement levels

were highly satisfactory when using Google Classroom for performance tasks.

Students are able to reflect on their own experiences while completing activities,

present solutions using the proper format, and apply their newly acquired

learning competencies.

Summary

Table 3.6 shows the summary of the level of achievement and

engagement of students when using Google Classroom. The composite

weighted mean of the indicators on the level of pupils’ learning engagement and

performance 4.32, verbally interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”.

As shown, “Assessment and Quizzes” obtained the highest weighted

mean of 4.34, rank 1 and verbally interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”. Next, rank

2.5 was “Learning activities” and “Online Class Discussion”, with a weighted

mean of 4.33, verbally described as “Very Satisfactory”.

Table 3.6
Summary on the Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students
When Using Google Classroom

Indicators AWM VI R
2.1 Assessment and Quizzes 4.34 VS 1
2.2 Integrative Assessment 4.32 VS 4
2.3 Learning Activities 4.33 VS 2.5
2.4 Online Class Discussion 4.33 VS 2.5
2.5 Performance Task 4.28 VS 5
Composite Weighted Mean 4.32 VS
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Outstanding (O)
3.40 - 4.19 → Very Satisfactory (VS)
2.60 - 3.39 → Satisfactory (S)
1.80 - 2.59 → Fair (F)
1.00 - 1.79 → Poor (P)
AWM → Average Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank

Rank 4 was “Integrative Assessment” with a weighted mean of 4.32 and

verbally assessed as “Very Satisfactory”. The last in the rank was “Performance

Task” with a weighted mean of 4.28, verbally described as “Very Satisfactory”. It

can be inferred that learners have very satisfactory level of achievement and

engagement when using Google Classroom. Students improved and performed

well in doing their assignments and quizzes, as well as their learning activities and

online class discussions because of the use of Google Classroom.

Question No. 4 Is there a significant relationship between the level of application

of Google Classroom and the level of achievement and engagement of students?

Table 4

Significant Relationship Between the Level of Application of Google

Classroom and the Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students

Computed
Indicators Mean SD Pearson r Decision Remarks
t- Value
Level of
Application of
4.46 0.53 0.76
Google
Classroom
Level of 3.789 Reject Ho Significant
Achievement
High
and 4.32 0.64
Relationship
Engagement
of Students
t-Critical/Tabular Value at 0.05 Level of Significance ()= 1.9800
Legend:
The Value of r Verbal Interpretation
1 Perfectly Relationship
 0.81 to  0.99 Very High Relationship
 0.71 to  0.80 High Relationship
 0.41 to  0.70 Moderate Relationship
 0.21 to  0.40 Low Relationship
 0.01 to  0.20 Slight Relationship
0 No Relationship
Table 4 shows the result of the Pearson r correlation and hypothesis testing

for significant relationship between the level of application of Google Classroom

and the level of achievement and engagement of students. The computed value

of the Pearson r was 0.76 which means the two variables mentioned have high

relationship.

Since the computed value is positive, it implies that a direct relationship

exists between the two variables. This means that the more application of Google

Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning, the higher the level of learning

achievement and engagement of students.

Since the computed t-value is 3.789, which is greater than the t-critical value

(1.9801) and p-value < 0.05 level of significance, therefore, the decision is to reject

the null hypothesis. Hence, there was a significant relationship between the level

of application of Google Classroom and the level of achievement and engagement

of students. The findings of the study is supported by Pappas (2015) that Google

Classroom provides a very important feature for students, which is the

organization. Students can access everything for their class right at their fingertips

with their technology device. This is designed to help keep students organized and

also eliminates the risk of losing worksheets or homework assignments. Students

can join their class by expecting the invite or entering a class code given by their

teacher. Also, the results of the study by Hussaini, et al. (2020) indicated that
Google Classroom is effective in improving students access and attentiveness

towards learning; knowledge and skills gained through Google Classroom makes

students to be active learners; as a digital tool, it provides meaningful feedback to

both students and parents.

Question No. 5 Is there a significant difference on the assessment of the

respondents on the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped

according to their profile?

Table 5.1 shows the result of testing the significant difference on the level

of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their age. It

presents the average weighted mean of level of application of Google Classroom

as assessed by teachers grouped by age, the computed f-value, the decision, and

remarks.

The level of application of Google Classroom was in terms of assessment

tool, feedback instrument, learning management system, medium of

communication, and teaching delivery method while the groups of age were 21 -

30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51 – 60.

Table 5.1
Significant Difference on the Assessment of the Respondents on the Level
of Application of Google Classroom when Grouped According to Age

Mean Group Computed F-

Indicators Decision Remarks
SD A B C D Value

Mean 4.50 4.50 4.48 4.21

Assessment 1.210 Not
Accept Ho
Tool Significant
SD 0.56 0.45 0.51 0.75

Mean 4.46 4.57 4.36 4.16

Feedback 1.989 Not
Accept Ho
Instrument Significant
SD 0.57 0.46 0.61 0.92

Learning Mean 4.44 4.60 4.47 4.23

1.460
Management Reject Ho Significant
System SD 0.57 0.48 0.52 1.04

Mean 4.43 4.48 4.48 4.30

Medium of 0.428 Not
Accept Ho
Communication Significant
SD 0.56 0.50 0.55 0.78

Mean 4.46 4.59 4.51 4.38

Teaching 0.669 Not
Accept Ho
Delivery Method Significant
SD 0.58 0.45 0.52 0.75
Level of
Mean 4.46 4.55 4.46 4.26
Application of Not
1.110 Accept Ho
Google Significant
SD 0.55 0.42 0.51 0.79
Classroom
F-Critical/Tabular Value at 0.05 Level of Significance () =2.683
Legend:
A → 21 – 30

B → 31 – 40

C → 41 – 50
D → 51 – 60

In terms of assessment tool, the average weighted means of the level of

application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according to

age were 4.50, 4.50, 4.48, and 4.21 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.56, 0.45,
0.51, and 0.75 respectively, resulted to F-value of 1.210. Since the computed F-

value (1.210) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of significance,

hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant

difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google

Classroom as to assessment tool when grouped according to their age.

