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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 72 72% 3.60
Agree 24 24% 0.96
Undecided 4 4% 0.12
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 67 67% 3.35
Agree 29 29% 1.16
Undecided 3 3% 0.09
Disagree 1 1% 0.02
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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
4.68 Strongly Agree
of instructors' performance
automatically.

The system is capable of

storing the previous evaluation 4.62 Strongly Agree
of instructors' performance.

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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 60 60% 3
Agree 35 35% 1.40
Undecided 5 5% 0.15
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 57 57% 2.85
Agree 39 39% 1.56
Undecided 4 4% 0.12
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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
4.55 Strongly Agree
detection.
 Completing an instructors’
performance evaluation using 4.53 Strongly Agree
the proposed system is
accurate, fast and reliable.
Average 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 47 47% 2.35
Agree 50 50% 2.00
Undecided 3 3% 0.09
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 4.44 Agree
information stored
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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 64 64% 3.20
Agree 29 29% 1.16
Undecided 7 7% 0.21
 Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 56 56% 2.80
Agree 38 38% 1.52
Undecided 6 6% 0.18
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 78 78% 3.90
Agree 17 17% 0.68
Undecided 5 5% 0.15
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 68 68% 3.40
Agree 26 26% 1.04
Undecided 6 6% 0.18
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 Weighted Mean Qualitative Description

I feel comfortable using the
4.57 Strongly Agree
system.
The interface of this system is
4.50 Agree
easy to navigate.
The system provides easy data
4.73 Strongly Agree
entry.

Format of the evaluation

4.62 Strongly Agree
questions is clear and readable.

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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 60 60% 3.00
Agree 37 37% 1.48
Undecided 3 3% 0.09
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 F % Weighted Mean

Strongly Agree 80 80% 4.00
Agree 18 18% 0.72
Undecided 2 2% 0.06
Disagree 0 0% 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0
Total 100 100% 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 4.57 Strongly Agree
want to do with it

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 Weighted Mean Qualitative Description

Functionality 4.65 Strongly Agree
Reliability 4.54 Strongly Agree
Security 4.47 Agree
Usability 4.61 Strongly Agree
Efficiency 4.68 Strongly Agree
Average Weighted Mean 4.59 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.