Tracer Study on the Graduates of Le Chatelier 2011-2012

Researchers:

Michael F. Ballad

Gian Benedict M. Calucag

Troy Janus G. Delos Santos

Jerryck C. Dulin

Jorge Paolo C. Obordo

 CHAPTER I

Introduction

A. Background of the study

Tugueagarao City Science High School (TCSHS), a well-known institution which

produce scholars who are highly intelligent, talented and disciplined. The school was established
as a city project headed by the former mayor Delfin Telan Ting and founded in 2008. 4 batches
of alumni have graduated from this school where some went to private and public schools in and
out of the province. The students chose courses related to engineering or health sciences after
graduating and are expected to do their best in their chosen career paths.

Students were assigned to trace the whereabouts of the Le Chatelier 2011-2012 graduates
of TCSHS by asking them in the following: gender, type of school, shifter or non-shifter, who
influenced their decisions and their most recent average.

B. Statement of the Problem

The tracer study aims to collect information about the Le Chatelier 2011-2012 students
who are in college specifically their gender, course, type of school, shifter or non-shifter,
who/what influenced their decisions and their most recent average.

C. Hypothesis

1. The student’s gender has an effect in their choice in his/her course in college.

2. Family has no effect on the student’s choice.

D. Significance of the Study

This study aims to track the whereabouts of the Le Chatelier 2011-2012 graduates of
TCSHS by interviewing them in the following categories: gender, type of school, shifter or non-
shifter, who/what influenced their decisions and their most recent average. This study is
significant for it shows the relationship between the gender & most persistent factor to the course
taken by the students who are in college.

E. Scope and Limitations

The study was conducted on January 5, 2016. The questionnaire was distributed through
the use facebook messenger of the group members. The results were gathered from 30 former
students of the Tuguegarao City Science High School.

F. Review of Related Literature

Over the last two decades online and distance education has been greatly developed as a
methodology for providing education for those who formerly may have found further education
inaccessible for various reasons. As with most education processes, it is customary to have
students complete an evaluation of the course or programme. This type of evaluation usually
focuses on issues such as course content, the instructional material provided, the usability of the
technology, and rating the performance of the course facilitators. In this writer’s opinion, this
form of assessment focuses on the production process of ODL (Online and Distance Learning),
rather than on the product of the learning process, which is the acquired knowledge and skills of
the student. The ODL provider should know the fortunes of their graduates in order to make a
complete assessment of how the educational process has impacted their graduates. With this type
of data, they are able to make modifications that could enhance their students’ chances of
achieving success. This paper looks at the tracer study as a means of maintaining curriculum
relevance and of providing targeted benefits to graduates to enhance the marketability of ODL.
 The ILO Thesaurus 2005 defines a tracer study as an impact assessment tool where the
“impact on target groups is traced back to specific elements of a project or programme so that
effective and ineffective project components may be identified.” In educational research the
tracer study is sometimes referred to as a graduate or alumni survey since its target group is
former students. Schomburg(2003, p.36) notes that graduate surveys are popular for “analysis of
the relationship between higher education and work.” They provide quantitative-structural data
on employment and career, the character of work and related competencies, and information on
the professional orientation and experiences of their graduates.

Although the usual end of the course evaluation can ask for the student to assess whether
they have gained the knowledge and skills necessary for fulfilling their personal objectives, there
is really little proof of this until the student has completed the entire course of study and has
entered the workforce. By surveying a cohort of graduates from: a specific institution;
profession; discipline; graduation date; level of education; or a combination of these for
comparative analysis, Schomburg presents examples of issues which can be addressed in tracer
studies. Biographical data on “Where are our graduates now” may supply information on
income, job title, nature of employment, and years of employment. He also believes that surveys
should also include information “about the kind of work task the relationship between study and
work, and professional values and job satisfaction.”

CHAPTER 2

Materials and Methods

A. Background of the study

The following materials were used in the making of the study.