In terms of feedback instrument, the average weighted means of the level

of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according

to age were 4.46, 4.57, 4.36, and 4.16 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.57, 0.46,

0.61, and 0.92 respectively, resulted to F-value of 1.989. Since the computed F-

value (1.989) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of significance,

hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant

difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google

Classroom as to feedback instrument when grouped according to their age.

In terms of learning management system, the average weighted means of

the level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to age were 4.44, 4.60, 4.47, and 4.23 with standard deviation (SD) of

0.57, 0.48, 0.52, and 1.04 respectively, resulted to F-value of 1.460. Since the

computed F-value (1.460) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was

no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application

of Google Classroom as to learning management system when grouped according

to their age.

In terms of medium of communication, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to age were 4.43, 4.48, 4.48, and 4.30 with standard deviation (SD) of

0.56, 0.50, 0.55, and 0.78 respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.428. Since the

computed F-value (0.428) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was

no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application

of Google Classroom as to medium of communication when grouped according to

their age.

In terms of teaching delivery method, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to age were 4.46, 4.59, 4.51, and 4.38 with standard deviation (SD) of

0.58, 0.45, 0.52, and 0.75 respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.669. Since the

computed F-value (0.669) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was

no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application

of Google Classroom as to teaching delivery method when grouped according to

their age.
In general, the average weighted means of the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their age

were 4.46, 4.55, 4.46 and 4.26 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.55, 0.42, 0.51,

and 0.79 respectively, resulted to F-value of 1.110. Since the computed F-value

(1.110) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of significance, hence,

the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant

difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google

Classroom when grouped according to age.

Table 5.2 shows the result of testing the significant difference on the level

of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their sex. It

presents the average weighted mean of level of application of Google Classroom

as assessed by teachers grouped by sex, the computed f-value, the decision, and

remarks.

The level of application of Google Classroom was in terms of assessment

tool, feedback instrument, learning management system, medium of

communication, and teaching delivery method while the groups of sex were female

and male.
Table 5.2
Significant Difference on the Assessment of the Respondents on the Level
of Application of Google Classroom when Grouped According to Sex

Mean Group Computed

Indicators Decision Remarks
SD A B F-Value
Mean 4.49 4.37
1.219 Not
Assessment Tool Accept Ho
Significant
SD 0.49 0.63

Mean 4.42 4.49

0.334 Not
Feedback Instrument Accept Ho
Significant
SD 0.61 0.60

Mean 4.49 4.46

Learning Management 0.044 Not
Accept Ho
System Significant
SD 0.60 0.64

Mean 4.44 4.45

Medium of 0.008 Not
Accept Ho
Communication Significant
SD 0.54 0.63

Mean 4.52 4.48

Teaching Delivery 0.119 Not
Accept Ho
Method Significant
SD 0.51 0.63

Mean 4.47 4.45

Level of Application of 0.036 Not
Accept Ho
Google Classroom Significant
SD 0.50 0.61

F-Critical/Tabular Value at 0.05 Level of Significance ( ) =3.921

Legend:
A → Female
B → Male

In terms of assessment tool, the average weighted means of the level of

application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according to

sex were 4.49 and 4.37 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.49 and 0.63 respectively,
resulted to F-value of 1.219. Since the computed F-value (1.219) is less than the

F-critical value (3.921) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis

should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference on the

respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as to

assessment tool when grouped according to their sex.

In terms of feedback instrument, the average weighted means of the level

of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according

to sex were 4.42 and 4.49 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.61 and 0.60

respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.334. Since the computed F-value (0.334) is

less than the F-critical value (3.921) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null

hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference on

the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as

to feedback instrument when grouped according to their sex.

In terms of learning management system, the average weighted means of

the level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to sex were 4.49 4.46 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.60 and 0.64

respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.044. Since the computed F-value (0.004) is

less than the F-critical value (3.921) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null

hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference on

the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as

to learning management system when grouped according to their sex.

In terms of medium of communication, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to sex were 4.44 and 4.45 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.54 and 0.63

respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.008. Since the computed F-value (0.008) is

less than the F-critical value (3.921) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null

hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference on

the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as

to medium of communication when grouped according to their sex.

In terms of teaching delivery method, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to sex were 4.52 and 4.48 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.51 and 0.63

respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.119. Since the computed F-value (0.119) is

less than the F-critical value (3.921) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null

hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference on

the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom as

to teaching delivery method when grouped according to their sex.

In general, the average weighted means of the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their sex
were 4.47 and 4.45 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.50 and 0.61 respectively,

resulted to F-value of 0.036. Since the computed F-value (0.036) is less than the

F-critical value (3.921) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis

should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant difference on the

respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google Classroom when

grouped according to sex.

Table 5.3 shows the result of testing the significant difference on the level

of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their marital status.

It presents the average weighted mean of level of application of Google Classroom

as assessed by teachers grouped by marital status, the computed f-value, the

decision, and remarks.

The level of application of Google Classroom was in terms of assessment

tool, feedback instrument, learning management system, medium of

communication, and teaching delivery method while the groups of marital status

were single, married, separated, and widow.

