Sei sulla pagina 1di 61

CHAPTER 1

PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

An organization has plenty of opportunities to use technology to achieve a

competitive edge over its competitors. Information technology can give a

company ready access to improve product and service quality, reduce costs,

increase productivity, aid communication between employees, and even improve

company morale.

New Information Technology and its innovations are being discovered and

implemented every day. We know that money invested in Information

Technology responds to competitions and to business problems that yields

tremendous returns, often 50% or more.

Not only are computers and information technology changing the way we

do things. They are changing the functions and purposes of technology-based

products and services. The obvious question is, “If information technology is so

clear in establishing a competitive advantage, why isn’t everybody doing it?”1

There are three primary reasons. First, Information Technology solutions often

are expensive and time consuming. Second, there is usually an element of risk in

the implementation of information technology. Third, the inevitable

implementation of information technology means change.


1
Larry Long & Nancy Long. Computers Information Technology in Perspective 11th and
International Edition. Copyright 2004
The economic environment and intense competition have focused attention on the

computer and information technology resources.


Every day, most of us are directly or indirectly affected by several

information systems. For institution like St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan,

during a typical day, you will probably interact with several information systems,

perhaps with the college online registration system.

St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan is one of the pioneer schools in Region

III in Bulacan, that particularly uses Information Technology in its school

operation. The College Registrar office in particular uses several information

systems such as enrollment system, grading system and transcript of record

system. Although the systems are quite old they are still functional as of the

moment, but the end users are facing several problems.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

“From time to time, organizations need to change their information

systems. The reasons may be the following: (1.) Marketing opportunities, (2.)

Changes in government regulations, (3.) Introduction of new technology, and

(4.) Merger with another company, or other changes”.2

St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan is no exception on this changes.

Although it has an existing system for the college Registrar office, several

complaints have been raised by students against the slow processing of their

2
William, Sawyer, Hutchinson. Using Information Technology. Irwin Mcrow-Hill 2nd.
2000
papers. Upon hearing these complaints the researcher as Information Technology

Education Head, decided to make a study in assessing the effectively of the

services being rendered by the Registrar office to its clientele, particularly the
students. During the preliminary investigations, the researcher found the

following problems: On the part of enrollment system, there are redundancies of

fields on the assessment form such as Handbook fee has been printed twice. It

seen in the other fees and miscellaneous fees. In addition, the Library card fee is

not needed since the college library uses the student’s I.D. as their Library Card

which contains bar code. Incorrect computation of number of units, laboratory

fees, miscellaneous fees, and the tuition fees as well. Only one transaction can be

accommodated by the system during enrollment period. On the part of the

grading system, security is the problem, which incidentally was discovered by one

of the on-the-job-trainees in the Registrar office when the OJT student tried to

display his grade. It was the OJT student who called the attention of the Registrar

that security of the system needs improvement. Aside from this the course

description (course title) is not printed on the grading sheet. On the part of the

Transcript of Record system, the program does not generate the intended output.

Due to the different version of FoxPro programming language, Enrollment system

and Transcript of Record system relational database is not working as intended by

the programmer. The enrollment system was written with FoxPro for DOS while

the latter done in Visual Foxpro. Aside from it other information is missing in the

TOR such as admission status, S.O. number and date issued, grading system

description, credit notes, remarks, and registrar certification portion. Because of

this the Registrar decided to adopt MS-Word by manually typing all grades,

subjects, and semester enrolled by the students which takes longer time to finish a

Transcript of Record. Finally, Grade Evaluation system is done manually using


course curriculum form. Since it is manual, chances are longer time is needed to

finish evaluating one student.

In addition, during the Preliminary investigation the researcher found out

that system’s documentation is missing. Every time the system encountered

problems, the Registrar office must wait for the availability of the programmer.

“When the Registrar asked the administrator about the documentation of the

systems, it has no documentation at all. System documentation is not included in

the contract between the administrator and the programmer.”3

In the assessment done with the researcher using questionnaires, the

respondents (the users and the administrations) confirm the initial findings of the

researcher through unstructured interviewed.

The researcher would like to develop an integrated system for the

Registrar office that comprises the Enrollment, Grading System, Grade

Evaluation, and Transcript of Record Systems.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This study is to assess the effectivity of the existing Registrar’s

Information Systems of St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan that will be used as

input in the development of the enhanced information systems of College

Registrar office. The Researcher’s desire is to enhance all information systems of

the Registrar office and integrate this into one system. The process will start with

the assessment of the current information systems of Registrar office thru

preliminary investigation. The researcher made unstructured interview and


thorough investigation by searching the history of the existing system, looking for

the past study regarding this system and collated the findings. This findings will

be verified thru a survey questionnaires with the direct users of the system, the

Users and Administrators of St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan. From this, the

researcher will identify all the requirements for the proposed information system

that will be used to develop a design the will serve as a prototype model that will

try to solve the findings of the researcher during the investigation. This model

works best in scenarios where not all of the project requirements are known in

detail ahead of trial-and-error process that takes place between the developers and

the users time4. The prototype model will return the design & development stage

repeatedly until the prototype model achieve its goal, a working system with the

good output.

The Testing/Evaluation is the last stage of this study, where the group of

respondents were asked about the operations of Registrar Information Systems.

These groups are the “users” referring to the students, the “Administrators”

referring to the faculty, non-teaching staff and middle administrators, and finally

the “I.T. Experts” referring to the Information Technology people such as

programmers, and I,T. professors and instructors.

4
Lantz, Kenneth. The Prototyping Methodology. [http://www.
manageknowldege.com/prototype.html]. March 2005

The system will be tested on the effectiveness of the information systems using

the following indicators: accuracy, maintainability, users friendliness and

security.
Existing System

Needs Assessment

Requirement

Design

Development

Prototype

Test/Evaluation

Conceptual Paradigm
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

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

a. Group Category
b. Years of Stay at SMCM

2. What is the status of the existing Registrar Information Systems in terms

of : a. Enrolment System

a.1 Assessment and Payment

b. Report Card Generation

c. Transcript of Records System

d. Grade Evaluation System

3. What is the status of the Proposed Registrar Information Systems in terms

of : a. Enrolment System

a.1 Assessment and Payment

b. Report Card Generation

c. Transcript of Records System

d. Grade Evaluation System

4. How effective is the Developed Enhanced Registrar Information Systems

in terms of: a. Accuracy

b. Maintainability

c. User Friendliness

d. Security

5. Is there any significant difference in the assessment Enhanced Registrar

Information Systems of the respondents as to the level of effectiveness

when grouped according to their profile?


SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study will cover only the college department of St. Mary’s College of

Meycauayan. This study focuses on assessing the existing College Registrar’s

Information Systems and it gives emphasis on the major areas of the Registrar

Information Systems such as Enrollment Systems, Report Card Generation,

Transcript of Record, and Grade Evaluation Systems that will lead to the

development of the enhanced Information System. On-line Enrollment System is

not covered in this study.

The proposed enhanced system offers a better version of the existing

system where identified problem will be solved The Enrollment system for

instance, resolved the wrong computation on the tuition fees and other fees during

assessment. The enhanced system also offers a full automation for Transcript of

Record and Grade Evaluation. In addition, the college faculty will now encode

the grades of their respective classes and will be verified by the Registrar and

hers staff. Additional feature on Report Card Generation has been added such

computation of Grade Point Average per grading period.

The target respondents for this study are the Users, the Administrators,

and the I.T. Experts.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is beneficial on the part of the direct recipient, organization,

and the researcher itself.

Direct Recipient
This study will benefit the direct recipient of the system such as the

Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Registrar Clerk, students, faculty, non-teaching

personnel, Administration, parents, and St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan

itself. Likewise, it is expected to provide more accurate, efficient, and timely

information, lessen paper works, helps to improve the present information

systems of the Registrar office, eases record management of students’ records,

lessen the work of the staff, and provide security of files. This research will try to

put together the advantages and benefits of the proposed information systems for

SMCM College Registrar office.

