CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Lighting
Table 1. Evaluation of the Mac Lab room lighting.
Responses %
Rating
(n=36)
1 0 0.00
2 2 5.60
3 7 19.40
4 16 44.40
5 11 30.60

Table 1 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the lighting of the Mac

Laboratories. No respondent gave a score of 1/5. Two respondents (5.60%) gave a
score of 2/5. Seven respondents (19.40%) gave a score of 3/5. Sixteen respondents
(44.40%) gave a score of 4/5. Eleven respondents (30.60%) gave a score of 5/5.

Suggestions by the respondents include increasing the intensity of the light

especially when there are drawing, animation, and video recording activities. Adjustable
pin lighting was also recommended. Some recommended incorporation of ambient and
natural light.

In general, lighting of the Mac Lab was considered to be higher than average as
most of the respondents chose a rating of 4/5. There is, of course, still room for
improvement; and suggestions given will serve to be frameworks in designing the
lighting aspect of the 3D model. Lastly, results were in conjunction with the studies cited
in the RRL in that focus and creativity are fostered more on an environment with good
and appropriate lighting. Preference for good lighting particularly natural light in the
room agreed with the study of Slowakiewicz (2016) and Bristolite team (2014) which
related natural light to a better learning performance.
5.2 Chairs and Tables
Table 2. Evaluation of the chairs and tables.
Responses
Rating %
(n=36)
1 0 0.00
2 3 8.30
3 18 50.00
4 9 25.00
5 6 16.70

Table 2 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the chairs and tables of the
Mac Laboratories. No respondent gave a score of 1/5. Three respondents (8.30%) gave
a score of 2/5. Eighteen respondents (50.00%) gave a score of 3/5. Nine respondents
(25.00%) gave a score of 4/5. Six respondents (16.70%) gave a score of 5/5.

The common complaint of the respondents was the inefficient chair-to-table level
in that the chairs were too low for viewing the computer on the table. Furthermore,
respondents wished for more spacious tables where they can freely move. Some
preferred chairs with foams. Some preferred swivel chairs.

In general, the chairs and tables of the Mac Lab were considered to be average
as most of the respondents chose a rating of 3/5. There is, of course, still room for
improvement; and suggestions given will serve to be frameworks in designing the chairs
and tables of the 3D model. Results showed that respondents relate comfort to an
environment conducive for learning which are in conjunction with CHEDs and DepEds
guidelines found in the RRL.

5.3 Sound Control

Table 3. Evaluation of sound control.
Responses
Rating %
(n=36)
1 1 2.80
2 4 11.10
3 16 44.40
4 11 30.60
5 4 11.10

Table 3 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the sound control of the Mac
Laboratories. One respondent (2.80%) gave a score of 1/5. Four respondents (11.10%)
gave a score of 2/5. Sixteen respondents (44.40%) gave a score of 3/5. Eleven
respondents (30.60%) gave a score of 4/5. Four respondents (11.10%) gave a score of
5/5.
 Most of the respondents claimed that noise from the outside (e.g. students
shouting, rain) and inside (e.g. sound of the laptop, air con, students talking) the room
were still considered to be distracting. One respondent suggested the use of glass
doors with rubber instead of wooden doors.

In general, sound control of the Mac Lab was considered to be average as most
of the respondents chose a rating of 3/5. There is, of course, still room for improvement;
and suggestions given will serve to be frameworks for future studies on sound control of
the room as this parameter would not be included in the proposed 3D model.

5.4 Temperature Control

Table 4. Evaluation of temperature control.
Responses
Rating %
(n=36)
1 0 0.00
2 1 2.80
3 2 5.60
4 18 50.00
5 15 41.70

Table 4 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the temperature control of the

Mac Laboratories. No respondent gave a score of 1/5. One respondent (2.80%) gave a
score of 2/5. Two respondents (5.60%) gave a score of 3/5. Eighteen respondents
(50.00%) gave a score of 4/5. Fifteen respondents (41.70%) gave a score of 5/5.

Most of the respondents complained of a too cool temperature inside the room;
but it was mentioned that the professor or the students have control over the air
conditioners.

In general, temperature control of the Mac Lab was considered to be higher than
average as most of the respondents chose a rating of 4/5. There is, of course, still room
for improvement; and suggestions given will serve to be frameworks for future studies
on the temperature control of the room as this parameter would not be included in the
proposed 3D model.
5.5 Chair and Table Logistics
Table 5. Evaluation of chairs and tables logistics
Responses
Rating %
(n=36)
1 1 2.80
2 6 16.70
3 12 33.30
4 9 25.00
5 8 22.20

Table 5 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the temperature control of the

Mac Laboratories. One respondent (2.80%) gave a score of 1/5. Six respondents
(16.70%) gave a score of 2/5. Twelve respondents (33.30%) gave a score of 3/5.
Eighteen respondents (50.00%) gave a score of 4/5. Fifteen respondents (41.70%)
gave a score of 5/5.

