Technology and Livelihood Education Teachers’ Competence in Performance Task Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19469987Keywords:
Teacher Competence, Performance Task Development, Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE), Academic Performance, Performance-Based AssessmentAbstract
This study investigated the relationship between Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE) teachers’ competence in performance task development and learners’ academic performance in selected private elementary schools in Bulacan. Employing a mixed-methods research design, the study assessed the competence of early-career TLE teachers across five dimensions: technical competence, teaching pedagogy, practical experience, communication and interpersonal skills, and assessment and evaluation. Data were gathered from teacher-respondents, school leaders, and official academic records for the 2025–2026 school year. Findings revealed that both teachers and school leaders perceived the level of competence as "Highly Competent" across all dimensions, with no significant difference between their assessments. Demographic factors such as age, sex, and teaching experience also showed no significant influence on competence levels. While learners' academic performance was generally "Above Average," correlation analysis yielded a very weak, non-significant relationship (r = 0.030, p = 0.817) between teacher competence and student grades. Qualitative themes highlighted manageable challenges, including time constraints and limited resources, which teachers addressed through differentiated instruction and alternative materials. The study concludes that while teacher competence is a vital instructional component, learner outcomes are influenced by a complex interplay of factors beyond teaching skills alone. A proposed program of activities focuses on continuous professional development, rubric refinement, and enhanced instructional supervision to further strengthen TLE performance-based instruction.
Downloads
References
Akiba, M., & Liang, G. (2022). Effects of teacher professional learning on improving teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103547.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2021). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(1), 1–25.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.
Brookhart, S. M. (2023). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Bryman, A. (2021). Social research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Research methods in education (9th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2020). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272.
Department of Education. (2020). Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 basic education program. Department of Education.
Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2021). Best practices in teachers’ professional development. Educational Researcher, 50(3), 123–135.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156.
Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2020). Utilizing a mixed methods approach for research integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(2), 131–138.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2022). School engagement: Potential of the concept and state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 59–109.
Guiquing, F. (2024). Competencies of technology and livelihood education teachers. International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education, 5(2), 295–305.
Guskey, T. R. (2020). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge.
Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2021). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of the research. Learning Policy Institute.
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.
Lucas, B., Spencer, E., & Claxton, G. (2021). How to teach vocational education: A theory of vocational pedagogy. City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2021). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical step-by-step guide. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 3351–33514.
Ocampo, D. M., & Cabardo, J. R. O. (2021). Teaching competence of Technology and Livelihood Education teachers in selected secondary schools in the Philippines. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(5), 1–16.
Ocomen, J., De Asis, R., & Hernaez, M. (2025). Readiness of technology and livelihood education teachers in addressing 21st century learning competencies. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 17(2), 78–92.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing.
Panadero, E., & Andrade, H. (2022). A review of self-regulated learning and formative assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 105–129.
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2022). Effects of rubric use on student performance and self-regulation. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 51–75.
Santiago, M. A., & Bautista, R. G. (2022). Teachers’ readiness toward the implementation of outcomes-based education in Philippine basic education. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 3(2), 40–58.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2023). Research methods for business students (9th ed.). Pearson.
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2020). Teacher motivation and job satisfaction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 1–22.
UNESCO. (2022). Teachers for education transformation: Global report on teachers. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Wentzel, K. R. (2020). Student motivation and teacher–student relationships. In Handbook of motivation at school. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
