CHAPTER the system. Maintenance Maintenance is one essential consideration

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS, PRESENTATION
AND INTERPRETATION

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

     This chapter presents a detailed findings,
presentation and interpretation that are essential in the development of “entitled
Automated Departmental Examination Scheduling System with Mobile
View Application”.

STRUCTURE

     . The composition of the project were
being defined and categorized into two major specifications, the hardware and
software.

Hardware
Specification

Table
4.1.

     Hardware Specification

Hardware Requirements

Description

Printer Scanner

Devices

Desktop, Laptop and Android phone

Tools used for coding, documentation,
evaluation and for other purposes

     
                                                                                                                         Table
4.1.

     Shows the hardware requirements and its
recommended specifications.

 

Software
Specification

Table
4.2.

     Software Specification

Software Requirements

Description

Windows 7

Operating  System

My SQL

For database
management

Google

Website

 

Table
4.2.

    Shows the software requirements and its
recommended specifications.

 

PROCESS

     This section discusses the method or ways
being used for the continuous development concerning the functionality of the developed
system. The process of maintenance to keep the system functioning well along
with the protective measures of the system were being emphasized for better
understanding of the security purposes of the system.

 

 

Maintenance

     Maintenance is one essential consideration
both for hardware and software sides of the system. It is much needed for the
utilization of each part while meeting the needs of the users by making sure
that all the resources were used to come up with functional system that
performs its intended function.

 

Hardware
Maintenance

     Hardware maintenance includes checking the
computer hardware to determine if it has the capability to handle the
processing of the system. It is one of the important aspects to consider for a
system to function well. This was done for reliable and continuing usage. It
includes the checking of the application and it includes the needed
specifications in order for the system to run.

Software
Maintenance

     The maintenance of the system requires
checking the functionality of the application, debugging it, improving the
implementation and enhancing the Software Application Services, also the
connection of the database. The researchers also included a Help Page in the
interface where the users can rely on once they experienced any problem.

Security
and Backup

     It is important that the students,
proctors, and schedulers are aware of the value of information contained in the
records they take control of and execute responsibility in accordance with the
records and privacy. In the developed system, password encryption is one of the
required measures of data security. The register process provides the email for
the user to be able to recover their account in case they have forgotten their
password. The system is managed by procedures that are designed to ensure the
security and authenticity of records. Security for both records and users is
managed within the system. The researchers provided a database backup and
restore feature so that the scheduler will be able to preserve their database
in case of systems failure.

 

DEMONSTRATION

     Demonstration is the manifestation of a
process at work through the use of practical experiments for purpose of
teaching (New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary). This may also mean description or
explanation of a process presented by examples.

 

Testing

     Testing serves as one of the most vital
phase of system completion. In this phase, the system is being assured to be
functioning in the intended purpose and it does not meet the requirements set
to it from the start of the development up to its completion.

     The system was first tested by the
researchers. This was done to look for errors and to eliminate bugs. It primary
purpose was to check if the system complied with the requirements set for it.

 

 

Evaluation

     The researchers conducted the evaluation
procedure of the developed “entitled Automated
Departmental Examination Scheduling System with Mobile
View Application” to three seventy eight (378) respondents comprising faculty
staffs, students, program chairs and associate deans of College of Engineering
and Computing Sciences, College of Teacher Education, College of Industrial
Technology, College of Arts and Sciences, College of Nursing and Allied Health

Sciences,
and College of Accountancy, Business, Economics International Hospitality
Management. The respondents were asked to answer the evaluation forms to
determine the level of acceptability of the developed system in terms of
Accuracy, Efficiency, Reliability, Usability and User-friendliness. All
questions were asked in the survey and structure questionnaires pertain only to
the respondent’s insights of satisfaction on the developed system.

 

Findings
and Interpretation

      This section presents the analysis and
presentation of data substantial in determining the level of satisfaction of
the three seventy eight (378) respondents in the developed system. For better
understanding of the discussion of the findings, the various results were
presented in the succeeding tables and the level of acceptability in terms of Accuracy,
Efficiency, Reliability, Usability and User-friendliness, followed by the
corresponding discussions and explanations of findings of the same sequential
order of the specific questions.