In general, the logistics of the chairs and tables in the Mac Lab was considered
to be average as most of the respondents chose a rating of 3/5. Discussion will follow
through in the discussion for the room layout below.

5.6 Room Layout

Table 6. Evaluation of chairs and tables logistics
Responses
Parameter %
(n=36)
Four Leaf Clover 2 5.40
Inverted U-Shaped 7 18.90
M-Shaped 10 27.00
Classroom 16 43.20
U-Shaped 8 21.60

Table 6 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the logistics of the chairs and
tables of the Mac Laboratories. Two respondents (2.80%) chose the four leaf clover
layout. Seven respondents (18.90%) chose the inverted U-shaped layout. Ten
respondents (27.00%) chose the M-shaped layout. Sixteen respondents (43.20%)
chose the old classroom layout. Eight respondents (21.60%) chose the U-shaped
layout.

People who chose the U-shaped layout did so as they thought it to be accessible
for viewing the professor or presentation more and provided little chance for disruption
from other students as students were not seated near each other. There was also a
suggestion for an auditorium type of room where seats are positioned to be gradually
elevated.
 In general, the current room layout of the Mac Lab was still considered to be
conducive for learning as it scored higher than all the other room layouts. However,
different aspects and specific comments should be considered so a modified version of
the current room layout would be presented for the 3D model.

5.7 View Accessibility

Table 7. Evaluation of view accessibility
Responses
Rating %
(n=36)
1 1 2.70
2 2 5.40
3 17 45.90
4 12 32.40
5 5 13.50

Table 7 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the temperature control of the

Mac Laboratories. One respondent (2.70%) gave a score of 1/5. Two respondents
(5.40%) gave a score of 2/5. Seventeen respondents (45.90%) gave a score of 3/5.
Twelve respondents (32.40%) gave a score of 4/5. Five respondents (13.50%) gave a
score of 5/5.

Most of the complaints on not being able to see whats in front pertained to a
small room with the laptops commonly blocking the view particularly for students seating
at the back. A professor also claimed that students from the back were also not clearly
seen as the chair in front were adjusted too low.

In general, view accessibility of the Mac Lab was considered to be average as

most of the respondents chose a rating of 3/5. There is, of course, still room for
improvement; and suggestions given will serve to be frameworks for designing the room
layout.
5.8 Mac Laptops
Table 8. Evaluation of the preferred number of Mac laptops per table
Responses
Number %
(n=36)
2 9 24.30
3 13 37.80
4 9 24.30
5 1 2.70
>5 4 10.80

Table 8 presents the rating of 36 respondents on the preferred number of Mac

laptops per table. Nine respondents (24.30%) preferred 2 laptops. Thirteen respondents
(37.80%) preferred 3 laptops. Nine respondents (24.30%) preferred 4 laptops. One
respondent (2.70%) preferred 5 laptops. Four respondents (10.80%) preferred more
than 5 laptops.

Most respondents stated that the number of laptops do not matter that much than
the proper spacing and arrangement of the laptops. Some, however, wanted more units
placed in the table to cater for animation activities.

In general, respondents preferred only 3 laptops per table; but this was
secondary to the tables configurations and size in that they wouldnt mind more units
placed in a table as long as they are still able to work efficiently in a spacious area. This
is in conjunction with the guidelines presented by CHED and DepEd regarding tables in
the classroom.

5.9 Mac Laboratorys Conduciveness for Learning

Table 9. General evaluation of Mac Laboratorys conduciveness for learning
Responses
Parameter %
(n=36)
Yes 29 81.10
No 7 18.90

Table 9 presents the general evaluation of the Mac Laboratorys conduciveness

for learning. Twenty-nine respondents (81.10%) considered the current laboratory room
to be conducive for learning; while seven respondents (18.90%) said that it was not
conducive for learning.

By this data, it can be said that the current appearance of the Mac Laboratory
room is in itself conducive for learning. However, certain parameters need to be
considered particularly the respondents inputs to modify and improve the current
situation of the Mac Laboratory.
 CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion
In general, evaluation of the Mac Laboratory rooms proved to still be conducive
for learning (81.10%). However, if specific parameters and comments from the
respondents were to be evaluated, certain modifications need to be done to increase
the rooms conduciveness for learning. Good ratings were given to the lighting, chairs
and tables, sound control, temperature control, current room layout, and view
accessibility of the Mac Laboratory rooms; but examination of the comments by the
respondents may serve as guides in the modification of the current laboratory rooms.
This will all be taken into consideration upon 3D modeling of the laboratory rooms.

6.2 Recommendation
The researcher recommends in-depth study of rooms conduciveness for learning
through exploration of parameters other than the ones highlighted in the study, i.e,
flooring, room color, furniture design. Furthermore, as the researcher would not be able
to provide modifications on the sound and temperature control of the rooms, it might be
of note to conduct a study determining the optimal design for lessening noise distraction
and improving temperature control. Lastly, the researcher suggests for a wider scope of
study in that not only the MAS laboratory rooms be studied but also classrooms in
general as these are the usual sites for instruction and learning.