Organization

This study will also benefit SMCM as an organization, for the attainment

of the vision, mission, quality objectives, quality policy and goals of the College

Department in providing quality educational services to its clientele. The study

also generates awareness of the need to assess and improve the student services of

the Registrar’s Office. Likewise it is an added service that may attract

prospective students. A service that will boost the school information technology

capability and will attract future students because of the convenience it will bring

to them when enrolling at SMCM.

Researcher

This study will also benefit the researcher in such a way of being aware of

all the services offered by Office of College Registrar. It will also open an

opportunity of adopting the result of the study by the administration.


This study will also serve as a future reading material by the next

researcher who will conduct related study on Information Systems for the

Registrar Office in the near future.


DEFINITION OF TERMS

Accuracy: The measure of the freedom from errors achieved by a system. It

ensure that the system processes only data values that conform to

specified tolerance.

Computer Literate: a person who knows how to operate the computer.

Effectiveness: a system is effective when it is accurate, maintain, user friendly,

and offer security of information.

Design: A system analysis process in which new or revised system are generated.

Development: A system development process in which a system is actually

being built.

Grade Evaluation Systems: It refers to the grades evaluation of the students.

Maintainability: Software must evolve to meet changing needs.

Needs Assessment : A research study to measure the effectivity of the current

systems to justified the recommendation whether to maintain and

replace the system with new one.

Prototype: A mockup or developmental model of a system for test purposes.

Report Card Management System: It refers to the printing of report card of the

student every grading period.

Record Management: One of the major component of Enhanced Registrar

Information Systems that comprises the following subsystems: Report Card

Generation, Transcript of Records, and Grade Evaluation Systems.

Security: Software must be secure from viruses and computer malfunctions.


Transcript of Records System: It refers to the printing of transcript of records

requested by the students and the alumni.

User Friendliness: System must be easy to use and easy to follow the procedures

or instructions.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE & STUDIES

This chapter aims to provide literature and studies related to the

researcher’s study. Numerous books, magazines, thesis, dissertation and even

world wide web. The researcher tries to find out the relevant issues and

information necessary for the current study.

A. RELATED LITERATURE

Local Literature

The researcher was inspired at the article written by Tumlos regarding

E*Wizard system used by the Trace Computer College in their Enrollment

System. Ms. Sherin Eugion, TRACE’s Marketing and Quality Control Manager

says, “E*Wizard is a comprehensive product which covers all aspects of

enrollment. It will organize and secure all student records. Students will be

assured that all relevant information about them will not be prone to tampering or

any loss since these will be monitored by authorized people in the administration.

The school can also generate these records with much ease, should a student

request for them.”5 Likewise, the researcher of this study would also like to

develop a system the will organize and secure all records SMCM clientele, the

students.

5
Tumlos, Dee (2002) Trace College: Living its Advocacy Through The Implementation
of An Automated Enrollment System Article [online available:
http://sqlwizard.com/main14.html. January 09,2006]
In one of the speaking engagement of Sangalang, “he stressed, that today’s

information technology makes vast amounts of data accessible to higher


educational institutions and their employees. This accessibility provides great

benefits but also creates the potential for misuse of information technology.” 6

The researcher believe that the higher educational institutions are concerned about

the ethical behavior of their employees and the security of their information

systems. Therefore, record managers must be interested in whether they can

influence their employees’ decision to act ethically or unethically. One possible

avenue of action to circumvent this possibility is for higher educational

institutions to establish information security policy that covers code of ethics.

In making this study, the researcher is somewhat confused on what format

would be followed. Although a lot of research format is available not only on the

textbook as well on the internet. Upon attending the 3rd Students Assembly for

Information Technology Education, one of the speaker said, “The problem with

the Information Technology Research paper is the availability of the research

format for IT. No specific written research format for the Information

Technology study are available at the market today.”7 Thru the speaker

presentation in Research Methodology in Information Technology, the researcher

was enlightened and get inspired to finish this study.


6
Sangalang, Dennis Ramiro. Records of Management Policy (Do You Have An Existing
One?). Conference on Maintaining the Integrity of the School Records in the Digitized Age,
Angeles University. January 21, 2005
7
Dr. Allan de Belen de Guzman. Role of Research in Nation Building and Research
Methodology. “3rd Student Assembly on Information Technology Education”.(Seminar, Bataan,
January 28, 2006)
“Many organizations like universities have started to adopt computer-

based system in handling student information. Enrollment system is of the most

widely used computer-based system and had proven to be productive and

effective.”8 The researcher believe that Information Technology can give a

company or organization a lot of opportunities to achieve competitive edge over

its competitors. The researcher also believe that this research study will help St.

Mary’s College of Meycauayan to improve their marketing strategy to attract

more enrollees in the next school year.

An article published by Philippine star stated that De La Salle University

will pioneer an on-line enrollment program in the country as a memorandum of

agreement was signed with Serbisyo Pinoy Solution Incorporation, a leading e-

firm specializing in education software and other applications.9 At the recent list

of Best Performing School in Region 3 which was published by Commission on

Higher Education of National Capital Region, St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan

is belong to top 4 among The Best Performance school in Bulacan. This inspired

the researcher to go on with this study to help school to improved the information

system of the college registrar office.

Universities and Colleges, which are very disciplined and traditional,

cannot remain as they are but must respond to the forces of change. Information

Technology is taking center stage in education because timely information can be


8
Maria Gloria C. Abad. “Applicability of the Developed Computerized Enrollment
System for Selected Private Basic Education Schools in Tanza, Cavite”.(Research Project in MIT,
Adamson University, Manila, March 2004)
9
Mengvi, Gatpandan. “DREY: Enrollment and Grading Systems”. (Unpublished Thesis,
AMACC, 2003)
made available and readily accessible to those who need it. This is made possible

with the incorporation of Information Systems.10

Foreign Literature

The following foreign literature give insight and relevant information to

the researcher to adopt the ideas behind the success of information systems that

has been mentioned in the following articles.

Marketing is the process of putting the right product before the right

audience at the right price (the four P’s; Place, Product, Price, Promotion). In

education, the product is the curriculum. Research shows that most students

leave school during their first year so it is important to “front load” enrollment

system11. With newly revised curriculum for the College department together

with the proposed enhanced system for St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan, the

school is on the right track in putting the right product before the right audience at

the right price.

Enrollment management requires the intersection and cooperation between

different offices and services of the school. An effective enrollment system plan

can only succeed with support from school administrators. 12 Furthermore, for an

enrollment system to be successful there must be commitment to developing,

implementing and evaluating enrollment management strategies.


10
Ofelia M. Carague. “Reinventing Education Through Information Technology”. The Emergence of Schools
of the People: Implications for Educational Policy and Research with Information and Communication Technology in the
Philippine Education. (Manila, Katha Publishing Co. Inc., 2000)
11
John Jantzen. “Enrollment Management: The Model, The Managers, and The Message”. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education 1991. 3(2), 129-139
12
Vincent Tinto. “Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition”.Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press. 1993
“The implementation of the successful enrollment management program requires

cooperation, coordination and teamwork among various campus constituencies.”13


Indeed whatever good information system the school has, it is useless

unless it is properly coordinated among the school officials during its

implementation..

Enrollment system is a comprehensive process designed to help achieve

and maintain optimum enrollment (recruitment, retention, and graduation rates).

It is an institution wide process that permeates virtually every aspect of the

school’s function and culture.14 Every school during the enrollment period

always expects high turnover of enrollees, this will not happen if the enrollment

system of a particular school cannot cope up with the expectation of their

clientele, the students. Chances, next semester unsatisfied students will the leave

the school.

Without a comprehensive strategy to manage enrollment, a school finds it

difficult to increase productivity, service, quality, and competitiveness.15

13
Matthew Townsley. “A Strategic Model for Enrollment Driven Private School”. Journal for Higher Education
Management (Winter/Spring, 1993). S(2), pp. 57-66
14
Daniel John Hossler. “Creating Effective Enrollment Management System”. New York: College Entrance
Examination board, 1986
15
Bernard Konsynski. “Globalization of Information Management Strategies”.Journal of Management of
Information System 7. (Spring 1991),7.
B. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDY

Local Studies
Analyn Alan, et.al16., in their undergraduate feasibility study entitled A

Proposed Computerized Enrolment System for the College Department of St.

