Anda di halaman 1dari 13

25

Chapter 2

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

This chapter organizes the findings, analysis and presentation of the data.

The data presented the development of the system in terms of performance,

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

determine the level of development and acceptability of Automated Computer

Science Subject and Grade Evaluation System.

Development of the Automated Computer Science Subject and Grade Evaluation

System

The researchers presented the following data in getting the final rating of

the quality of the system development in terms of Performance, Reliability and

Aesthetics through the use of weighted mean and to know the level of development

of the system as rated by the respondents. There were 3 respondents who

measured the development of the system.


26

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

terms of performance, reliability and aesthetic rated by the 3 respondents. There

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

the level of development of the system in terms of performance, reliability and

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

PERFORMANCE (Source: Ambe, N. A., et.al)


Descriptive
Statements H/D V/D D F/D P/D
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Rating
TOTAL WX
1. The system responds quickly to what the 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
user wants.
2. The system quickly retrieves subjects 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
and grades from the database.
3. The system evaluates the students’ 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
subjects and grades accurately.
4. The students’ subjects and grades can 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
be viewed quickly.
5. The system button responds easily. 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
TOTAL 5 10 0 0 0 15 4.33 H/D

Numeric Value Equivalent Rating Interpretation


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.

Legend : WX = Weighted Mean

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

in terms of performance is HIGHLY DEVELOPED. This means that the system

performed well when it comes to performing its functions.


28

Table 1.2
Quality Development of the system in terms of Reliability
N=3

RELIABILITY (Source: Ambe, N. A., et.al)


H/D V/D D F/D P/D
Descriptive
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) TOTAL
Rating
WX
1. The system can show students’ 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
subjects and grades.
2. The system can add prerequisite 1 1 1 0 0 3 4 V/D
subjects.
3. The system can edit and modify the 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
selected subject.
4. The system can view confirmation 1 1 1 0 0 3 4 V/D
messages to orient the user on what
to do.
5. The system can add curriculum. 2 0 1 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
6. The system can delete the selected 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
curriculum.
7. The system can show correct 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.67 H/D
students’ subjects and grades.
TOTAL 9 9 3 0 0 21 4.28 H/D

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

is reliable in terms of showing grades and subjects, adding curriculums, etc.

Table 1.3
Quality Development of the system in terms of Aesthetic
29

N=3

AESTHETIC (Source: Ambe, N. A., et.al)


H/D V/D D F/D P/D Descriptive
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) TOTAL WX Rating

1. The interface of the system is 0 3 0 0 0 3 4 V/D


pleasing to the eyes.
2. The organization of information on 0 3 0 0 0 3 4 V/D
the system screen is clear.
3. The system design is unique. 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
4. The interface of the system is well- 0 3 0 0 0 3 4 V/D
organized.
5. The system color is attractive. 1 2 0 0 0 3 4.33 H/D
6. The texts are readable. 0 3 0 0 0 3 4 V/D
TOTAL 2 16 0 0 0 18 4.11 V/D

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

and pleasant to their eyes.

Acceptability of the Automated Computer Science Subject and Grade

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

acceptability of the system as rated by the respondents. There were 3 respondents

who measured the acceptability of the system.

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

terms of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness rated by the 3

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

perceived usefulness is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. This means that the Dean

of the CTAS Department, Chairperson, and the Program Coordinator found the

system easy to use and can improve their performance in evaluating the students’

grades and subjects.


31

Table 2.1
Level of Acceptability of the system in terms of Perceived Ease of Use
N=3

PERCEIVED EASE OF USE (Source: Ambe, N. A., et.al)


Descriptive
Rating
Statements P/A V/A A F/A N/A
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) TOT WX
AL
1. The system is flexible to interact with. 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.67 P/A
2. The system makes the process of evaluating 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.67 P/A
students’ subjects and grades efficient.
3. The system evaluates the students’ subjects 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.67 P/A
and grades easily through automation.
4. The system is understandable and user- 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.67 P/A
friendly.
5. The system enhances the evaluation better 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.67 P/A
than manual.
TOTAL 10 5 0 0 0 15 4.67 P/A

Numeric Value Equivalent Rating Interpretation


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.
Legend : WX = Weighted Mean

Table 2.1 shows the level of acceptability of the system in terms of

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

understandable to interact with.


32

Table 2.2
Level of Acceptability of the system in terms of Perceived Usefulness
N=3

PERCEIVED USEFULNESS (Source: Ambe, N. A., et.al) Descriptive


P/A V/A A F/A N/A
Rating
Statements
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) TOTAL WX
1. The system minimizes time 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.33 P/A
consumption in evaluating students’
subjects and grades.
2. The process is faster and more 2 1 0 0 0 3 4 P/A
reliable than manual.
3. The system improves the process 3 0 0 0 0 3 4.33 P/A
from manual to automation.
4. The system lessens the hassle in 2 1 0 0 0 3 4 P/A
evaluating students’ subjects and
grades.
5. The system minimizes the errors in 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.33 P/A
evaluating students’ subjects and
grades.
TOTAL 11 4 0 0 0 15 4.73 P/A

Table 2.2 shows the level of acceptability of the system in terms of

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

improve the manual process into an automated one


33

Significant difference on the quality of the level of development of the system

The responses from the respondents were used again in this study in order

to know the significant difference in the level of development according to the

results gathered during the survey.

Table 3.0
Result of Significant Difference of the quality of development of the system

Highly Very Fairly Poorly


Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed
Statement (5) (4) (3) (4) (3) TOTAL
34

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

Numeric Value Equivalent Rating Interpretation

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

the significant difference of quality of development of the system. It contributed to

the result of the computed number of frequency rated by the respondents. It


35

showed that the computed value was 28.67773181 as a result of the Chi-square

computation and the tabular value was 43.773.

Since the tabular value was greater than the computed value and the

descriptive ratings as rated by the respondents were Developed, Very Developed

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,

reliability and aesthetic.

Significant difference of the level of acceptability of the system

The responses from the respondents were used again in this study in order

to know the significant difference in the level of acceptability according to the

results gathered during the survey.

Table 4.0
Result of Significant Difference of the level of acceptability

Highly Very Fairly Not


Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Statement (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) TOTAL
36

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

Numeric Value Equivalent Rating Interpretation

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

the significant difference of acceptability of the system. It contributed to the result

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

tabular value was 9.488.

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

system is perfectly acceptable in terms of perceived ease of use and perceived

usefulness.