Table
4.3.

           Problems Encountered in Manual Scheduling
System by Schedulers

Common Problems

Frequency

Time consuming in terms of changing of
schedules.

0

Conflict of Schedules

2

Conflict of Rooms

5

Availability of faculty to be
assigned.

0

 

 

      Table 4.3.

     Shows that 5 schedulers claimed that the
most encountered problem is conflict of rooms, 2 said that conflicts of rooms.

Table
4.4.

      Problems Encountered in Manual Scheduling
System by Students

Common Problems

Frequency

Unnoticed
in the changes of schedule of exam.

278

Time
consuming in terms of changing of rooms.

224

Time
consuming in terms of locating respective schedule.

213

   

Table
4.4.

     Shows that 278 students claimed that the
most encountered problem is unnoticed in the changes of schedule of exam, 224
respondents said its time consuming in terms of changing of rooms, 213
respondents found it time consuming in terms of locating respective schedule.

Table
4.5.

     Problems Encountered in Manual Scheduling
System by Proctors

Common Problems

Frequency

Unnoticed in the changes of schedule
of exam.

2

Conflicts of Schedules (ex. Double
distribution of assignment)

8

Availability of Time (ex. Emergency
purposes)

6

 

Table
4.5.

     Shows that 8 proctors claimed that the
most encountered problem is conflicts of schedule, and 6 said availability of
time and 2 found it unnoticed in the changes of schedule of exam.

Table
4.6.

      Level
of Acceptability of the Developed System in terms of Accuracy by the Students
and Proctors

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system only accepts correct inputs.

112

200

64

2

0

4.18

Moderately Acceptable

2.
The system provides accurate schedule.

126

159

93

0

0

4.15

Moderately Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.17

Moderately
Acceptable

 

     Table 4.6.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the
developed system as evaluated by the students and proctors. The developed system
was rated Moderately Acceptable by the students and proctors with the grade
weighted mean of four and seventeen hundredths (4.17).

Table
4.7.

     Level of Acceptability of the Developed
System in terms of Efficiency by the Students and Proctors

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system has the capability to create schedule automatically.

122

171

80

5

0

4.15

Moderately Acceptable

2.
The system helps the user to resolve conflict in schedule.

112

160

101

5

0

4.07

Moderately Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.11

Moderately
Acceptable

 

     Table 4.7.

     Shows
the frequency distribution of the developed system as evaluated by the students
and proctors. The developed system was rated Moderately Acceptable by the students
and proctors with the grade weighted mean of four and eleven hundredths (4.11).

Table
4.8.

      Level
of Acceptability of the Developed System in terms of Reliability by the
Students and Proctors

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system can perform its intended functions without errors.

94

154

114

16

0

3.92

Moderately Acceptable

2.
The system provides reliable examination schedule.

111

160

105

2

0

4.07

Moderately Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.00

Moderately
Acceptable

 

     Table 4.8.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the students and proctors. The developed system was
rated Moderately Acceptable students and proctors with the grade weighted mean of
four tens (4.00).                  

Table
4.9.

     Level of Acceptability of the Developed System
in terms of Usability by the Students and Proctors

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system is usable.

236

126

16

0

0

4.66

Highly Acceptable

2.
The system provides backup and restore failure.

189

149

40

0

0

4.47

Highly Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.56

Highly
Acceptable

    

 Table 4.9.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the students and proctors. The developed system was
rated Highly Acceptable by students and proctors with the grade weighted mean
of four and fifty six hundredths (4.56).

 

 

Table
4.10.

      Level
of Acceptability of the Developed System in terms of User – Friendliness by the
Students and Proctors

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system provides interface that is easy to understand and use by the user.

231

118

29

0

0

4.61

Highly Acceptable

2.
The system provides Help Features to orient the user in using the system.

205

135

38

0

0

4.51

Highly Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.56

Highly
Acceptable

 

     Table 4.10.