Mary’s College of Meycauayan (2001) designed a system that would make the

enrolment system of the said department of the school faster, organized and

accurate. They proposed a paradigm that would show how the registration,

transaction, master files and utilities of the Registrar’s Office more effective and

efficient.
Unfortunately the study does not materialize, the are some problems that

never unleashed like no documentation is available on the existing system. Every

time that system encountered problems the registrar always waiting for the

availability of the programmer to fixed the problem.

Similar study was done by Reyes17, The study was designed for St.

Mary’s College of Meycauayan to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the

current enrollment system. This will serve as basis of the researcher to develop a

new system using Standard Systems, after it has been evaluated. The evaluation

will determine whether the new system is better than the existing system with

regard to its effectiveness, timeliness and over-all quality. The author identified

the following problems during data gathering. The problem started on the

schedule and acceptance of the payment. During the enrollment if the officer-in-
16
Analyn Alan, et.al. “A Proposed Computerized Enrolment System for the College
Department of Saint Mary’s College of Meycauayan”(Project Paper, St. Mary’s College of
Meycauayan, Bulacan, 2001)
17
Joseph Bernard Reyes. “Analysis & Design of a Computer-Based Enrollment
Information System for St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan”. (Project Paper, De La Salle
University.(pp2-3), Manila, 2002)
charge does not accurately keep track of the number of students enrolling in a

specific subject, chances are that the students will have a hard time finding the

right combination of subjects to enroll. If the class will not reach the specified

number of students per class, eventually it will be dissolved and merge with the

same class description and chances are the student will either drop or take the

new schedule of the subject and the students are advised to make a reassessment.

The following are the recommendations of the researcher: First, complete revamp

is not necessary but immediate enhancements for better service and efficiency is

encouraged. Second, the administration should form an Information Technology


(IT) Team to develop an enhanced design for computer-based enrollment

information system and an integrated information system to optimize the use of

the resources. Finally, the new system will enhance the enrollment and system of

payment.

Unfortunately, the study remains a study. It doesn’t have any application

at all. Nevertheless, Reyes study is a great help for this research. The researcher

verifies the findings of the author.

In the study conducted by Abad 18, the computerized enrollment system

was developed in response to the problems encountered in the existing system.

The researcher went through a detailed and thorough investigation that consists

of observing the existing system. In addition, the researcher states that numerous

interviews were conducted not only with the potential users but also with other
18
Maria Gloria C. Abad. “Applicability of the Developed Computerized Enrollment
System for Selected Private Basic Education Schools in Tanza, Cavite”.(Research Project in MIT,
Adamson University, Manila, March 2004)
schools registrar and accounting clerk to collect different enrollment practices and

to come up with current applicable computerized enrollment system that are

suitable for the users.

The researcher went through the same process. A lot of interviews have

been conducted, a lot of books and references have been read, and a lot of surveys

have been conducted in order to get the feedback from the respondents.

In the study conducted by Rollan 19, the researcher assessed the existing

Student Information system for the Graduate School of Education, Arts & Science

(GSEAS) of De La Salle University – Dasmariñas in terms of software capability,


accuracy and user-interface development and the result lead to the development of

new system with the following recommendations from the respondents: On-line

viewing of student records, class schedules, and tuition fees balances, on-line

registration and enrollment, on-line forms (e.g. Request for Student Evaluation,

Certification of Grades, Adding/Dropping forms etc.), use of optical scanner for

the grades of students, adaptation of the database from the Registrar Office for

modeling the official Transcript of Record and incorporation of the developed

system to researcher MY-DLSU Portal.

Among the related study conducted by the researcher, it was found out, the

study of Rollan is the closest to this research. Student Information System is the

integral parts of the this study and like Rollan research the current system was

assessed in terms of software capability, accuracy and user-interface


19
Azenith Mojica Rollan. “Student Information System For The Graduate School of
Education, Arts and Science, De La Salle University for Dasmariñas”. (Project Paper, Adamson
University, Manila). March 2004
development and the result lead to the development of new system.

In the study of Tan20, he focused on how the administration used the

enrollment system in making decisions. Dr. Tan assessed the enrollment system

of a private school particularly on subject scheduling system, admission system,

payment system, encoding system, and its report generation system.

The researcher is also making a similar study regarding the enrollment

system that SMCM administration can also used to make a better decision

whether to adopt it or reject the proposed system.

Foreign Studies
In the study of Lucas and Spitler21, the researcher explores the relevance of

research in implementation and user acceptance given the pervasiveness of

technology in modern organization. Their study applied an extended model of

technology acceptance to the use of broker workstations. They argue that

implementation success is important in obtaining a return from the firm’s

investment in technology. Data were collected at two points in time to assess user

acceptance of the workstations. The results provide some support for the models

and the unanticipated findings that perceptions of the system quality and system

ease of use decrease over time.

20
Ronaldo A. Tan. “An Assessment of the Enrollment System of a Private University”.
(Dissertation, Adamson University, Manila, 2001)
21
Henry C. Lucan & Valerie Spitler.”Implementation in a World of Workstation and
Networks”. A Research Paper in Information Technology, USA.may 2000
In the case study conducted in Australia,22 the new developed enrolment

university system centralizes all relevant information about courses, units and

student grades. It is the responsibility of the faculties to provide the system with

information (course code and unit code) about the courses and units they offer.

For each course, the name of the course coordinator must be communicated. The

enrolment system in turn keeps the faculties informed of the numbers and names

of students enrolled in the units. At the end of each semester the faculties will also

communicate the students' final grades; it is the system's responsability to send to

students the end-semester notification giving the final grades.

In the study of Roberts,23 The University of Derby has benefited greatly

from the introduction of an Electronic Enrolment system and much has been

learned on the way. The Institution has come to expect the provision of

information on enrolments in real time, its planning cycle and operation rely on it.

Students expect the systems provided to be slick, available longer and to have no

queues associated with them. While new systems will provide institutions with

exciting new opportunities , the first and biggest step has already been taken with

the handing over of the data and input to the student. The operation of the

Electronic Enrolment system has paved the way for the implementation of Web

based systems at Derby that will provide a better service to students.

22
“Case Study 1: The University enrollment Information Systems”.
[http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/ homepage/paule/sit_101/reportnode139.html]. January 2006
23
Russell Roberts. “Student Self enrollment – A System in Practice”.(A JISC Funded
Case Study, University of Derby, United Kingdom).[http://www.jisc.ac.uk/cis_focus/]. January
2006
The accessibility of the Internet makes it an obvious method for delivering a

range of services but any institution considering this approach will need to

review its business practice in detail if it is to make it a success.

The enrolment management system is a central register of student

enrolments being developed by the Ministry for intermediate and secondary

schools to use vie the web. The project aims to reduce the administrative burden

for schools and improve the overall enrolment management process.24 The

Ministry of Education has funded a new electronic enrolment management system

for intermediate and secondary schools that will replace the current, paper-based

student enrolment forms with a web application and online registry.

Schools and the Ministry have been frustrated by time consuming,

inefficient enrolment processes that often result in inaccurate information about

non-enrolled students (those absent from school more than 20 consecutive days)

being sent to the Ministry. A focus group of representatives from primary,

intermediate and secondary schools provided input into the design of the new

system, which authorized intermediate and secondary school personnel will use

via the web to enroll students. The electronic system will: (1.)facilitate immediate

access to enrolment information and establish a consistent and accurate enrolment

process; (2.) reduce the paperwork and monitoring effort for schools; (3.)

automate a number of activities, e.g. monitoring the 20 days from leaving one
24
“Enrollment Management System Project - Ministry of Education”. New Zealand
Government. [HTTP://www.minedu.govt.nz/goto/enroll]. January 2006
school to enrolling at another; and (4.) reduce the number of inaccurate non-

enrolment notifications and the time taken to identify and respond to non-enrolled

students.