Table 5.3
Significant Difference on the Assessment of the Respondents on the Level
of Application of Google Classroom when Grouped According to
Marital Status

Mean Group Computed

Indicators Decision Remarks
SD A B C D F-Value

Mean 4.37 4.50 5.00 4.33 1.220

Assessment Not
Accept Ho
Tool Significant
SD 0.53 0.54 0 0.38

Mean 4.40 4.45 5.00 4.27

Feedback 0.721 Not
Accept Ho
Instrument Significant
SD 0.56 0.64 0 0.67

Learning Mean 4.48 4.47 5.00 4.30 0.572 Not

Management Accept Ho
Significant
System SD 0.58 0.64 0 0.46

Medium of Mean 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.27 0.099 Not

Communicatio Accept Ho
Significant
n SD 0.55 0.59 0.78 0.46

Teaching Mean 4.46 4.54 4.45 4.40 0.238 Not

Delivery Accept Ho
Significant
Method SD 0.58 0.53 0.78 0.46
Level of
Mean 4.43 4.48 4.78 4.31
Application of Not
0.384 Accept Ho
Google Significant
SD 0.54 0.54 0.31 0.45
Classroom
F-Critical/Tabular Value at 0.05 Level of Significance () =2.683
Legend:
A → Single
B → Married
C → Separated
D → Widow

In terms of assessment tool, the average weighted means of the level of

application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according to

marital status were 4.37, 4.50, 5.00, and 4.33 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.53,

0.54, 0.00, and 0.38 respectively, resulted to F-value of 1.220. Since the computed

F-value (1.220) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of significance,

hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant

difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google

Classroom as to assessment tool when grouped according to their marital status.

In terms of feedback instrument, the average weighted means of the level

of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according

to marital status were 4.40, 4.45, 5.00, and 4.27 with standard deviation (SD) of

0.56, 0.64, 0.00, and 0.67 respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.721. Since the

computed F-value (0.721) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was

no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application

of Google Classroom as to feedback instrument when grouped according to their

marital status.

In terms of learning management system, the average weighted means of

the level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to marital status were 4.48, 4.47, 5.00, and 4.30 with standard deviation

(SD) of 0.58, 0.64, 0.00, and 0.46 respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.572. Since

the computed F-value (0.572) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level
of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there

was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of

application of Google Classroom as to learning management system when

grouped according to their marital status.

In terms of medium of communication, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to marital status were 4.45, 4.45, 4.45, and 4.27 with standard deviation

(SD) of 0.55, 0.59, 0.78, and 0.46 respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.099. Since

the computed F-value (0.099) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level

of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there

was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of

application of Google Classroom as to medium of communication when grouped

according to their marital status.

In terms of teaching delivery method, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to marital status were 4.46, 4.54, 4.45, and 4.40 with standard deviation

(SD) of 0.58, 0.53, 0.78, and 0.46 respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.238. Since

the computed F-value (0.238) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level

of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there

was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of

application of Google Classroom as to teaching delivery method when grouped

according to their marital status.

In general, the average weighted means of the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their

marital status were 4.43, 4.48, 4.78, and 4.31 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.54,

0.54, 0.31, and 0.45 respectively, resulted to F-value of 0.384. Since the computed

F-value (0.384) is less than the F-critical value (2.683) at 0.05 level of significance,

hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was no significant

difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application of Google

Classroom when grouped according to marital status.

Table 5.4 shows the result of testing the significant difference on the level

of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their highest

educational attainment. It presents the average weighted mean of level of

application of Google Classroom as assessed by teachers grouped by highest

educational attainment, the computed f-value, the decision, and remarks.

Table 5.4
Significant Difference on the Assessment of the Respondents on the Level
of Application of Google Classroom when Grouped According to Highest
Educational Attainment

Mean Group Computed

Indicators Decision Remarks
SD A B C D F-Value

Mean 4.45 4.46 4.52 4.43 0.027

Assessment Not
Accept Ho
Tool Significant
SD 0.54 0.55 0.50 0.49

Mean 4.40 4.50 4.42 3.77

Feedback 1.535 Not
Accept Ho
Instrument Significant
SD 0.57 0.59 0.53 1.31

Learning Mean 4.43 4.54 4.44 3.80

1.606 Not
Management Accept Ho
Significant
System SD 0.55 0.56 0.52 1.99

Medium of Mean 4.38 4.48 4.60 4.40

0.409 Not
Communicati Accept Ho
Significant
on SD 0.55 0.58 0.55 0.72

Teaching Mean 4.45 4.55 4.48 4.57

0.313 Not
Delivery Accept Ho
Significant
Method SD 0.56 0.54 0.44 0.59
Level of
Mean 4.42 4.51 4.49 4.19
Application of Not
0.484 Accept Ho
Google Significant
SD 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.96
Classroom
F-Critical/Tabular Value at 0.05 Level of Significance () =2.683
Legend:
A → Bachelor’s degree
B → Bachelor’s degree with MA/MS Units
C → MA/MS Degree
D → MA/MS Degree with PhD/EdD Units
The level of application of Google Classroom was in terms of assessment

tool, feedback instrument, learning management system, medium of

communication, and teaching delivery method while the groups of highest

educational attainment were bachelor’s degree, bachelor’s degree with MA/MS

units, MA/MS degree, and MA/MS Degree with PhD/EdD Units.

In terms of assessment tool, the average weighted means of the level of

application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according to

highest educational attainment were 4.45, 4.46, 4.52, and 4.43 with standard

deviation (SD) of 0.54, 0.55, 0.50, and 0.49 respectively, resulted to F-value of

0.027. Since the computed F-value (0.027) is less than the F-critical value (2.683)

at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted.

Therefore, there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom as to assessment tool when grouped

according to their highest educational attainment.

In terms of feedback instrument, the average weighted means of the level

of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according

to highest educational attainment were 4.40, 4.50, 4.42, and 3.77 with standard

deviation (SD) of 0.57, 0.59, 0.53, and 1.31 respectively, resulted to F-value of

1.535. Since the computed F-value (1.535) is less than the F-critical value (2.683)

at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted.

