Você está na página 1de 7

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA


This chapter discusses the analysis and interpretation of data as well as the
findings of the conducted evaluation. The detailed tally result of students, faculties and IT
experts that use the system is discussed in this section.

Fifty (50) different people evaluated the MCU Modular E-course. Almost all of them
rated the system with “Excellent” and some with “Very Good” and “Satisfactory”

Table 4.0 Likert Scale Evaluation for MCU Modular E-course.

NUMERICAL RATING EQUIVALENT


5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Satisfactory
2 Needs Improvement
1 Poor

Table 4.0 shows the rating of 5 Excellent, 4 Very good, 3 Satisfactory, 2 Needs
Improvement and lastly, 1 Poor
Table 4.1 Mean Range Values
VALUES RATING SCALE
Excellent 4.5-5.00
Very Good 3.5-4.49
Satisfactory 2.5-3.49
Needs Improvement 1.5-2.49
Poor 1-1.49
Table 4.1 shows the rating of “Excellent” ranged from 4.5 to 5.00, while 3.5 to
4.49 “Very Good”, 2.5 to 3.49 “Satisfactory”, however 1.5 to 2.49 “Needs Improvement”
and lastly 1.00 to 1.74 for “Poor”

Detailed Tally Result of the Evaluation

4.2 Detailed Tally Result of the Evaluation of MCU Modular E-course (Users)

CRITERIA RATING
I. FUNCTIONALITY 1 2 3 4 5
1. Functions required for the application are 1 6 19 14
implemented (suitability)
2. Functional accuracy is provided 9 20 11
(accuracy)
3. Functions have met with the specifications 1 8 16 15
(compliance).
4. Connecting with other systems and 3 7 17 13
application is provided (interoperability).
5. Substantial security is provided. 6 17 17
II. RELIABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
1. Application has minimal to no bug 1 7 12 20
(maturity).
2. A certain system level is maintained even 8 21 11
when a trouble occurs (fault tolerance).
3. Normal operations are restored readily, 8 13 18
when a failure occurs (recoverability).
III. USABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
1. The application is easy to operate 8 14 18
(learnability).
2. Allows easy operation management 7 15 18
(operability).

Table 4.2 shows the detailed tally of the evaluation. The developed system was evaluated
by forty (40) users on the following criteria functionality, reliability and usability. The table
shows that the developed system was accepted based from the result, majority of the
respondents answered the highest point.
4.2.1 Detailed Mean Tally Result of the Evaluation of MCU Modular E-course
(Users)

CRITERIA RATING

I. FUNCTIONALITY Mean Description

1. Functions required for the application are 4.10 Very Good


implemented (sustainability)
2. Functional accuracy is provided 4.05 Very good
(accuracy)
3. Functions have met with the specifications 4.12 Very Good
(compliance).
4. Connecting with other systems and 4.00 Very Good
application is provided (interoperability).
5. Substantial security is provided. 4.27 Very Good
II. RELIABILITY Mean Description

1. Application has minimal to no bug (maturity). 4.27 Very Good


2. A certain system level is maintained even 4.07 Very Good
when a trouble occurs (fault tolerance).
3. Normal operations are restored readily, when 4.20 Very Good
a failure occurs (recoverability).
III. USABILITY Mean Description

1. The application is easy to operate 4.25 Very Good


(learnability).
2. Allows easy operation management 4.27 Very Good
(operability).

Table 4.2.1 shows the detailed mean tally of the evaluation. The developed system was
evaluated by forty (40) users on the following criteria functionality, reliability and usability.
The table shows that the developed system was accepted based from the result, all of
the experts responded with an “Very Good” remark.
4.4 Detailed Tally Result of the Evaluation of MCU Modular E-course (IT Expert)

CRITERIA RATING
I. FUNCTIONALITY 1 2 3 4 5

1. Functions required for the application are 3 7


implemented (suitability)
2. Functional accuracy is provided (accuracy) 3 7

3. Functions have met with the specifications 4 6


(compliance).
4. Connecting with other systems and 9 1
application is provided (interoperability).
5. Substantial security is provided. 10
II. RELIABILITY 1 2 3 4 5

1. Application has minimal to no bug (maturity). 10

2. A certain system level is maintained even 2 8


when a trouble occurs (fault tolerance).
3. Normal operations are restored readily, when 3 7
a failure occurs (recoverability).
III. USABILITY 1 2 3 4 5