A new online module enrolment system was piloted during May and June

2004 by five Schools within the University of Leeds: Biology; Electronic and

Electrical Engineering; Environment; Geography; and Music. At its meeting in

September 2004, Learning and Teaching Board considered a report on the key

findings of the pilot exercise and endorsed a recommendation that all returning

full-time undergraduate students should be given the opportunity to use the

system during May and June 2005 for registering their optional and elective

modules for academic year 2005/06.25 At its meeting in January 2005, Learning

and Teaching Board endorsed the following recommendations regarding the

timeline for online module enrolment and related processes: (a.) that an

institutional date should be set before which no module enrolments can take place

on the system (b.) that the date before which no module enrolments can take place

on the system should be two weeks preceding the summer examination period.

For session 2004/05 this would be 3 May 2005; (c.) that all new and amended

modules and programs of study should be approved by 31 March (this is simply a

re-iteration of the deadline that is already in existence); the web module and

program catalogues for the forthcoming year should be published on the first

working day in May in line with the opening up of the system for online module

enrolment.
25
“On-line Module Enrollment – Guide for School Staff”.
[http://www.leeds.ac.uk/students /office/online/staffguide.doc]. January 2006
RELEVANCE TO THE PRESENT STUDY

The theories presented by the local and foreign authors give insight on the

importance of an excellent information system in an organization such as St.

Mary’s College of Meycauayan. It is helpful on the part of the researcher to study

the phenomena of Information Technology and its role in an organization. In

addition, it hastens acquisition of information, knowledge and skill plus the

convenience and security of maintaining the important records and files of the

school or an organization. The local and foreign studies focus on Information

System used in school or university setting. They also include the benefit of

having cognizance of excellent enrollment system if the school wants to maintain

their competitive edge. Finally, The Local and foreign authors give moral

support to the researcher to go on with this study.


CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURE

This chapter presents the methods of research used, the respondents of the

study, data gathering procedure, research instrument and techniques used, and

statistical treatment used with this study.

Method of Research

The method of research that was adopted in this study is descriptive and

developmental method. It involves obtaining facts about the existing condition of

the current Registrar Information Systems in the College department of St. Mary’s

College of Meycauayan. It describes and interprets the prevailing conditions,

practices, beliefs, processes, points of view and trends of the current system and

eventually developed an enhanced Registrar Information Systems that will solve

the problems generated by the existing system. The researcher also used

developmental research to investigate patterns and sequence of growth and/or

change as a function of time.

Respondents of the Study

The researcher of this study conducted two separate survey. The first one

was conducted to assess the status of the existing Registrar Information Systems

for the college department. It has two types of respondents, the Users which is

referring to the college students and Administrators which composed of College

Middle Administrators, College Faculty and College Non-teaching staff. The


second one was conducted to assess the Proposed Enhanced Registrar Information

System. This time it has three types of respondents; the Users, the Administrators

and the IT Experts referring to programmers and I.T. professors and instructors.

Sample and Sampling Technique

Purposive Sampling was used in the study using the following criteria:

1. For “Users” Respondents

a. College Student of St. Mary’s College

b. At least 2nd Year level under ITE Program

2. For the “Administrators” Respondents

a. College Faculty, Non-Teaching Staff, and Members of

Administration

b. Familiar with Registrar Information System

c. Computer Literate

3. For “IT Experts” Respondents

a. Programmer

b. IT/CS Professor or Instructor

Research Instrument and Techniques

1. Questionnaire

The main instrument used in gathering data was the questionnaire. It was

designed such that multiple choices were presented in order for the respondents

to complete the process in a short time.


The questionnaire contained questions regarding the status of the current

Registrar Information Systems as regards to enrollment system and Report Card

Management Systems.

2. Unstructured Interview

Unstructured or informal interview were also conducted whenever

possible in order to confirm the responses to the questionnaire. These

were flexible and less structured than the questionnaire. These will be

conducted upon retrieval of the questionnaire. The intention was to

reinforce the responses that were gathered and determine the various

conclusions that will be made by the respondents.

3. Document Analysis

Related enrollment research and other pertinent documents from the

Registrar office were gathered and analyzed to support the findings derived from

this study.

4. Library Research

This technique has been adopted to gather information needed in

accomplishing the proposed study. Related topics, articles, and related

study were examined for a better understanding of the topic under study.

5. Internet Research

The researcher used World Wide Web to gathered information necessary

for this study. For related literature and related study, Internet is the most up-to-

date sources of information that is available for a research study. If makes a

research interesting and delightful on the part of the researcher.


Statistical Treatment of Data

To interpret result of the Existing and Proposed Registrar Information

Systems evaluation, the Percentage, Weighted Means and ANOVA are the

statistical tools or techniques will be used.

The data gathered in this study were collated, tallied and presented in

tabular form then analyzed using statistical tools mentioned above.

1. Percentage

This is a ration of a part to a whole. This was used to present the profile

of the respondents. The formula is

P( % ) = (n / N ) * 100 %

Where: P ( % ) = Percentage

n = Frequency scores on a particular response category

N = Total number of respondents

2. Weighted Mean

The Weighted Mean is a measure of central tendency. This was used to

determine the effectiveness of the Proposed Registrar Information System. The

weighted mean gives the point of composite rating of the groups. The formula is:

WM = Σfx
N
Where:

WM = Weighted Mean

Σ = Symbol of Summation
f = Frequency of Responses

x = Scale Value

The mean values obtained were interpreted using a Likert Scale. The

descriptive interpretation was based on the following:

Mean Range Weight Interpretation

4.51 – 5.00 5 Very Highly Effective

3.51 – 4.50 4 Highly Effective

2.51 – 3.50 3 Moderate/Average Effective

1.51 – 2.50 2 Least Effective

1.00 – 1.50 1 Not Effective

3. ANOVA

ANOVA – or Analysis of Variance comes from the fact that the technique

compares two variances: The variance among the means of the different

categories (also called groups or treatments) and the variance among the

individual values in the group. It is also advisable to use if you have three groups

of respondents. The researcher will used the case 2 of the ANOVA, the unequal

number of respondents
ANOVA TABLE

Sources of Sum of Degrees of Mean Square Computed


Variation Square Freedom F - Ratio
S12 = SSC
Treatments SSC k-1
k-1
F = S12
S22
S22 = SSE
Error SSE k(n-1)
k(n-1)

Total SST nk -1

The Formula are:

SST = grand ∑X2 – C

SSB = (∑X1)2 + (∑X2)2 + (∑X3)2 - C


N1 N2 N3
CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter covers the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data.

I. Profile of the Respondents

The respondents of this study are “Users” referring to the SMCM college

students, “Administrators” referring to SMCM college faculty, non-teaching staff,

and middle administrators and the “IT Experts” the IT professionals such as

Programmer and IT Professors or Instructors.

Shown in the following Tables are the findings on the profile of the

respondents. Based on the retrieved data, sixty (60) users, twenty six (26)

administrators and twenty (20) IT experts participated in the study for a total of

one hundred six (106) respondents.

Table 1 shows that among the group of respondents sixty (60) are users

representing 56.60 % of the total respondents, twenty six (26) are administrations

representing 24.53 % and twenty (20) are IT experts representing 18.87 % of the

total respondents respectively.

Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Respondents’ Group

Total
Group
f %
Users 60 56.60
Administrations 26 24.53
IT Experts 20 18.87
Total 106 100 %
As to years of stay in SMCM, Table 2 shows that among users group of

respondents ten (10) representing 16.67 % are within 1-2 years of stay bracket and

fifty (50) representing 83.33 % are within 3-4 years of stay bracket. No users

group of respondents belong to the 5 years and above bracket.

For the administrations group of respondents, the same table (Table 2)

shows that seven (7) representing 26.92 % are within the 1-2 years of stay

bracket, nine (9) representing 34.62 % are within the 3-4 years of stay bracket and

ten (10) representing 38.46 % are within the 5 year and above bracket. The IT

Expert group of respondents is not included in this table since they are considered

are guest respondents.

Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Respondents’ Years of Stay in SMCM

Users Administrations Total


Years
F % F % f %
1–2 years 10 16.67 7 26.92 17 19.77
3-4 years 50 83.33 9 34.62 59 68.60
5 & above 0 0% 10 38.46 10 11.63
Total 60 100 26 100 86 100

II. Status of the Existing Registrar Information Systems

The assessment of the three (3) groups of respondents on the existing or

current Registrar Information Systems involved four (4) areas namely enrollement

system, report card generation system, transcript of record system, and grade

evaluation system.

A. Enrollment System
Table 3 shows that the status of the existing system or current enrollment

system in terms of assessment and payment. As to the “Date assessment and

enrollment”, the users, administrators, and I.T. experts respondents assessed it as

“Always” based on the calculated mean of 4.95, 5.00 and 4.93 respectively. As to

the “Accurate subject schedules” the three group of respondents assessed it as

“Always” based on the calculated mean of 4.77, 4.69, and 4.77 respectively. As

to the “Accurate room assignment”, the users and the IT experts group of

respondents assessed it as “Always” based on the computed mean of 4.82 and

4.75 respectively while the administrators group of respondents assessed it as

“Often” with a calculated mean of 4.31.

Table 3
Status of the Existing Registrar Information System in
Terms of Assessment & Payment of Enrollment System
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Date 4.95 A 4.77 A 5.00 A 4.93 A
Assessment &
Enrollment 4.77 A 4.69 A 4.85 A 4.77 A
2. Accurate
Subject Schedules 4.82 A 4.31 O 4.75 A 4.72 A
3. Accurate
Room Assignment 4.90 A 4.42 O 4.75 A 4.80 A
4. Class Size 4.91 A 4.77 A 4.90 A 4.88 A
Control
5. Accurate 4.92 A 4.58 A 4.65 A 4.82 A
number of units
per subject
6. Accurate 4.92 A 4.69 A 4.65 A 4.84 A
computation for
tuition fee
7. Accurate 4.92 A 4.58 A 4.65 A 4.82 A
computation for
other fees
8. Accurate 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A
computation for
miscellaneous fees 4.85 A 4.08 O 4.65 A 4.69 A
9. Different types
of payment scheme 4.88 A 5.00 A 4.75 A 4.88 A
10. Student
account for 4.29 O 4.19 O 4.80 A 4.34 O
transaction
11. Actual 4.57 A 4.08 O 4.85 A 4.52 A
transaction date is
noted
12. Possible
discount for each 5.00 A 4.12 O 4.90 A 4.84 A
student
13. Students
records are
accurately updated
after every
transaction.
14. Collection
program is
convenient and
easy to use.
Composite Mean 4.83 4.52 4.80 4.78
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 4
Status of the Existing Registrar Information System in
Terms of Report Card Generation

Users Adminis- IT Experts Average


trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Presence of Student 1.00 N 1.00 N 1.00 N 1.00 N
number.
2. Accurate Student 4.95 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 4.97 A
course
3. Accurate Student 4.95 A 4.92 A 5.00 A 4.95 A
name
4. Accurate number of 4.85 A 4.69 A 4.90 A 4.83 A
subjects enrolled
5. Accurate grades per 4.25 O 4.88 A 4.90 A 4.44 A
grading period
6. Computation of 1.00 N 1.00 N 1.00 N 1.00 N
GPA per grading
period
7. Security of records 3.70 O 4.38 O 4.00 O 3.86 O
Composite Mean 3.53 3.70 3.69 3.58
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 5
Status of the Existing Registrar Information System in
Terms of Transcript of Records

Users Adminis- IT Experts Average


trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Accurate student 4.90 A 4.23 O 4.15 O 4.68 A
personal record.
2. Student education 4.85 A 4.92 A 4.10 O 4.76 A
history
3. Course Title/Degree 4.94 A 5.00 A 4.95 A 4.95 A
4. Graduation Date 4.93 A 5.00 A 4.90 A 4.94 A
5. S.O. Number 4.92 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 4.95 A
6. S.O. Date Issued 4.92 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 4.95 A
7. Accurate course 4.85 A 4.92 A 4.10 O 4.76 A
number & course
descriptive title
8. Accurate subjects 4.75 A 4.88 A 4.15 O 4.70 A
enrolled per
semester
9. Accurate grades and 4.80 A 4.81 A 4.20 O 4.72 A
course units
10. Student subjects 4.78 A 4.77 A 4.25 O 4.71 A
& grades history
for transferee
11. Available space 4.94 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 4.96 A
for TOR remarks
Composite Mean 4.87 4.87 4.53 4.83
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 6
Status of the Existing Registrar Information System in
Terms of Grades Evaluation
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Accurate student 1.58 SD 1.77 SD 1.00 N 1.53 SD
name & number
2. Course Title/Degree 1.58 SD 1.00 N 1.00 N 1.40 N
3. Accurate course 4.71 A 4.31 O 5.00 A 4.68 A
number & course
descriptive title
4. Accurate subjects 1.25 N 2.77 ST 1.00 N 1.47 N
enrolled per
semester
5. Accurate grades and 2.75 ST 2.69 ST 1.00 N 2.51 ST
course units
6. Student subjects & 2.18 SD 2.65 ST 1.00 N 2.11 SD
grades history for
transferee
Composite Mean 2.34 2.53 1.67 2.28
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 7
Status of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in
Terms of Assessment & Payment of Enrollment System
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Date Assessment 4.95 A 4.92 A 5.00 A 4.95 A
& Enrollment
2. Accurate Subject 4.93 A 4.88 A 5.00 A 4.93 A
Schedules
3. Accurate Room 4.97 A 4.92 A 5.00 A 4.97 A
Assignment
4. Class Size Control 4.95 A 4.96 A 4.95 A 4.95 A
5. Accurate number 4.98 A 5.00 A 4.95 A 4.98 A
of units per
subject
6. Accurate 4.95 A 4.92 A 4.90 A 4.94 A
computation for
tuition fee
7. Accurate 4.95 A 4.88 A 4.90 A 4.93 A
computation for
other fees
8. Accurate 4.95 A 4.85 A 4.90 A 4.93 A
computation for
miscellaneous
fees
9. Different types of 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A
payment scheme
10. Student account 4.71 A 4.96 A 4.85 A 4.77 A
for transaction
11. Actual transaction 4.85 A 4.92 A 5.00 A 4.88 A
date is noted
12. Possible discount 4.75 A 4.92 A 4.95 A 4.81 A
for each student
13. Students records 4.71 A 5.00 A 4.95 A 4.79 A
are accurately
updated after
every transaction.
14. Collection 4.75 A 5.00 A 4.95 A 4.82 A
program is
convenient and
easy to use.
Composite Mean 4.89 4.94 4.95 4.90
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 8
Status of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in
Terms of Report Card Generation

Users Adminis- IT Experts Average


trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Presence of 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A
Student number
2. Accurate Student 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A
course
3. Accurate Student 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A
name
4. Accurate number 4.93 A 4.92 A 4.95 A 4.93 A
of subjects
enrolled
5. Accurate grades 4.95 A 4.92 A 4.95 A 4.95 A
per grading period
6. Computation of 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A
GPA per grading
Period
7. Security of 4.16 O 4.92 A 4.25 O 4.30 O
records
Composite Mean 4.86 4.97 4.88 4.88
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 9
Status of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in
Terms of Transcript of Records

Users Adminis- IT Experts Average


trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Accurate student 4.93 A 4.92 A 4.95 A 4.93 A
personal record.
2. Student education 4.70 A 4.96 A 4.90 A 4.77 A
history
3. Course Title / 4.80 A 5.00 A 4.95 A 4.86 A
Degree
4. Graduation Date 4.71 A 4.96 A 5.00 A 4.79 A
5. S.O. Number 4.90 A 4.92 A 5.00 A 4.91 A
6. S.O. Date Issued 4.90 A 4.92 A 5.00 A 4.91 A
7. Accurate course 4.75 A 4.96 A 4.95 A 4.82 A
number & course
descriptive title
8. Accurate subjects 4.65 A 5.00 A 4.85 A 4.74 A
enrolled per
semester
9. Accurate grades 4.87 A 5.00 A 4.85 A 4.89 A
and course units
10.Student subjects & 4.83 A 5.00 A 4.85 A 4.86 A
grades history for
transferee
11.Available space for 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A 5.00 A
TOR remarks
Composite Mean 4.82 4.97 4.94 4.86
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 10
Status of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in
Terms of Grades Evaluation