Therefore, there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom as to feedback instrument when

grouped according to their highest educational attainment.

In terms of learning management system, the average weighted means of

the level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to highest educational attainment were 4.43, 4.54, 4.44, and 3.80 with

standard deviation (SD) of 0.55, 0.56, 0.52, and 1.99 respectively, resulted to F-

value of 1.606. Since the computed F-value (1.606) is less than the F-critical value

(2.683) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted.

Therefore, there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom as to learning management system

when grouped according to their highest educational attainment.

In terms of medium of communication, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to highest educational attainment were 4.38, 4.48, 4.60, and 4.40 with

standard deviation (SD) of 0.55, 0.58, 0.55, and 0.72 respectively, resulted to F-

value of 0.409. Since the computed F-value (0.409) is less than the F-critical value

(2.683) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted.

Therefore, there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom as to medium of communication when

grouped according to their highest educational attainment.

In terms of teaching delivery method, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to highest educational attainment were 4.45, 4.55, 4.48, and 4.57 with

standard deviation (SD) of 0.56, 0.54, 0.44, and 0.59 respectively, resulted to F-

value of 0.313. Since the computed F-value (0.313) is less than the F-critical value

(2.683) at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted.

Therefore, there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom as to teaching delivery method when

grouped according to their highest educational attainment.

In general, the average weighted means of the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their

highest educational attainment were 4.42, 4.51, 4.49, and 4.19 with standard

deviation (SD) of 0.53, 0.53, 0.47, and 0.96 respectively, resulted to F-value of

0.484. Since the computed F-value (0.484) is less than the F-critical value (2.683)

at 0.05 level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted.

Therefore, there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to highest

educational attainment.
Table 5.5
Significant Difference on the Assessment of the Respondents on the Level
of Application of Google Classroom when Grouped According to Number
of Years in Teaching

Mean Group Computed

Indicators Decision Remarks
SD A B C F – Value

Mean 4.50 4.52 4.21 2.326 Not

Assessment Tool Accept Ho
Significant
SD 0.48 0.57 0.66

Mean 4.49 4.55 4.04

Feedback 4.830
Reject Ho Significant
Instrument
SD 0.51 0.63 0.82

Learning Mean 4.51 4.60 4.18 2.857 Not

Management Accept Ho
Significant
System SD 0.51 0.56 0.93

Mean 4.48 4.49 4.24 1.408

Medium of Not
Accept Ho
Communication Significant
SD 0.51 0.62 0.69

Mean 4.54 4.54 4.31 1.387

Teaching Delivery Not
Accept Ho
Method Significant
SD 0.49 0.62 0.62

Level of Application Mean 4.50 4.54 4.20

Not
of Google 2.795 Accept Ho
Significant
Classroom SD 0.47 0.56 0.69

F-Critical/Tabular Value at 0.05 Level of Significance () =3.074

Legend:
A → 10 years & below
B → 11 – 20
C → 21 years & above

Table 5.5 shows the result of testing the significant difference on the level

of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their number of

years in teaching. It presents the average weighted mean of level of application of

Google Classroom as assessed by teachers grouped by number of years in

teaching, the computed f-value, the decision, and remarks.

The level of application of Google Classroom was in terms of assessment

tool, feedback instrument, learning management system, medium of

communication, and teaching delivery method while the groups of number of years

in teaching were 10 years and below, 11-20 years, and 21 years and above.

In terms of assessment tool, the average weighted means of the level of

application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according to

number of years in teaching were 4.50, 4.52, and 4.21 with standard deviation (SD)

of 0.48, 0.57, and 0.66 respectively, resulted to F-value of 2.326. Since the

computed F-value (2.326) is less than the F-critical value (3.074) at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was

no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application

of Google Classroom as to assessment tool when grouped according to their

number of years in teaching.

In terms of feedback instrument, the average weighted means of the level

of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped according

to number of years in teaching were 4.49, 4.55, and 4.04 with standard deviation

(SD) of 0.51, 0.63, and 0.82 respectively, resulted to F-value of 4.830. Since the
computed F-value (4.830) is less than the F-critical value (3.074) at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was

no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application

of Google Classroom as to feedback instrument when grouped according to their

number of years in teaching.

In terms of learning management system, the average weighted means of

the level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to number of years in teaching were 4.51, 4.60, and 4.18 with standard

deviation (SD) of 0.51, 0.56 and 0.93 respectively, resulted to F-value of 2.857.

Since the computed F-value (2.857) is less than the F-critical value (3.074) at 0.05

level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore,

there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of

application of Google Classroom as to learning management system when

grouped according to their number of years in teaching.

In terms of medium of communication, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to number of years in teaching were 4.48, 4.49 and 4.24 with standard

deviation (SD) of 0.51, 0.62 and 0.69 respectively, resulted to F-value of 1.408.

Since the computed F-value (1.408) is less than the F-critical value (3.074) at 0.05

level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore,

there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of

application of Google Classroom as to medium of communication when grouped

according to their number of years in teaching.

In terms of teaching delivery method, the average weighted means of the

level of application of Google Classroom assessed by the teachers grouped

according to number of years in teaching were 4.54, 4.54, and 4.31 with standard

deviation (SD) of 0.49, 0.62, and 0.62 respectively, resulted to F-value of 1.387.

Since the computed F-value (1.387) is less than the F-critical value (3.074) at 0.05

level of significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore,

there was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of

application of Google Classroom as to teaching delivery method when grouped

according to their number of years in teaching.

In general, the average weighted means of the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their

number of years in teaching were 4.50, 4.54, and 4.20 with standard deviation (SD)

of 0.47, 0.56, and 0.69 respectively, resulted to F-value of 2.795. Since the

computed F-value (2.795) is less than the F-critical value (3.074) at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted. Therefore, there was

no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the level of application

of Google Classroom when grouped according to number of years in teaching.

