Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

APPENDICES

OFFLINE AUTOMATEDENROLLMENT SYSTEM APPLICATION AMONG


SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL DEPARTMENT IN ASIAN LEARNING
CENTER(Development Questionnaire)

Name: Date: ________ __ Student __ Teacher

Instruction: Please evaluate the system using the scale below. Put a check ()
mark inside each box which best corresponds your rating.
SCALE DESCRIPTIVE RATING QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION
5 Highly Developed The system is developed without any
revisions.
4 Very Developed The system needs slight revisions.
3 Developed The system needs minor revisions.
2 Fairly Developed The system needs major revisions.
1 Poorly Developed The system should be totally abandoned.

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


5 4 3 2 1
The system responds quickly to what the user wants.
The system quickly retrieves enrollment process from
the database.
The system evaluates the students’ enrollment process
accurately.
The students’ subjects can be viewed quickly.
The system button responds easily.
Total Score

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


5 4 3 2 1
The system can show students’ information and
subjects.
The system can add prerequisite subjects.
The system can edit and modify the selected information
and subject.
The system can view confirmation messages to orient
the user on what to do.
The system can add new enrollees.
The system can delete the selected subject.
The system can show correct students’ information.
Total Score

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


5 4 3 2 1
The interface of the system is pleasing to the eyes.
The organization of information on the system screen is
clear.
The system design is unique.
The interface of the system is well-organized.
The system color is attractive.
The texts are readable.
Total Score

Comments/Suggestions:

Total Score of Performance :


Total Score of Reliability :
Total Score of Aesthetic :
Total Score :

Signature of the Respondents


OFFLINE AUTOMATEDENROLLMENT SYSTEM APPLICATION AMONG
SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL DEPARTMENT IN ASIAN LEARNING CENTER
(Acceptability Questionnaire)

Name: Date: ________ __ Student __ Teacher

Instruction: Please evaluate the system using the scale below. Put a check ()
mark inside each box which best corresponds your rating.
SCALE DESCRIPTIVE RATING QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION
5 Perfectly Acceptable The system is acceptable without any
revisions.
4 Very Acceptable The system needs slight revisions.
3 Acceptable The system needs minor revisions.
2 Fairly Acceptable The system needs major revisions.
1 Not Acceptable The system should be totally abandoned.

A. PERCEIVED EASE OF USE (Source: Ambe, N. Rating


A., et.al) 5 4 3 2 1
The system is flexible to interact with.
The system makes the process of evaluating students’
enrollment process efficient.
The system evaluates the students’ subjects easily
through automation.
The system is understandable and user-friendly.
The system enhances the evaluation better than manual.
Total Score

B. PERCEIVED USEFULNESS (Source: Ambe, N. Rating


A., et.al) 5 4 3 2 1
The system minimizes time consumption in evaluating
students’ enrollment process.
The process is faster and more reliable than manual.
The system improves the process from manual to
automation.
The system lessens the hassle in evaluating students’
enrollment process.
The system minimizes the errors in evaluating students’
enrollment process.
Total Score
Comments/Suggestions:

Total Score of Perceived ease of use :


Total Score of Perceived usefulness :
Total Score :

Signature of the Respondents


Appendix B

Statistical Tools

To find out the quality level of Development of the system rated by the internal

experts:

Chi-square for independence;

(𝑓𝑜−𝑓𝑒)2
X2= [ ]
𝑓𝑒

Where:

X2= Chi-square

= summation

𝑓𝑜= observed frequency

𝑓𝑒= expected frequency

(𝑓𝑜−𝑓𝑒)2
X2= 𝑓𝑒

(1−0.89)2 (2−0.89)2 (0−0.89)2 (2−1.94)2 (1−1.94)2 (3−1.94)2


X2 = 12 +2 +4 +10 +3 +4 +
0.89 0.89 0.89 1.94 1.94 1.94

(0−1.94)2 (0−0.17)2 (1−0.17)2


+15 +3
1.94 0.17 0.17

X2 = 12(0.013595505)+ 2(1.384382022)+4(0.89)+ 10(0.1855670103)+


3(0.455463917)+ 4(0.579175257)+1.94+ 15(0.17)+ 3(4.052352941)+
X2= 0.16314606 + 2.768764044 + 3.56 + 1.855670103 + 1.366391751 +
2.316701028 + 1.94 + 2.55 + 12.15705882
X2= 28.67773181
X2= 28.678
Tabular Value @ 5% df(34) = 43.773
Result: Not Significant