Users Adminis- IT Experts Average


trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Accurate 4.95 A 5.00 A 4.95 A 4.96 A
student name &
number 4.95 A 5.00 A 4.95 A 4.96 A
2. Course Title /
Degree 4.94 A 4.81 A 4.90 A 4.91 A
3. Accurate
course number &
course descriptive 4.93 A 4.88 A 4.90 A 4.92 A
title
4. Accurate
subjects enrolled 4.93 A 4.96 A 4.95 A 4.94 A
per semester
5. Accurate 4.85 A 4.92 A 4.90 A 4.87 A
grades and course
units
6. Student
subjects & grades
history for
transferee
Composite Mean 4.93 4.93 4.93 4.93
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Always (A), 3.51-4.50 Often (O), 2.51-3.50 Sometimes (ST), 1.51-2.50 Seldom (SD),
1.00-1.50 Never (N)

Table 11
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Enrollment System in Terms of Accuracy
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Date Assessment 4.70 E 5.00 VE 4.50 E 4.72 VE
& Enrollment
2. Accurate Subject 4.01 E 4.08 E 4.15 E 4.04 E
Schedules
3. Accurate Room 3.96 E 4.38 E 4.10 E 4.05 E
Assignment
4. Class Size Control 4.11 E 4.25 E 4.10 E 4.13 E
5. Number of Units 4.29 E 5.00 VE 4.20 E 4.40 E
per subject
6. Computation for 4.85 VE 4.92 VE 4.15 E 4.77 VE
tuition fee
7. Computation for 4.85 VE 4.88 VE 4.15 E 4.76 VE
other fees
8. Computation for 4.85 VE 4.88 VE 4.15 E 4.76 VE
miscellaneous
fees
9. Different types of 5.00 VE 5.00 VE 4.90 VE 4.99 VE
Payment scheme
10. Student account 4.15 E 4.77 VE 4.10 E 4.25 E
for transaction
11. Actual transaction 4.04 E 5.00 VE 4.85 VE 4.31 E
date is noted
12. Possible discounts 3.99 E 5.00 VE 4.05 E 4.17 E
for each student
13. Student records 4.04 E 4.69 VE 3.95 E 4.14 E
are actually
updated after
every transaction
14. Collection 4.20 E 4.77 VE 4.10 E 4.28 E
program is
convenient and
easy to use.
Composite Mean 4.36 4.76 4.25 4.41
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 12
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Enrollment System in Terms of Maintainability
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Database for 4.12 E 4.19 E 4.00 E 4.12 E
enrollment
2. Database for 4.08 E 4.77 VE 3.95 E 4.18 E
assessment
3. Database for 4.03 E 4.73 VE 4.05 E 4.15 E
subject available
4. Database for 4.18 E 4.69 VE 3.95 E 4.24 E
course code
5. Database for 4.27 E 4.81 VE 4.00 E 4.33 E
tuition fee
6. Database for 4.12 E 4.88 VE 3.95 E 4.23 E
payment
7. Database for 4.25 E 4.92 VE 4.10 E 4.35 E
master file
Composite Mean 4.15 4.71 4.00 4.23
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 13
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Enrollment System in Terms of User Friendliness
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Ease of use 3.96 E 4.62 VE 3.95 E 4.07 E
2. Navigating the 3.96 E 4.50 E 4.05 E 4.07 E
system
3. Instructions for 3.96 E 4.62 VE 4.00 E 4.08 E
users
4. Graphics interface 4.12 E 4.65 VE 3.95 E 4.19 E
5. Trouble shooting 4.10 E 4.33 E 3.90 E 4.10 E
Composite Mean 4.02 4.52 3.97 4.10
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 14
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Enrollment System in Terms of Security
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Security level for 4.20 E 4.23 E 4.10 E 4.17 E
Registrar
2. Security level for 4.25 E 4.31 E 4.05 E 4.20 E
Asst. Registrar
3. Security level for 4.15 E 4.19 E 4.05 E 4.17 E
Treasurer
4. Security level for 4.25 E 4.15 E 4.05 E 4.17 E
Asst. Treasurer
5. Backup copy of 4.01 E 3.73 E 4.00 E 4.03 E
student data
6. Security from 3.99 E 4.00 E 4.00 E 4.13 E
malicious
mischief
7. Security from 3.96 E 3.81 E 4.05 E 4.41 E
viruses
Composite Mean 4.11 4.06 4.01 4.09
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 15
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Report Card Generation System in Terms of Accuracy
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Semester & 4.18 E 4.19 E 4.10 E 4.17 E
school year
2. Student Number 4.04 E 5.00 VE 4.05 E 4.20 E
3. Course 3.99 E 5.00 VE 4.05 E 4.17 E
4. Student Name 3.99 E 5.00 VE 4.05 E 4.17 E
5. Number of 4.04 E 4.04 E 4.00 E 4.03 E
subjects enrolled
6. Number of units 4.01 E 4.77 VE 4.00 E 4.13 E
per subject
7. Computation for 4.36 E 4.92 VE 4.05 E 4.41 E
general average
8. Computation for 4.42 E 4.88 VE 4.10 E 4.46 E
GPA per grading
period
Composite Mean 4.13 4.73 4.04 4.22
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 16
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Report Card Generation System in Terms of Maintainability
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Database for 3.97 E 4.08 E 4.05 E 4.00 E
student master file
2. Database for 3.99 E 4.15 E 4.10 E 4.03 E
grading sheet
Composite Mean 3.98 4.12 4.08 4.02
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 17
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Report Card Generation System in Terms of User Friendliness
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Ease of Use 4.05 E 3.81 E 4.10 E 4.01 E
2. Navigating the 4.03 E 3.92 E 4.00 E 4.01 E
system
3. Instructions for 4.02 E 4.04 E 4.00 E 4.02 E
the users
4. Graphics interface 4.08 E 3.62 E 3.95 E 3.98 E
5. Trouble shooting 4.07 E 3.65 E 3.90 E 3.97 E
Composite Mean 4.05 3.81 3.99 4.00
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)
Table 18
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Report Card Generation System in Terms of Security
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Security level 4.01 E 4.12 E 4.10 E 4.04 E
for Registrar
2. Security level 3.92 E 4.08 E 4.00 E 3.96 E
for Asst. Registrar
3. Security level 3.99 E 4.23 E 3.95 E 4.03 E
for college faculty
4. Security from 3.98 E 4.08 E 4.00 E 4.00 E
malicious
mischief
5. Security from 3.92 E 4.00 E 3.95 E 3.94 E
viruses
Composite Mean 3.97 4.10 4.00 3.99
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 19
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Transcript of Record System in Terms of Accuracy
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Student 4.11 E 3.96 E 4.10 E 4.09 E
Personal record
2. Student 3.96 E 3.92 E 3.80 E 3.93 E
education history
3. Course Title / 4.08 E 4.08 E 4.15 E 4.09 E
Degree
4. Graduation 4.12 E 4.00 E 4.10 E 4.10 E
date 4.11 E 4.00 E 4.10 E 4.09 E
5. S.O. Number 4.09 E 4.00 E 4.10 E 4.08 E
6. S.O. Date 4.21 E 4.19 E 3.95 E 4.17 E
issued
7. Course
Number & course 4.16 E 4.12 E 4.05 E 4.14 E
descriptive title
8. Subjects 4.29 E 4.19 E 4.00 E 4.24 E
enrolled per
semester 4.32 E 3.92 E 4.05 E 4.22 E
9. Grades &
course units
10. Student 5.00 VE 5.00 E 5.00 VE 5.00 VE
s subjects &
grades history for
transferee
11. Availab
le space for TOR
remarks
Composite Mean 4.22 4.13 4.13 4.19
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 20
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Transcript of Record System in Terms of Maintainability
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Database for 4.12 E 3.96 E 4.00 E 4.08 E
student master file
2. Database for 4.14 E 4.08 E 3.95 E 4.11 E
courses
3. Database for 4.07 E 4.12 E 4.10 E 4.08 E
grading sheet
4. Database for 4.12 E 4.19 E 3.90 E 4.11 E
prospectus
5. Database for 4.08 E 4.00 E 3.95 E 4.05 E
QueryTOR
Composite Mean 4.11 4.07 3.98 4.08
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 21
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Transcript of Record System in Terms of User Friendliness
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
Ease of Use 4.07 E 4.00 E 4.00 E 4.05 E
2. Navigating the 4.21 E 3.96 E 3.90 E 4.13 E
system
3. Instructions for 4.08 E 3.81 E 3.90 E 4.01 E
the users
4. Graphics interface 3.96 E 3.92 E 4.00 E 3.96 E
5. Trouble shooting 3.93 E 4.00 E 3.95 E 3.95 E
Composite Mean 4.05 3.94 3.95 4.02
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 22
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Transcript of Record System in Terms of Security
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Security level 4.02 E 4.27 E 4.05 E 4.07 E
for Registrar
2. Security level 4.11 E 4.27 E 3.95 E 4.12 E
for Asst. Registrar
3. Backup copy 3.98 E 4.00 E 3.90 E 3.97 E
of student data
4. Security from 4.01 E 3.96 E 3.95 E 3.99 E
malicious
mischief
5. Security from 3.83 E 3.96 E 4.00 E 3.88 E
viruses
Composite Mean 3.99 4.09 3.97 4.01
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 23
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Grade Evaluation System in Terms of Accuracy
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Student name 3.91 E 4.12 E 3.95 E 3.95 E
& number
2. Course title or 4.00 E 4.04 E 4.05 E 4.01 E
degree
3. Course number 3.92 E 3.81 E 4.00 E 3.91 E
& course
descriptive title
4. Subjects 3.86 E 4.12 E 3.95 E 3.91 E
enrolled per
semester 4.00 E 4.08 E 3.90 E 4.00 E
5. Grades &
course units 3.92 E 4.12 E 4.00 E 3.97 E
6. Student
subjects & grades
for transferee
Composite Mean 3.93 4.04 3.98 3.96
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 24
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Grade Evaluation System in Terms of Maintainability
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Database for 4.02 E 4.00 E 3.90 E 4.00 E
student master file
2. Database for 3.94 E 4.08 E 3.95 E 3.97 E
grading sheet
Composite Mean 3.98 4.04 3.93 3.98
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 25
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Grade Evaluation System in Terms of User Friendliness
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Ease of use 4.02 E 3.96 E 3.95 E 4.00 E
2. Navigating the 3.97 E 4.08 E 4.00 E 3.99 E
system
3. Instructions for 3.83 E 3.96 E 3.95 E 3.87 E
the users
4. Graphics interface 4.04 E 4.00 E 4.00 E 4.03 E
5. Trouble shooting 3.95 E 3.88 E 3.90 E 3.93 E
Composite Mean 3.96 3.98 3.96 3.96
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)

