Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Chapter 2
This chapter organizes the findings, analysis and presentation of the data.
reliability and aesthetics. This part of the research also presents the acceptability
in terms of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This could help to
System
The researchers presented the following data in getting the final rating of
Aesthetics through the use of weighted mean and to know the level of development
Table 1.0
Quality Development of the System
N=3
Descriptive
Rating
Category H/D V/D D F/D P/D
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) WX
PERFORMANCE 5 10 0 0 0 4.33 H/D
RELIABILITY 9 9 3 0 0 4.28 H/D
AESTHETIC 2 16 0 0 0 4.11 V/D
Overall Weighted Mean 16 35 3 0 0 4.24 H/D
Table 1.0 shows the quality of the level of development of the system in
were 16 total points for Highly Developed, 35 total points for Very Developed and
3 total points for Developed. There were no points for the Fairly Developed and
Poorly Developed ratings. The overall weighted mean was 4.24 which proved that
aesthetic is HIGHLY DEVELOPED. The internal experts found the system reliable
and efficient.
27
Table 1.1
Quality Development of the system in terms of Performance
N=3
Table 1.1 shows the quality of the level of development of the system in
terms of performance rated by the 3 respondents. There were 5 total points for
Highly Developed and 10 total points for Very Developed. There were no points
for the Developed, Fairly Developed and Poorly Developed ratings. The total
weighted mean was 4.33 which proved that the level of development of the system
Table 1.2
Quality Development of the system in terms of Reliability
N=3
Table 1.2 shows the quality of the level of development of the system in
terms of reliability rated by the 3 respondents. There were 9 total points for Highly
Developed, 9 total points for Very Developed and 3 total points for Developed.
There were no points for the Fairly Developed and Poorly Developed ratings. The
total weighted mean was 4.28 which proved that the level of development of the
system in terms of reliability is HIGHLY DEVELOPED. This means that the system
Table 1.3
Quality Development of the system in terms of Aesthetic
29
N=3
Table 1.3 shows the quality of the level of development of the system in
terms of aesthetic rated by the 3 respondents. There were 2 total points for Highly
Developed and 16 total points for Very Developed. There were no points for the
Developed, Fairly Developed and Poorly Developed ratings. The total weighted
mean was 4.11 which proved that the level of development of the system in terms
of aesthetic is VERY DEVELOPED. This means that the system design is unique
Evaluation System
30
The researchers presented the following data in getting the final rating of
the level of acceptability of the system in terms of Perceived Ease of Use and
Perceived Usefulness through the use of weighted mean and to know the level of
Table 2.0
Level of Acceptability of the System
N=3
Descriptive
Rating
Category P/A V/A A F/A N/A
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) WX
PERCEIVED EASE OF USE 10 5 0 0 0 4.67 P/A
PERCEIVED USEFULNESS 11 4 0 0 0 4.73 P/A
Overall Weighted Mean 21 9 0 0 0 4.7 P/A
Table 2.0 shows the quality of the level of acceptability of the system in
respondents. There were 21 total points for Perfectly Acceptable and 9 total points
for Very Acceptable. There were no points for the Acceptable, Fairly Acceptable
and Not Acceptable ratings. The overall weighted mean was 4.7 which proved that
the level of acceptability of the system in terms of perceived ease of use and
of the CTAS Department, Chairperson, and the Program Coordinator found the
system easy to use and can improve their performance in evaluating the students’
Table 2.1
Level of Acceptability of the system in terms of Perceived Ease of Use
N=3
perceived ease of use rated by the 3 respondents. There are 3 total numbers for
the acceptability respondents. There were 10 total points for Perfectly Acceptable
and 5 total points for Very Acceptable. There were no points for Acceptable, Fairly
Acceptable and Not Acceptable ratings. The total weighted mean was 4.67 which
proved that the level of acceptability of the system in terms of perceived ease of
use is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. This means that the system is flexible and
Table 2.2
Level of Acceptability of the system in terms of Perceived Usefulness
N=3
perceived usefulness rated by the 3 respondents. There are 3 total numbers for
the acceptability respondents. There were 11 total points for Perfectly Acceptable
and 4 total points for Very Acceptable. There were no points for Acceptable, Fairly
Acceptable and Not Acceptable ratings. The total weighted mean was 4.73 which
proved that the level of acceptability of the system in terms of perceived usefulness
is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. This means that the system is faster and can
The responses from the respondents were used again in this study in order
Table 3.0
Result of Significant Difference of the quality of development of the system
fo fe fo fo fe fo fe fe fo fe
Performance