Question No. 6 What are the problems encountered by the teacher-respondents

on the application of Google Classroom?

Table 6
Problems Encountered by the Respondents on the Application of
Google Classroom as a Digital Tool in Teaching and Learning

Indicators WM VI R

1. High consumption of internet connection. 3.79 S 8

2. Adaptability to uncertain, sudden, and
3.81 S 7
constant technical problems.
3. Lack of gadget, computers, or digital tools. 4.03 S 4
4. Difficulty by the students in using Google
3.73 S 10
Classroom and other Google applications
5. Lack of training of teachers on the
application of Google Workspace such as 3.78 S 9
Google Classroom
6. Few numbers of student-participants in
4.08 S 3
Google Classroom.
7. Lack of motivation and interest in students. 3.95 S 5

8. Loss of classroom or students’ control. 4.11 S 1

9. Problem on assessing and validating
4.09 S 2
students’ work if it is created by them truly.
10. Lack of adequate support system in the
3.83 S 6
school.
Average Weighted Mean 3.92 S
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Highly Serious (HS)
3.40 - 4.19 → Serious (S)
2.60 - 3.39 → Moderately Serious (MS)
1.80 - 2.59 → Less Serious (MS)
1.00 - 1.79 → Not Serious (NS)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
Table 6 displays the problems encountered by the teacher-respondents

about the application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and

learning. The problems listed were typically regarded as Serious with an average

weighted mean of 3.92.

Among them, the problems that regarded as the top “Serious” was “Loss of

classroom or students’ control”, rank 1 with a weighted mean of 4.11. Secondly,

the problem, “Problem on assessing and validating students’ work if it is created

by them truly”, obtained rank 2 with a weighted mean of 4.09, verbally interpreted

as “Serious”. It is followed by the indicator, “Few numbers of student-participants

in Google Classroom”, rank 3 having a weighted mean of 4.08 verbally interpreted

as “Serious”. Rank 4 with a weighted mean of 4.03 was the indicator “Lack of

gadget, computers, or digital tools”, verbally interpreted as “Serious”. Rank 5 with

a weighted mean of 3.95 was the indicator, “Lack of motivation and interest in

students”, verbally interpreted as “Serious”.

The indicator, “Lack of adequate support system in the school” obtained

rank 6 with a weighted mean of 3.83, followed by rank 7 indicator “Adaptability to

uncertain, sudden, and constant technical problems”, with a weighted mean of 3.81

both verbally interpreted as “Serious”. Rank 8 with a weighted mean of 3.79 was

the indicator “High consumption of internet connection”, verbally interpreted as

“Serious”. The indicator, “Lack of training of teachers on the application of Google

Workspace such as Google Classroom” was rank 9 with a weighted mean of 3.78,

verbally described as “Serious”. Lastly, rank 10 was “Difficulty by the students in

using Google Classroom and other Google applications”, with a weighted mean of

3.73 and verbally described as “Serious”.

It can be depicted from the table that the most common problems

encountered by the teachers on the application of Google Classroom as a digital

tool in teaching and learning are loss of classroom or students’ control. It is also a

serious problem with assessing and validating students’ work if it is created by

them truly. Most of the time, there were few numbers of student-participants in

Google Classroom because some students are lack of gadget, computers, or

digital tools.

Question No. 7 What are the proposed solutions to the problems encountered by

the respondents?

Table 7 presents proposed solutions to address the problems encountered

on the application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning.

They were commonly viewed as Highly Recommended with an average weighted

mean of 4.22. Six indicators were highly recommended while other four indicators

were more recommended as assessed by the teacher-respondents.

Table 7
Proposed Solutions to the Problems Encountered by the Respondents

Indicators WM VI R
1. Initiate the launching of WIFI or internet
4.33 HR 2
connections within the district/division.
2. Provide technical support for teachers. 4.31 HR 3
3. Ask support from internal/external
stakeholders for the distribution of digital 4.28 HR 4.5
learning tools.
4. Conduct an orientation, seminar, or
standardized recorded video on the use of 4.12 MR 8
Google applications.
5. Carry out demonstration teaching simulations
on the use of Google Classroom and other 4.08 MR 9
Google Workspace applications.
6. Develop interventions or strategies to increase
the attendance and enable the students to 4.26 HR 6
access Google Classroom
7. Give reinforcements and rewards for students
4.28 HR 4.5
to be motivated.
8. Explore and be equipped with the features of
Google Classroom and Google applications 4.17 MR 7
very well.
9. Use rubrics for grading and criteria for
4.41 HR 1
evaluating students’ work.
10. Ask the school administration to provide
adequate technological support system for 3.95 MR 10
using online teaching-learning platforms.
Average Weighted Mean 4.22 HR
Legend:
4.20 - 5.00 → Highly Recommended (HR)
3.40 - 4.19 → Moderately Recommended (MR)
2.60 - 3.39 → Recommended (R)
1.80 - 2.59 → Less Recommended (LR)
1.00 - 1.79 → Not Recommended (NR)
WM → Weighted Mean
VI → Verbal Interpretation
R → Rank
The solution that is regarded as the most “Highly Recommended” and

obtained the highest weighted mean of 4.41 was “Use rubrics for grading and

criteria for evaluating students’ work”. Secondly, rank 2 with a weighted mean of

4.33 and interpreted as “Highly Recommended” solution was “Initiate the launching

of WIFI or internet connections within the district/division”. Rank 3 with weighted

mean of 4.31 and interpretation of “Highly Recommended” was “Provide technical

support for teachers”. Rank 4.5 with a weighted mean of 4.28 and interpretation of

“Highly Recommended” were the indicators, “3. Ask support from internal/external

stakeholders for the distribution of digital learning tools” and “Give reinforcements

and rewards for students to be motivated”.