Table 26
Effectiveness of the Enhanced Registrar Information System in the Area
of Grade Evaluation System in Terms of Security
Users Adminis- IT Experts Average
trations
Items Inter Inter- Inter- Inter-
X preta X preta- X preta X preta-
-tion tion -tion tion
1. Security level for 3.91 E 4.23 E 3.95 E 3.97 E
Registrar
2. Security level for 4.03 E 4.23 E 3.95 E 4.05 E
Asst. Registrar
3. Backup copy of 3.91 E 4.04 E 4.10 E 3.95 E
student data
4. Security from 4.00 E 4.38 E 3.90 E 4.05 E
malicious
mischief
5. Security from 4.01 E 4.04 E 3.95 E 4.01 E
viruses
Composite Mean 3.97 4.18 3.97 4.01
Legend: 4.51-5.00 Very Effective (VE), 3.51-4.50 Effective (E), 2.51-3.5 Moderate Effective (ME), 1.51-
2.50 Silghtly Effective(SE), 1.00-1.50 Not Effective(NE)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. William, Sawyer, Hutchinson. Using Information Technology. Irwin

Mcrow-Hill 2nd. 2000

2. Silver, Gerald A. & Silver, Myrna L. Systems Analysis and Design.

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. copyright 2000

3. Long, Larry & Long Nancy. Computers Information Technology in

Perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall. 11th & International Edition. .

Copyright 2004.

THESES AND DISERTATION

1. Rapsing, Rizaldy R. “The Application of Relational and Object

Databases in an Information System : A Comparative Study” Theses,

Adamson University, Manila May 2002

2. Rollan, Azenith Mojica. “Student Information Systems for Graduate

School of Education, Arts and Sciences, De La Salle University –

Dasmarinas” Theses, Adamson University, March 2004

3. Rodenas, Emmylou F. “Developed Online Purchasing of De La Salle

University Systems” Theses, Adamson University, Manila, March 2004

4. Policarpio, Corazon. “Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of

computer-Based and Traditional Methods of Instruction” These,

Adamson University, Manila, 1995


5. Geroda, Ranato. “The Effects of Information Technology in Our Lady of

Fatima College: An Assessment” Theses, Adamson Univerisity,

Manila, 1999

BROCHURES, SEMINARS MATERIALS

1. ARHEI-III GAZETTE, Published by the Association of the Registrars

of Higher Education Institutions-Region III, Newsletter, Vol.1 No. 1,

January 2005

2. Student Handbook, 2004 Revised Edition. St. Mary’s College of

Meycauayan

3. ISO Registrar Procedure Manual, St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan,

2004

4. Dennis Ramiro M. Sangalang, MSIT, Dean, College of Computer

Studies,. “Conference on Maintaining the Integrity of the School

Records in the Digitized Age” Seminar, Angeles University, Angeles

Pampanga, January 21, 2005

INTERNET

1. University Information Registration system

[http://bearlink.berkeley.edu/sis/uris.html]

2. Trace College: Living Its Advocacy Through The Implementation Of

An Automated Enrollment System

[http://www.sqlwizard.com/main_sub14.html]
3. The Prototyping Model.

[htpp://www.searchvb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid8_gci755441,00

.html]

4. Lantz, Kenneth. The Prototyping Methodology.

[htpp://www.manageknowledge.com/prototyp.html], March 2005


QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondents:

The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess the present Registrar


Information Systems of St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan specifically along the
following areas: Enrollment System and Report Card Management System.
Kindly answer the following question truthfully and rest assured that all
information gathered would be kept confidential.

Part I. Profile of the Respondents


Direction: Put a check mark ( ✓ ) on the space provided beside the item that best
describe your response.

1. Respondent Group
Users [ ] Administrations [ ] IT Experts [ ]

2. Years of stay in St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan


1 – 2 Years [ ] 3 – 4 Years [ ] 5 Years & above [ ]

Part II. Status of Registrar Information Systems


Direction: Kindly check ( ✓ ) the appropriate box that corresponds to your
assessment using the following:
Weight Interpretation Label
5 Always A
4 Often O
3 Sometimes ST
2 Seldom SD
1 Never N

A. Status of Existing Registrar Information System


1 2 3 4 5
A.1 Enrollment System (Assessment & Payment) N SD ST O A
1. Date Assessment & Enrollment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Accurate Subject Schedules [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Accurate Room Assignment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Class size control [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Accurate number of units per subject [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Accurate computation for tuition fee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Accurate computation for other fees [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
8. Accurate computation for miscellaneous fees [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
9. Different Types of Payment Scheme [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
10. Student account for transaction [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
11. Actual transaction date is noted [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
1 2 3 4 5
N SD ST O A
12. Possible discounts for each student [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
13. Students records are accurately updated after every
Transaction [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
14. Collection program is convenient and easy to use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

1 2 3 4 5
A.2 Report Card Generation N SD ST O A
1. Presence of student number [ ] [
] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Accurate student course
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Accurate student name
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Accurate number of subjects enrolled
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Accurate grades per grading period [ ] [
] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Computation of GPA per grading period [ ] [
] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Security of records [ ] [
] [ ] [ ][ ]