1. 1. The system responds quickly to what the 3
user wants. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
2. 2. The system quickly retrieves subjects 3
and grades from the database. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
3.The system evaluates the students’ 3
subjects and grades accurately. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0 0
0.17
4.The students’ subjects and grades can 3
be viewed quickly. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
5.The system button responds easily. 3
1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
Reliability
1. 1.The system can show students’ subjects 3
and grades. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
2.The system can add prerequisite 3
subjects. 1 0.89 1 1.94 1 0.17 0 0
3. 3.The system can edit and modify the 3
selected subject. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
4. 4.The system can view confirmation 3
messages to orient the user on what to do. 1 0.89 1 1.94 1 0.17 0 0
5. 5.The system can add curriculum. 2 0.89 0 1.94 1 0.17 0 0 3
6.The system can delete the selected 3
curriculum. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
7.The system can show correct students’ 3
subjects and grades. 2 0.89 1 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
Aesthetic
1.The interface of the system is pleasing to 3
the eyes. 0 0.89 3 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
2.The organization of information on the 3
system screen is clear. 0 0.89 3 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
3.The system design is unique. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0 3
4.The interface of the system is well- 3
organized. 0 0.89 3 1.94 0 0.17 0 0
5.The system color is attractive. 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0 3
6.The texts are readable. 0 0.89 3 1.94 0 0.17 0 0 3
OVERALL 16 35 3 0 0 54
4.21 – 5.00 (5) H/D Highly Developed The system is developed without any revisions.
3.41 – 4.20 (4) V/D Very Developed The system needs slight revisions.
2.61 – 3.40 (3) D Developed The system needs minor revisions.
1.81 – 2.60 (2) F/D Fairly Developed The system needs major revisions.
1.00 – 1.80 (1) P/D Poorly Developed The system should be totally abandoned.
Table 3.0 shows the result of the tabulation which determined the value of
showed that the computed value was 28.67773181 as a result of the Chi-square
Since the tabular value was greater than the computed value and the
and Highly Developed, it showed that the rating was very close. Therefore, the
interpreted data results proved that there was no significant difference between
the three categories of the level of development. And so, the null hypothesis is
accepted. This means that the system is highly developed in terms of performance,
The responses from the respondents were used again in this study in order
Table 4.0
Result of Significant Difference of the level of acceptability
fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe
Perceived Ease of Use
1. The system is flexible to interact 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
with.
2. The system makes the process
of evaluating students’ subjects 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
and grades efficient.
3. The system evaluates the
students’ subjects and grades 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
easily through automation.
4. The system is understandable 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
and user-friendly.
5. The system enhances the 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
evaluation better than manual.
Perceived Usefulness
1. 1. The system minimizes time
consumption in evaluating 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
students’ subjects and grades.
2. The process is faster and more 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
reliable than manual.
3. The system improves the
process from manual to 3 2.1 0 0.9 0 0 0 3
automation.
4. The system lessens the hassle
in evaluating students’ subjects 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
and grades.
5. 5. The system minimizes the errors
in evaluating students’ subjects 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
and grades.
OVERALL 21 9 0 0 0 30
4.21 – 5.00 (5) P/A Perfectly Acceptable The system is acceptable without any revisions.
3.41 – 4.20 (4) V/A Very Acceptable The system needs slight revisions.
2.61 – 3.40 (3) A Acceptable The system needs minor revisions.
1.81 – 2.60 (2) F/A Fairly Acceptable The system needs major revisions.
1.00 – 1.80 (1) N/A Poorly Acceptable The system should be totally abandoned.
Table 4.0 shows the result of the tabulation which determined the value of
of the computed number of frequency rated by the respondents. It showed that the
37
computed value was 1.429 as a result of the Chi-square computation and the
The descriptive rating was Perfectly Acceptable. Since the tabular value
was greater than the computed value, therefore, the interpreted data results
proved that there is no significant difference between the two categories of the
level of acceptability. And so, the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that the
usefulness.