Chapter 4.docx

CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA This chapter summarizes the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data gathered by the researchers. Table 3 Assessment of the capability of the system in computing the average rating of instructors' performance automatically. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 72 24 4 0 0 100

% 72% 24% 4% 0% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 3.60 0.96 0.12 0 0 4.68

It can be gleaned from table 3 that the total average weighted mean is 4.68 and the qualitative description “Strongly Agree” got the highest frequency of seventy two (72) or seventy two percent (72%) with a weighted mean of 3.60. This indicates that majority of the respondents strongly agree that the proposed system is capable of computing the average rating of instructors’ performance automatically.

Table 4

Assessment of the capability of the system in storing the previous evaluation of instructors' performance. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 67 29 3 1 0 100

% 67% 29% 3% 1% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 3.35 1.16 0.09 0.02 0 4.62

As shown in table 4 the total average weighted mean is 4.62 and the qualitative description “Strongly Agree” got the highest frequency of sixty seven (67) or sixty seven percent (72%) with a weighted mean of 3.35. The results imply that the proposed system is capable of storing the previous evaluation of instructors’ performance.

Table 5 Overall assessment of the Functionality of the Proposed System. Functionality

Weighted Mean

Qualitative Description

The system is capable of computing the average rating of instructors' performance automatically.

4.68

Strongly Agree

The system is capable of storing the previous evaluation of instructors' performance.

4.62

Strongly Agree

Average

4.65

Strongly Agree

The assessments of the functionality of the proposed system basically referred in to this study were explained below.

Table 5 shows that the proposed system highly preferred the functionality with an average weighted mean of 4.65 which indicate that the respondents strongly agree on the assessment of the functionality of the proposed system. As shown in the table between the two statements, the first statement got the highest weighted mean of 4.68 with a corresponding qualitative description “Strongly Agree”. While the third statement got a weighted mean of 4.62 with a corresponding qualitative description of “Strongly Agree”. According to the study of Salas (2015) entitled “A Web and Mobile-Based Faculty Performance Evaluation System” the functionality of the system was excellent based on the weighted mean of 4.55. It clearly shows that the system is able to perform the task assigned to it. It implies that the system is functional that it could fit the need of the respective higher educational institutions (HEIs). Table 6 Assessment of the Reliability of the Proposed System in terms of having an error detection Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 60 35 5 0 0 100

% 60% 35% 5% 0% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 3 1.40 0.15 0 0 4.55

Table 6 presents an average weighted mean of 4.55. Sixty percent (60%) of the respondents responded “Strongly Agree”, thirty five (35%) responded “Agree” and five percent (5%) rated “Undecided”. The results imply that the respondents strongly agree in the reliability of the proposed system in terms of having an error detection.

Table 7 Assessment of the Reliability in terms of how accurate, fast and reliable the proposed system in completing an instructors' performance evaluation. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 57 39 4 0 0 100

% 57% 39% 4% 0% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 2.85 1.56 0.12 0 0 4.53

As shown on the table above, the total average weighted mean is 4.53 and the qualitative description “Strongly Agree” got the highest frequency of fifty seven (57) or fifty seven percent (57%). This indicates that majority of the respondents strongly agree that the proposed system is reliable in terms how accurate, fast and reliable it completes the instructors’ performance evaluation.

Table 8 Overall assessment of the Reliability of the Proposed System Reliability

Weighted Mean

Qualitative Description

The system has error detection.

4.55

Strongly Agree

Completing an instructors’ performance evaluation using the proposed system is accurate, fast and reliable. Average

4.53

Strongly Agree

4.54

Strongly Agree

Table 9 shows the frequency of the respondents and its corresponding weighted mean on the evaluation of the proposed system in terms of its reliability with a total weighted mean of 4.54. As shown in the table, the second statement got the highest weighted mean of 4.53 with a corresponding qualitative description “Strongly Agree”. While, the second statement got the weighted mean of 4.40 with a corresponding qualitative description of “Agree”. The results mean that the respondents strongly agree with the reliability of the proposed system. According to the study of Salas (2015) entitled “A Web and Mobile-Based Faculty Performance Evaluation System” the system was rated 4.51, excellent, with regard to reliability. It means that it is capable of detecting errors and completing evaluation accurate, fast and reliable.

Table 9 Assessment of the Security in terms of having a security feature that will protect the information stored. Qualitative Description

F

%

Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

47 50 3 0 0 100

47% 50% 3% 0% 0% 100%

2.35 2.00 0.09 0 0 4.44

As shown in this table, the total weighted mean is 4.44. It can be inferred that the respondents agree that the proposed system have a security feature that will protect the information stored. Table 10 Overall assessment of the Security of the Proposed System Security

Weighted Mean

Qualitative Description

The system have specific security features to protect the information stored

4.44

Agree

Average

4.44

Agree

Table 10 reveals the assessment of the security of the proposed system got an average weighted mean of 4.44. These results imply that the respondents agree with the security of the proposed system.

Table 11 Assessment of the Usability in terms of being comfortable in using the Proposed System. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided

F 64 29 7

% 64% 29% 7%

Weighted Mean 3.20 1.16 0.21

Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

0 0 100

0% 0% 100%

0 0 4.57

Table 11 reveals that sixty four percent (64%) of the total respondents rated “Strongly Agree” with a weighted mean of 3.20. The total average weighted mean is 4.57. These results imply that the respondents feel comfortable upon using the proposed system.

Table 12 Assessment of the Usability in terms of the interface of the proposed system easy to navigate. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 56 38 6 0 0 100

% 56% 38% 6% 0% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 2.80 1.52 0.18 0 0 4.50

The table above presents a total weighted mean of 4.50 which fifty six percent (56%) of the respondents responded “Strongly Agree”, thirty eight percent (38%) responded “Agree” and six percent (6%) responded “Undecided”. This means that the respondents strongly agree that the interface of the proposed system is easy to navigate.