3. The application is easy to operate 4 6


(learnability).
4. Allows easy operation management 6 4
(operability).
IV. EFFICIENCY 1 2 3 4 5

1. Provides good responses high throughput 10


time (time behavior).
2. Allows effective use of application resources. 7 3
V. MAINTAINABILITY 1 2 3 4 5

1. Allows easy analysis of design documents and 4 6


program when a bug is found (analyzability).
2. Allows easy expansion and modification of the 4 6
application (changeability).
3. Modification of the application does not affect 3 7
others (stability).
4. Laborious test are not required after a 1 7 2
modification has been made (testability).
VI. PORTABILITY 1 2 3 4 5

1. Provides flexible environment (adaptability). 4 6


2. Providing easy installation work (instability). 6 4

3. Compliance with porting specifications 8 2


(conformance).

Table 4.4 shows the detailed tally of the evaluation. The developed system was evaluated
by ten (10) IT experts on the following criteria functionality, reliability, usability efficiency,
maintainability, and portability. The table shows that the developed system was accepted
based from the result, majority of the experts answered the highest point.

4.4.1 Detailed Mean Tally Result of the Evaluation (IT Experts)

CRITERIA RATING
I. FUNCTIONALITY MEAN DESCRIPTION
1. Functions required for the 4.70 Excellent
application are implemented
(suitability)
2. Functional accuracy is 4.70 Excellent
provided (accuracy)
3. Functions have met with the 4.60 Excellent
specifications (compliance).
4. Connecting with other systems 4.10 Very Good
and application is provided
(interoperability).
5. Substantial security is 5 Excellent
provided.
II. RELIABILITY MEAN DESCRIPTION
1. Application has minimal to no 5 Excellent
bug (maturity).
2. A certain system level is 4.80 Excellent
maintained even when a trouble
occurs (fault tolerance).
3. Normal operations are 4.70 Excellent
restored readily, when a failure
occurs (recoverability).
III. USABILITY MEAN DESCRIPTION
1. The application is easy to 4.60 Excellent
operate (learnability).
2. Allows easy operation 4.40 Very Good
management (operability).
IV. EFFICIENCY MEAN DESCRIPTION
1. Provides good responses high 5 Excellent
throughput time (time behavior).
2. Allows effective use of application 4.30 Very Good
resources.
V. MAINTAINABILITY MEAN DESCRIPTION
1. Allows easy analysis of design 4.60 Excellent
documents and program when a bug is
found (analyzability).
2. Allows easy expansion and 4.60 Excellent
modification of the application
(changeability).
3. Modification of the application does 4.70 Excellent
not affect others (stability).
4. Laborious test are not required 4.10 Very Good
after a modification has been
made (testability).
VI. PORTABILITY MEAN DESCRIPTION
1. Provides flexible environment 4.60 Excellent
(adaptability).
2. Providing easy installation work 4.40 Very Good
(instability).
3. Compliance with porting 4.20 Very Good
specifications (conformance).

Table 4.4.1 shows the detailed mean tally of the evaluation. The developed system was
evaluated by ten (10) IT experts on the following criteria functionality, reliability, usability
efficiency, maintainability, and portability. The table shows that the developed system was
accepted based from the result, all of the experts responded with an “Excellent” remark.
Summary Result of the Evaluation
CRITERIA MEAN DESCRIPTION

Functionality 4.10 Very Good

Reliability 4.18 Very Good

Usability 4.26 Very Good

Table 4.5 Summary Tally of the Evaluation’s Result (Users)


Table 4.5 shows the summary of the evaluation results of the users. The mean is obtained
by first finding the sum of all the mean numbers for each criteria then dividing it in the
number of the criterion. The result shows that majority of the overall mean tally result is
4.18, which falls under the description of an “Very Good” remark.

CRITERIA MEAN DESCRIPTION

Functionality 4.62 Excellent

Reliability 4.83 Excellent

Usability 4.5 Excellent

Efficiency 4.65 Excellent

Maintainability 4.5 Excellent

Portability 4.36 Very Good

Table 4.7 Summary Tally of the Evaluation’s Result (IT Experts)


Table 4.7 shows the summary of the evaluation results of the IT Experts. The mean is
obtained by first finding the sum of all the mean numbers for each criteria then dividing it
in the number of the criterion. The result shows that majority of the overall mean tally
result is 4.57, which falls under the description of an “Excellent” remark.