The indicator “Develop interventions or strategies to increase the

attendance and enable the students to access Google Classroom”, obtained rank

6 with a weighted mean of 4.26 and verbally equivalent to “Highly Recommended”.

Rank 7 which obtained a weighted mean of 4.17 was “Explore and be equipped

with the features of Google Classroom and Google applications very well”, verbally

interpreted as “More Recommended”. Rank 8 which obtained a weighted mean of

4.12 was “Conduct an orientation, seminar, or standardized recorded video on the

use of Google applications”, verbally interpreted as “More Recommended”. Rank

9 which obtained a weighted mean of 4.08 was “Carry out demonstration teaching

simulations on the use of Google Classroom and other Google Workspace

applications”, verbally interpreted as “More Recommended”. Lastly, rank 10 with a

weighted mean of 3.95 and verbal interpretation of “More Recommended” was the

solution “Ask the school administration to provide adequate technological support

system for using online teaching-learning platforms”.

Based on the results, the proposed solutions of the teacher-respondents to

the problems encountered on the application of Google Classroom were the use

of rubrics for grading and criteria for evaluating students’ work. The division and

local government unit are called to initiate the launching of WIFI or internet

connections within the district/division. The school should provide technical

support to teachers on the application of Google Classroom.

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This final chapter presents the summary and highlights of the findings in

response to specific questions relevant to the problem, the conclusions that have

been drawn from analysis of data, and the recommendations that were regarded

as feasible for future considerations.

This study primarily aimed to assess the application of Google Classroom

as a digital tool in teaching and learning and its relation to learners’ achievement

and engagement at public secondary schools in the Division of Navotas.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the teacher-respondents in terms of:

1.1 age;

1.2 sex;

1.3 marital status;

1.4 highest educational attainment; and,

1.5 number of years in teaching?

2. What is the level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching

and learning as to the following aspects:

2.1 assessment tool;

2.2 feedback instrument;

2.3 learning management system;

2.4 medium of communication; and

2.5 teaching delivery method?

3. What is the level of achievement and engagement of students when using

Google Classroom in terms of:

3.1 assignments and quizzes;

3.2 integrative assessment;

3.3 learning activities;

3.4 online class discussion; and

3.5 performance tasks?

4. Is there a significant relationship between the level of application of Google

Classroom and the level of achievement and engagement of students?

5. Is there a significant difference on the assessment of the respondents on the

level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their profile?

6. What are the problems encountered by the respondents on the application of

Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning?

7. What solutions may be suggested by the respondents to address the problems

encountered on the use of Google Classroom?

Null Hypotheses

The null hypotheses of the study were tested at 0.05 level of significance,

stated as follow:

1. There is no significant relationship between the level of application of Google

Classroom and the level of achievement and engagement of students.

2. There is no significant difference on the assessment of the respondents on the

level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their profile.

The contents of the study were delimited to the applicability of Google

Classroom as a digital tool (independent variable) and the learners’ achievement

and engagement (dependent variable). The scope of this study was delimited to

120 public secondary school teachers in the Division of Navotas who were

identified users of Google Classroom (those who are using Google Classroom as

a digital tool in their teaching).

The study employed descriptive-survey research design. The respondents

of the study were total of one hundred twenty (120) teachers from the seven public

secondary schools in the Division of Navotas namely, Kaunlaran High School

(KHS), Navotas National High School (NNHS), Navotas Science High School

(NavSci), San Roque National High School (SRNHS), San Rafael Technological
Vocational High School (SRTVHS), Tangos National High School (TNHS), and

Tanza National High School (TzNHS).

The main research instrument used in the study was a survey

questionnaire. The survey was divided into five sections. The first section was

intended to elicit the demographic profile of the respondents as to their age, sex,

marital status, highest educational attainment, and number of years in teaching.

The second section contained 50-item Likert scale questions to determine the level

of application of the use of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and

learning in terms of assessment tool, feedback instrument, learning management

system, medium of communication, and teaching delivery method. The third

section contained 50-item Likert scale questions to determine the level of

achievement and engagement of students when using Google Classroom in terms

of assignments and quizzes, integrative assessment, learning activities, online

class discussion, and performance task. The fourth section contained 10-item

Likert scale questions on the problems encountered by the respondents on the

application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning. The fifth

part involved 10-item proposed solutions to the problems encountered as

assessed by the respondents.

The summary of data was organized and presented in tabular form for the

purpose of interpretation. The summary of responses were downloaded to Google

Forms in an Excel format. The data gathered through the questionnaire were

analyzed and interpreted using the following statistical techniques: frequency,

percentage, ranking, weighted mean, one-way ANOVA, Pearson Product Moment

correlation and t-test for testing the significant relationship.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The following findings were revealed in the study:

1. Profile of the Respondents:

1.1 Age

Out of 120 respondents, most of them, with frequency of 42 or

35.00% were 31 to 40 years old followed by 33 or 27.50% who were 41 to

50 years old.

1.2 Gender

Out of 120 respondents, 85 or 70.83% were female, while 35 or

29.17% were male. Hence, the dominated sex among the respondents were

female.

1.3 Civil Status

Most of the teacher-respondents’ civil status with the highest

frequency of 73 or 60.83% who were married while 42 or 35.00% were

single.
1.4 Highest Educational Attainment

Majority of the respondents with frequency of 65 or 54.17% were

bachelor’s degree graduate with MA/MS units. Forty-seven (47) or 39.17%

were bachelor’s degree graduate, and 5 or 4.17% were MA/MS degree

graduate.