A.3 Transcript of Records


1. Accurate Student Personal Record [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Student education History [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Course Title or Degree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Graduation Date [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. S.O. Number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. S.O. Date Issued [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Accurate Course Number & Course Descriptive Title [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
8. Accurate subjects enrolled per semester [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
9. Accurate grades and course units [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
10. Student subjects & grades history for transferee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
11. Available space for TOR remarks [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

A.4 Grades Evaluation


1. Accurate student name and number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Course Title or Degree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Accurate Course Number & Course Descriptive Title [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Accurate subjects enrolled per semester [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Accurate grades and course units [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Student subjects & grades history for transferee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

B. Status of Enhanced Registrar Information System


1 2 3 4 5
B.1 Enrollment System (Assessment & Payment)
1. Date Assessment & Enrollment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Accurate Subject Schedules [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Accurate Room Assignment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Class size control [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Accurate number of units per subject [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
1 2 3 4 5
N SD ST O A
6. Accurate computation for tuition fee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Accurate computation for other fees [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
8. Accurate computation for miscellaneous fees [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
9. Different Types of Payment Scheme [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
10. Student account for transaction [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
11. Actual transaction date is noted [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
12. Possible discounts for each student [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
13. Students records are accurately updated after
every transaction [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
14. Collection program is convenient and easy to use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

B.2 Report Card Generation


1. Presence of student number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Accurate student course [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Accurate student name [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Accurate number of subjects enrolled [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Accurate grades per grading period [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Computation of GPA per grading period [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Security of records [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

1 2 3 4 5
B.3 Transcript of Records N SD ST O A
1. Accurate Student Personal Record [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Student education History [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Course Title or Degree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Graduation Date [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. S.O. Number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. S.O. Date Issued [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Accurate Course Number & Course Descriptive Title [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
8. Accurate subjects enrolled per semester [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
9. Accurate grades and course units [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
10. Student subjects & grades history for transferee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
11. Available space for TOR remarks [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

B.4 Grades Evaluation


1. Accurate student name and number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Course Title or Degree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Accurate Course Number & Course Descriptive Title [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Accurate subjects enrolled per semester [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Accurate grades and course units [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Student subjects & grades history for transferee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

Part III. Level of Effectivity of the Enhanced Registrar Information System


Direction: Kindly check ( ✓ ) the appropriate box that corresponds to your
assessment using the following:
Weight Interpretation Label
5 Very Effective VE
4 Effective E
3 Moderate Effective ME
2 Slightly Effective SE
1 Not Effective NE

A. Enrollment System (Assessment and Payment)


1 2 3
4 5
A.1 Accuracy NE SE ME E VE
1. Date Assessment & Enrollment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Subject Schedules [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
3. Room Assignment [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
4. Class size control [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
5. Number of units per subject [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
6. Computation for tuition fee [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
7. Computation for other fees [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
8. Computation for miscellaneous fees [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
9. Different Types of Payment Scheme [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
10. Student account for transaction [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
11. Actual transaction date is noted [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
12. Possible discounts for each student [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
13. Student records are accurately updated after
every transaction [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
14. Collection program is convenient and easy to use [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ][ ]
A.2 Maintainability (Assessment & Payment)
1. Database for Enrollment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Table for Assessment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Table for Subject Available [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Table for Course Code [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Table for Tuition Fee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
8. Table for Payment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
9. Database for Master File [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

A.3 User Friendliness (Assessment & Payment)


1. Ease of use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Navigating the System [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Instructions for the users [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Graphics Interface [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Trouble Shooting [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

1 2 3 4 5
A.4 Security (Assessment & Payment) NE SE ME E VE
1. Security level for Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Security level for Asst. Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Security Level for Treasurer [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Security Level for Assistant Treasurer [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Backup copy of student data [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Security from malicious mischief [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Security from viruses [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

B. Report Card Generation


1 2 3 4 5
B.1 Accuracy NE SE ME E VE
1. Semester & School Year [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Student number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Course [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Student name [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Number of subjects enrolled [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Number of units per subject [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Computation for General Average [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
8. Computation for GPA per grading period [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

B.2 Maintainability
1. Database for Student Master File [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Table for Grading Sheet [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

B.3 User Friendliness


1. Ease of use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Navigating the System [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Instructions for the users [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Graphics Interface [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Trouble Shooting [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

B.4 Security
1. Security level for Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Security level for Asst. Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Security level for College Faculty [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Security from malicious mischief [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Security from viruses [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

C. Transcript of record
1 2 3 4 5
C.1 Accuracy NE SE ME E VE
1. Student Personal Record [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Student education History [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Course Title or Degree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
1 2 3 4 5
NE SE ME E VE
4. Graduation Date [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. S.O. Number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. S.O. Date Issued [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
7. Course Number & Course Descriptive Title [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
8. Subjects enrolled per semester [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
9. Grades and Course Units [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
10. Student subjects & grades history for transferee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
11. Available space for TOR remarks [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

C.2 Maintainability
1. Database for Student Master File [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Table for Courses [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Table for Grading Sheet [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Table for Prospectus [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Table for QueryTOR [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

C.3 User Friendliness


1. Ease of use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Navigating the System [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Instructions for the users [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Graphics Interface [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Trouble Shooting [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

C.4 Security NE SE ME E VE
1. Security level for Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Security level for Asst. Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Backup copy of student data [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Security from malicious mischief [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Security from viruses [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

D. Grade Evaluation System


1 2 3 4 5
D.1 Accuracy NE SE ME E VE
1. Student name and number [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Course Title or Degree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Course Number & Course Descriptive Title [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Subjects enrolled per semester [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Grades and course units [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
6. Student subjects & grades history for transferee [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

D.2 Maintainability

1. Database for Student Master File [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]


2. Table for Grading Sheet [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
1 2 3 4 5
D.3 User Friendliness NE SE ME E VE
1. Ease of use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Navigating the System [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Instructions for the users [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Graphics Interface [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Trouble Shooting [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

D.4 Security
1. Security level for Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
2. Security level for Asst. Registrar [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
3. Backup copy of student data [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
4. Security from malicious mischief [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
5. Security from viruses [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
APPENDIX

The following are the summary of the survey questionnaires:

On the part of the Enrollment system:

The Computation for the tuition fees and computation of other fees got

Least Effective rating from both group of respondents on the part of accuracy

indicator. In terms of maintainability, database when changing subject schedule


3
Dionisia Arabejo. College Registrar. St. Mary’s College of Meycauayan,Bulacan. 2005
and computation for tuition fees when dropping the a subject got Least Effective

rating on the part of the users respondent while Least effective and even not

effective ratings was given by the admin group of respondents. In terms of user

friendliness indicators, Troubles shooting item got Not Effective rating and

graphics interface item got Least Effective rating from the users group of

respondents. Same items got Not Effective rating from the Admin group of

respondents. In terms of security indicator, the existing system need


improvements for the reason that Moderate Effective rating the highest scores it

get and the lowest is Not Effective rating from both group of respondents.

On the part of Report Card Generator

In terms of accuracy indicator, only Computation for Grade Point Average

or GPA per grading period got the lowest rating of Not Effective from both group

of respondents. In terms of maintainability, Database for Computation of GPA

per grading period got the lowest rating of Not Effective from both group of

respondents. For User Friendliness indicator, Graphics interface item got most

number of Moderate Effective and Trouble Shooting got the lowest rating of Not

Effective from the Users group of respondents. On the other hand Graphics

Interface and Trouble Shooting Items got the most number of Not Effective rating

from the Admin group of respondents. For Security indicator, got the most

number of Least Effective rating from both group of respondents.

On the part of Transcript of Records and Grade Evaluation Systems

The indicators are not applicable in the sense that both system are

manually process by the Registrar office.

Combining the work of the Registrar and information systems will

generate good services not only for the students but to other offices requesting for

a report documents from Registrar office such as Administration, Program Head,

Faculty offices and others.

Potrebbero piacerti anche