Table 13 Assessment of the Usability in terms of the proposed system providing easy data entry. Qualitative Description

F

%

Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

78 17 5 0 0 100

78% 17% 5% 0% 0% 100%

3.90 0.68 0.15 0 0 4.73

As shown on the table above, the total average weighted mean is 4.73 and the qualitative description “Strongly Agree” got the highest frequency of seventy eight (78) or seventy eight percent (78%) with a weighted mean of 3.90. This indicates that majority of the respondents strongly agree that the proposed system provides easy data entry.

Table 14 Assessment of the Usability in terms of the proposed system providing format of the evaluation questions being clear and readable. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 68 26 6 0 0 100

% 68% 26% 6% 0% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 3.40 1.04 0.18 0 0 4.62

Table 14 reveals that the total average weighted mean is 4.62 and the qualitative description “Strongly Agree” got the highest frequency of sixty eight (68) or sixty eight percent (68%) with a weighted mean of 3.40. This means that majority of the respondents strongly agree that the format of the evaluation questions in the proposed system is clear and readable.

Table 15 Overall assessment of the Usability of the Proposed System. Usability I feel comfortable using the system. The interface of this system is easy to navigate.

Weighted Mean

Qualitative Description

4.57

Strongly Agree

4.50

Agree

The system provides easy data entry.

4.73

Strongly Agree

Format of the evaluation questions is clear and readable.

4.62

Strongly Agree

Average 4.61 Strongly Agree The assessments of the usability of the proposed system basically referred in to this study were explained below. Table 15 shows that the proposed system highly preferred the usability with an average weighted mean of 4.61 which indicate that the respondents strongly agree on the assessment of the usability of the proposed system. As shown in the table between the four statements, the third statement got the highest weighted mean of 4.73 with a corresponding qualitative description “Strongly Agree”. The fourth statement got the second highest weighted mean of 4.62 with a corresponding qualitative description “Strongly Agree”. Next, the first statement got the third highest weighted mean of 4.50

with a corresponding qualitative description of “Strongly Agree”. And lastly, the second statement got the lowest weighted mean of 4.50 with a corresponding qualitative description of “Agree”. According to the study of Salas (2015) entitled “A Web and Mobile-Based Faculty Performance Evaluation System” the system’s usability was rated 4.62, excellent, which indicates the system’s understandability, learnability and attractiveness. It means that the system can be operated with minimal effort by the users.

Table 16 Assessment of the Efficiency in terms of requiring a fewest step possible to accomplish what I want to do with the proposed system. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 60 37 3 0 0 100

% 60% 37% 3% 0% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 3.00 1.48 0.09 0 0 4.57

It can be gleaned from table 16 that the total average weighted mean is 4.57 and the qualitative description “Strongly Agree” got the highest frequency of sixty (60) or

sixty percent (60%) with a weighted mean of 3.00. This indicates that majority of the respondents strongly agree that the proposed system only require a few steps in accomplishing what they want to do with it.

Table 17 Assessment of the Efficiency in terms of saving paper resources. Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

F 80 18 2 0 0 100

% 80% 18% 2% 0% 0% 100%

Weighted Mean 4.00 0.72 0.06 0 0 4.78

As shown in table 17, the total average weighted mean is 4.78. There are eighty percent (80%) of the respondents responded “Strongly Agree”, eighteen percent (80%) in “Agree” and two percent (2%) responded “Undecided”. This indicates that majority of the respondents strongly agree that proposing the instructors’ performance evaluation system saves paper resources.

Table 18 Overall assessment of the Efficiency of the Proposed System. Efficiency

Weighted Mean

Qualitative Description

It requires the fewest steps possible to accomplish what I want to do with it

4.57

Strongly Agree

It saves paper resources.

4.78

Strongly Agree

Average

4.68

Strongly Agree

The assessments of the efficiency of the proposed system basically referred in to this study were explained below. Table 18 shows that, generally, the proposed system highly preferred the efficiency with an average weighted mean of 4.68 which indicate that the respondents strongly agree on the assessment of the efficiency of the proposed system. As shown in the table between the two statements, the second statement got the highest weighted mean of 4.78 with a corresponding qualitative description “Strongly Agree”. While, the second statement got the weighted mean of 4.57 with a corresponding qualitative description of “Strongly Agree”. According to the study of Salas (2015) entitled “A Web and Mobile-Based Faculty Performance Evaluation System” with regard to efficiency, the system obtained a weighted mean of 4.26, excellent. This implies that it is time-based and resource-based. It also proves that the system manages its processes. Table 19 Overall assessment of the Characteristics of the Proposed System. Characteristics Functionality Reliability Security Usability Efficiency Average Weighted Mean

Weighted Mean 4.65 4.54 4.47 4.61 4.68 4.59

Qualitative Description Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Lastly, Table 19 shows that the respondents strongly agree to the fineness of the whole system as they gave it an overall rating of 4.59. This implies that the proposed

system is working and really helpful in evaluating the instructors’ performance every semester. The respondents strongly agree that the proposed system is functional, reliable, secure, usable and efficient if implemented in the college. According to the study of Salas (2015) entitled “A Web and Mobile-Based Faculty Performance Evaluation System” there is a constructive approval on the web and mobile-based faculty performance evaluation system from the respondents as affirmed by excellent ratings they give in five criteria namely: functionality, reliability, security, usability and efficiency. The system was found to be highly functional in generating a more precise result of evaluation in minimal time and could be an improvement on the traditional evaluation procedure.