1.5 Number of Years in Teaching

Highest percentage of the respondents with 65.00% or 78 out of 120

respondents have been teaching for 10 years and below. Then, 24 or

20.00% have length of teaching for 11 to 20 years, while 18 or 15.00% of

the respondents were in the teaching service for 21 years and above.

2. Level of Application of Google Classroom as a Digital Tool in Teaching

and Learning

The level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching

and learning as assessed by the teacher-respondents in terms of assessment tool,

feedback instrument, learning management system, medium of communication,

and teaching delivery method were verbally interpreted as “Very Applicable” with

composite weighted mean of 4.46. The first most very applicable was the teaching

delivery method with weighted mean of 4.51, followed by learning management

system with a weighted mean of 4.48.

2.1 Assessment Tool

The level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching

and learning in terms of assessment tool were regarded, in average, as “Very

Applicable” with an average weighted mean of 4.46. The first rank with weighted

mean of 4.54 and interpreted as “Very Applicable” was the indicator “Helps to

monitor students’ progress”. It is followed by rank 2 indicator, “Makes possible to

grade or assess students’ work quickly”, with weighted mean of 4.52 equivalently

interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

2.2 Feedback Instrument

The level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching

and learning in terms of feedback instrument were regarded, in average, as “Very

Applicable” with an average weighted mean of 4.44. The indicators, “Can add and

leave comments on student work”, “Enables teachers to provide feedback through

comments on the documents uploaded by the students”, and “Uses as an

instrument to give feedback to students’ work”, were rank 2 with weighted mean of

4.47 and interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

2.3 Learning Management System

The level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching

and learning in terms of learning management system were regarded, in average,

as “Very Applicable” with an average weighted mean of 4.48. The first rank with
weighted mean of 4.52 and interpreted as “Very Applicable” was the indicator

“Offers platform to teach the students in a distance learning”. It is followed by rank

3 indicators, “Enables students to access the platform in any devices (e.g.

computers, tablets, and smartphones)”, “Creates online classrooms for sharing the

learning materials for downloading and viewing”, and “Let the teachers monitor and

track learners’ progress in their subject”, with weighted mean of 4.50 equivalently

interpreted as “Very Applicable”.

2.4 Medium of Communication

The level of application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching

and learning in terms of medium of communication were regarded, in average, as

“Very Applicable” with an average weighted mean of 4.44. The first rank with

weighted mean of 4.50 and interpreted as “Very Applicable” was the indicator

“Qualifies the students, teachers, and parents to communicate and engage”. It is

followed by rank 2 indicator, “Allows the use of video conferencing and live chat or

instant messaging”, with weighted mean of 4.49 equivalently interpreted as “Very

Applicable”.

3. Level of Achievement and Engagement of Students When Using Google

Classroom

The level of achievement and engagement of students when using Google

Classroom as assessed by the respondents was very satisfactory with composite

weighted mean of 4.32. Students are mostly very satisfactory in terms of

assignments and quizzes followed by learning activities and online class

discussions with weighted mean of 4.34 and 4.33 respectively.

3.1 Assignments and Quizzes

The level of achievement and engagement of students when using Google

Classroom in terms of assignment and quizzes were regarded, in average, as

“Very Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of 4.34. The first rank with

weighted mean of 4.42 and interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator

“Monitor self-progress through answering”. It is followed by rank 3 indicators,

“Include all the required elements in the assignment, and quizzes”, “Present clear,

orderly, and logical work”, and “Abide by the instructions in the written work,

assignments, and quizzes”, with weighted mean of 4.37 equivalently interpreted

as “Very Satisfactory”.

3.2 Integrative Assessment

The level of achievement and engagement of students when using Google

Classroom in terms of integrative assessment were regarded, in average, as “Very

Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of 4.32. The first rank with weighted

mean of 4.34 and interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator “Consider

multiple perspectives and considerations in the task output”. It is followed by rank

3.5 indicators which include: “Reflect in-depth engagement with the topic in the
task”, “Integrate the competencies learned in the subjects”, “Apply the learning in

finishing the task”, and “Demonstrate understanding of the task”, with weighted

mean of 4.33 equivalently interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”.

3.3 Learning Activities

The level of achievement and engagement of students when using Google

Classroom in terms of learning activities were regarded, in average, as “Very

Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of 4.33. The first rank with weighted

mean of 4.37 and interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator “Engage with

the learning activities individually or by group”. It is followed by rank 2.5 indicators,

“Contain illustrations or diagrams in the learning activities as needed” and “Explore

ideas and support the points in the learning activities fully”, with weighted mean of

4.36 equivalently interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”.

3.4 Online Class Discussions

The level of achievement and engagement of students when using Google

Classroom in terms of online class discussions were regarded, in average, as

“Very Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of 4.33. The first rank with

weighted mean of 4.36 and interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator

“Make online comments that are informative and original”. It is followed by rank 2

indicator, “Participate and collaborate in online discussion”, with weighted mean of

4.35 equivalently interpreted as “Very Satisfactory”.

3.5 Performance Tasks

The level of achievement and engagement of students when using Google

Classroom in terms of performance tasks were regarded, in average, as “Very

Satisfactory” with an average weighted mean of 4.28. The first rank with weighted

mean of 4.31 and interpreted as “Very Satisfactory” was the indicator “Consider

personal experiences and give self-reflection in doing the activity”. It is followed by

rank 3.5 indicators, “Follows procedures or scaffolding of tasks evident in their

output”, “Manifest understanding of the concept presented in the task”, “Follow

correct procedures in presenting the solution”, and “Apply the learning

competencies acquired”, with weighted mean of 4.30 equivalently interpreted as

“Very Satisfactory”.