      Shows
the frequency distribution of the developed system as evaluated by the students
and proctors. The developed system was rated Highly Acceptable by the students
and proctors with the grade weighted mean of four and fifty six hundredths (4.56).

 

Table
4.11.

      Level of Acceptability of the Developed System
in terms Accuracy by the Schedulers

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system only accepts correct inputs.

4

2

0

0

0

4.67

Highly Acceptable

2.
The system provides accurate schedule.

4

2

0

0

0

4.67

Highly Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.67

Highly
Acceptable

 

       Table 4.11.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the
developed system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated
Highly Acceptable by the schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and sixty
seven hundredths (4.67).  

 

 

 

 

Table
4.12.

     Level of Acceptability of the Developed
System in terms of Efficiency by the Schedulers

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system has the capability to create schedule automatically.

5

1

0

0

0

4.83

Highly Acceptable

2.
The system helps the user to resolve conflict in schedule.

5

1

0

0

0

4.83

Highly Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.83

Highly
Acceptable

 

     Table 4.12.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated Highly Acceptable
by the schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and eighty three
hundredths (4.83).

 

 

 

Table
4.13.

      Level
of Acceptability of the Developed System in terms of Reliability by the
Schedulers

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system can perform its intended functions without errors.

3

3

0

0

0

4.50

Highly Acceptable

2.
The system provides reliable examination schedule.

3

3

0

0

0

4.50

Highly  Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.50

Highly
Acceptable

 

     Table 4.13.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated Highly Acceptable
by the schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and fifty hundredths (4.50).

 

 

 

Table
4.14.

      Level of Acceptability of the Developed System
in terms of Usability by the Schedulers

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system is usable.

5

1

0

0

0

4.83

Highly Acceptable

2.
The system provides backup and restore failure.

4

1

0

1

0

4.33

Highly Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.58

Highly
Acceptable

  

  Table 4.14.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated Highly Acceptable
by schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and fifty eight hundredths (4.58).

 

 

 

Table
4.15.

      Level of Acceptability of the Developed System
in terms of User – Friendliness by the Schedulers

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system provides interface that is easy to understand and use by the user.

5

1

0

0

0

4.83

Highly Acceptable

2.
The system provides Help Features to orient the user in using the system.

4

1

0

1

0

4.50

Highly Acceptable

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.67

Highly
Acceptable

 

     Table 4.15.

      Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated Highly Acceptable
by schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and sixty seven hundredths (4.67).  

 

 

Table
4.16.

      Level
of Satisfaction in terms of Automatic Scheduling

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system is capable in creating schedule automatically.

3

3

0

0

0

4.5

Highly Satisfied

2.
The system can automatically assigned proctors for each class.

6

0

0

0

0

5

Highly Satisfied

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.75

Highly
Satisfied

 

     Table 4.16.

      Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated Highly
Satisfied by the schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and seventy
five hundredths (4.75). 

 

 

 

 

Table
4.17.

      Level
of Satisfaction in terms Exam Schedule Dissemination

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
 The system is capable in disseminating
rooms and time for each class.

3

2

0

1

0

4.16

Moderately Satisfied

2.
The system notifies the user when exam scheduled is changed.

3

3

0

0

0

4.5

Highly Satisfied

Overall
Weighted Mean

4.33

Highly
Satisfied

 

     Table 4.17.

      Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated Highly
Satisfied by schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and thirty three
hundredths (4.33.)       

 

 

 

Table
4.18.

     Level of Satisfaction in terms of Report
Generation

Criteria

5

4

3

2

1

Weighted
Mean

Verbal
Interpretation

1.
The system produce printed schedules.

6

0

0

0

0

5

Highly Satisfied

2.
The system can produce printed list of proctors and prospectus.

4

2

0

0

0

4.66

Highly Satisfied

Overall Weighted Mean

4.83

Highly
Satisfied

 

     Table 4.18.

     Shows the frequency distribution of the developed
system as evaluated by the schedulers. The developed system was rated Highly
Satisfied by the schedulers with the grade weighted mean of four and eighty
three hundredths (4.83).