1.287 Highly Very Fairly Poorly


Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed
(5) (4) (3) (4) (3) TOTAL
fo fe fo fo fe fo fe fe fo fe
P 0.17
E 1 1 0.89
2 1.94
0 0 0 3
R
2 1 2 0 0.17 0 0 3
F
O 0.89 1.94
R 3 1 2 0 0.17 0 0 3
M 0.89 1.94
A 0.17
N 4 1 0.89
2 1.94
0 0 0 3
C
E 5 1 2 0 0.17 0 0 3
0.89 1.94
1 1 0.89
2 1.94
0 0.17
0 0 3
R
E 2 1 1 1 0.17 0 0 3
L 0.89 1.94
I 3 1 0.89
2 1.94
0 0.17
0 0 3
A
B 4 1 0.89
1 1.94
1 0.17
0 0 3
I
L 5 2 0.89
0 1.94
1 0.17
0 0 3
I
T 6 1 0.89
2 1.85
0 0.17
0 0 3
Y
7 2 0.89
1 1.94
0 0.17
0 0 3
1 0 3 0 0.17 0 0 3
A 0.89 1.94
E 0.17
S
2 0 0.89
3 1.94
0 0 0 3
T 0.89 1.94 0.17
H 3 1 2 0 0 0 3
E 4 0 3 0 0.17 0 0 3
T 0.89 1.94
I 5 1 0.89 2 1.94 0 0.17 0 0 3
C 0.89 1.94 0.17
6 0 3 0 0 0 3
OVERALL 16 35 3 0 0 54

Numeric Value Equivalent Rating Interpretation

4.5 – 5.0 = (5) H/D Highly Developed The system is developed without any revisions.
4.0 – 4.4 = (4) V/D Very DevelopedThe system needs slight revisions.
3.0 – 3.4 = (3) D DevelopedThe system needs minor revisions.
2.0 – 2.4 = (2) F/D Fairly DevelopedThe system needs major revisions.
1.0 – 1.4 = (1) P/D Poorly DevelopedThe system should be totally abandoned.
To find out the level of Acceptability of the system rated by the respondents:

Chi-square for independence;

(𝑓𝑜−𝑓𝑒)2
X2= [ ]
𝑓𝑒

Where:
X2= Chi-square
= summation
𝑓𝑜= observed frequency
𝑓𝑒= expected frequency
(𝑓𝑜−𝑓𝑒)2
X2=
𝑓𝑒
(2−2.1)2 (3−2.1)2 (1−0.9)2 (0−0.9)2
X2= 9 + +9 +
2.1 2.1 0.9 0.9

X2= 0.042857142 + 0.385714285 + 0.1+ 0.9


X2= 1.428571427
X2= 1.429
Tabular Value @ 5% df(4) = 9.488
Result: Not Significant
Highly Very Fairly Not
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) TOTAL
fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe
E
A 1 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
S
E 2 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
O
F
3 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
U 4 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
S
E 5 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
U
S 1 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
E
F 2 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
U
L 3 3 2.1 0 0.9 0 0 0 3
N
E 4 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
S
S 5 2 2.1 1 0.9 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 21 9 0 0 0 30
Numeric Value Equivalent Rating Interpretation

4.5 – 5.0 = (5) P/APerfectly Acceptable The system is acceptable without any revisions.
4.0 – 4.4 = (4) V/A Very Acceptable The system needs slight revisions.
3.0 – 3.4 = (3) AAcceptableThe system needs minor revisions.
2.0 – 2.4 = (2) F/A Fairly Acceptable The system needs major revisions.
1.0 – 1.4 = (1) N/A Poorly Acceptable The system should be totally abandoned.

Вам также может понравиться