4. Significant Relationship Between the Effectiveness of Blended Learning

Modality Used by Teachers and the Pupils’ Engagement and Performance

The computed value of the Pearson r was 0.76 indicating that the the level

of application of Google Classroom and the level of achievement and engagement

of students have direct and high relationship. The computed t-value is 3.789, which

is greater than the t-critical value (1.9801). Therefore, there was a significant

relationship between the level of application of Google Classroom and the level of

achievement and engagement of students.

5. Significant Difference on Respondents’ Assessment of the Level When

Grouped According to Profile

There were no significant differences on the respondents’ assessment of

the level of application of Google Classroom when grouped according to their

profile in terms of age, sex, marital status, highest educational attainment, and

number of years of teaching with computed F-values of 1.110, 0.036, 0.384, 0.484

and 2.795 respectively which were less than the F-critical values at 0.05 level of

significance, hence, the null hypothesis was accepted.

6. Problems Encountered by the Teacher- Respondents on the Application

of Google Classroom

The problems encountered by the teacher-respondents about about the

application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning were

typically regarded as Serious with an average weighted mean of 3.92. The problem

that regarded as the top “Serious” was “Loss of classroom or students’ control”,

rank 1 with a weighted mean of 4.11, followed by the problem, “Problem on

assessing and validating students’ work if it is created by them truly”, obtained rank

2 with a weighted mean of 4.09, verbally interpreted as “Serious”.

7. Proposed Solutions to the Problems Encountered by the Respondents

The recommended solutions were commonly viewed as Highly

Recommended with an average weighted mean of 4.22. The solution that is

regarded as the most “Highly Recommended” and obtained the highest weighted

mean of 4.41 was “Use rubrics for grading and criteria for evaluating students’

work”. It is followed by the solution “Initiate the launching of WIFI or internet

connections within the district/division”, rank 2 with a weighted mean of 4.33 and

interpreted as “Highly Recommended”.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concluded the following based on the summary of findings.

1. Majority of the teacher-respondents were at their middle adult age from 31 to

40 years, female, married, bachelor’s degree graduate with MA/MS units and

with 10 years or below in the teaching service.

2. Google Classroom is a highly useful tool for teaching and learning. With

Google Classroom, it is easier to keep track of students' progress, quickly

grade or assess their work, create quizzes with point values, and construct

assessments using Google Forms. Google Classroom is also very applicable

as feedback mechanism. Teachers can give feedback to students on the

documents they submit to Google Classroom by leaving comments on such

documents. As a learning management system, Google Classroom provides

a platform for teachers to instruct students remotely utilizing any technology

and it can be used to set up online classrooms where students can download
and see educational materials, allowing teachers to keep track on their

progress in their topic. Students, teachers, and parents can interact and

communicate using Google Classroom. It permits the usage of live chat and

instant messaging as well as video conferencing. With Google Classroom, it

gives teachers an easy tool for creating prerecorded video lessons for

asynchronous learning. Teachers may schedule video conferences from

Google Classroom for live, or "synchronous," instruction due to its integration

with Google Meet.

3. The students' achievement and engagement levels are quite good when

utilizing Google Classroom, especially for assignments and quizzes. In terms

of integrative assessment, it is quite satisfying when using Google

Classroom. It is also good to use Google Classroom for learning activities.

Students were able to take part in online discussions, contribute innovative

and educational comments, and cooperate with others. Students are able to

reflect on their own experiences while completing activities, present solutions

using the proper format, and apply their newly acquired learning

competencies.

4. There was a significant relationship between the level of application of Google

Classroom and the level of achievement and engagement of students. The

more application of Google Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and

learning, the higher the level of learning achievement and engagement of

students.

5. There was no significant difference on the respondents’ assessment of the

level of application of Google Classroom when they were classified according

to their profile such as age, sex, marital status, highest educational

attainment, and number of years in teaching.

6. The most common problems that teachers face with the application of Google

Classroom as a digital tool in teaching and learning are loss of classroom or

students’ control, problem on assessing and validating students’ work if it is

created by them truly, and few numbers of student-participants in Google

Classroom.

7. To mitigate the problems on the application of Google Classroom as a digital

tool, it is highly recommended to use rubrics for grading and criteria for

evaluating students’ work, to initiate the launching of WIFI or internet

connections within the district/division, and to provide technical support for

teachers.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the conclusions of the study, the following are recommended:

1. The Local Government unit is recommended to initiate the launching of WIFI

or internet connections within the district/division in order to provide or deliver

continuous internet networks accessible to all students.

2. The Education Program Supervisors should consider developing programs

on upskilling the teachers on the use of online learning management system

such as Google Classroom, however, they need to provide interventions and

projects to address the challenges that prevent the teachers from maximizing

the use of available and free online teaching-learning platforms and learning

management system such as Google Classroom.

3. The school is recommended to provide technical assistance to teachers on

the use of various online teaching-learning platforms or a learning

management system like Google Classroom.

4. The school principals are urged to create trainings and activities that will

enhance teaching and learning using the well-known digital platform, Google

Classroom. They may use this study as a starting point for conceiving issues

for the Learning Action Cell, particularly in the area of the teaching and

learning process.
5. The teachers are urged to develop a scoring rubric whenever they are

evaluating their students’ output or work. Even during in-person classes, they

are urged to use Google Classroom as a platform for feedback mechanisms

and as a learning management system.

6. The parents are advised to learn learn how to utilize Google Classroom so

they can keep an eye on their children's submission of work and participation

in class-related activities. Additionally, they can contact teachers and provide

input on their child's progress via Google Classroom.

7. The future researchers should refer to this study as a starting point for their

own research into the creation and validation of learning materials for use in

educating students about ideas relevant to their particular field of study. In

order to acquire more reliable results, they should do a follow-up study with a

larger sample size and more respondents, taking into account how Google

Classroom's features, accessibility, and flexibility may affect how effective it

is for teaching and learning.