Survey Form
Pen
Paper
Computer/laptop
Facebook Messenger

B. Preparation and Conduction of the Study

The Tracer study on Le Chatelier 2011-2012 was conducted using the procedure
performed by the researchers:

The researchers first wrote the names of the students of Le Chatelier 2011-2012 using the
student’s year books, the researchers then made a survey form and then messaged them through
Facebook. The researchers then put their data in Microsoft Excel with batch and gender and
added:

a. Course: Engineering, Science Field or Neither Engineering

b. Type of School: Public or Private
c. Shifter or Non-shifter
d. Who or what influenced their decisions
e. Current average: President’s Lister, Deans Lister or Neither

C. Treatments

The researchers conducted a survey among the 28 students of Einstein batch 2013 to
know their status in college. The researchers tallied their data using the following codes:

Batch: 1- (graduated 2011-2012), 2- (graduated 2012-2013), 3- (graduated 2013-2014), 4-

(graduated 2014-2015)

Gender: 1-Male, 2-Female

Course: 1-Engineering, 2-Allied Sciences, 3- Neither

School: 1-Pubic, 2-Private

Course Shifting: 1-Shifter, 2-Non-shifter

Influence: 1-Family, 2-Financial Status, 3-Own Choice, 4-Friends

Awards: 1-President’s Lister, 2-Dean’s Lister, 3-Neither

D. Research Design

Table 1 below shows the survey messages sent by the researchers.

Question Answer

1 2 3 4

What is your course? Engineering Science Neither (none)

What is the type of school that you are in Public Private (none) (none)
now?

Did you shift to other courses or not? YES NO (none) (none)

Who or what influenced you in making Family Financial Own Friends

such decision Status Choice

What is your current average, do you President’s Dean’s Neither (none)

have awards? Lister Lister
Table 2 below shows the frame of the table in the Microsoft Excel.

Student Batch Gender Course Type of S or N-S Influenced M.R.

School by Average

10
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
 25

26

27

28

29

30

E. Data Analysis

The researchers used SPSS Version 16 (Statistical Package for Social Science) software
for analyzing the collected data.
 CHAPTER 3

Results and Discussions

Table 3 below shows the data between gender and course.

Gender * Course Crosstabulation

Count

Course

Engineering Health Sciences Others Total

Gender Male 2 1 5 8

Female 4 13 5 22

Total 6 14 10 30

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 5.649 2 .059

Likelihood Ratio 6.089 2 .048

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.195 1 .274

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 1.60.
Table 4 below shows the data between gender and the choice to shift or not.

Gender * S/N-S Crosstabulation

Count

S/N-S

N-S Shifter Total

Gender Male 0 8 8

Female 3 19 22

Total 3 27 30

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-

Value df sided) sided) sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 1.212 1 .271
b
Continuity Correction .170 1 .680

Likelihood Ratio 1.979 1 .159

Fisher's Exact Test .545 .379

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.172 1 .279

b
N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .80.

Table 5 below shows the data between gender and most recent average.

Gender * M.R. Average Crosstabulation

Count

M.R. Average

President's Lister Dean's Lister none Total

Gender Male 1 1 6 8

Female 1 2 19 22

Total 2 3 25 30
 Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square .716 2 .699

Likelihood Ratio .649 2 .723

Linear-by-Linear Association .678 1 .410

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is .53.

Table 6 below shows the data between course and the choice to shift or not.

Course * S/N-S Crosstabulation

Count

S/N-S

N-S Shifter Total

Course Engineering 0 6 6

Health Sciences 1 13 14

Others 2 8 10

Total 3 27 30

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 1.905 2 .386

Likelihood Ratio 2.292 2 .318

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.778 1 .182

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is .60.
Table 7 below shows the data between course and the most recent average.

Course * M.R. Average Crosstabulation

Count

M.R. Average

President's Lister Dean's Lister none Total

Course Engineering 1 1 4 6

Health Sciences 1 1 12 14

Others 0 1 9 10

Total 2 3 25 30

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 2.215 4 .696

Likelihood Ratio 2.596 4 .628

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.722 1 .189

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is .40.

Table 8 below shows the data between gender and the one who is the most persistent factor.

Gender * Influenced by Crosstabulation

Count

Influenced by

Own Choice Total

Gender Male 8 8

Female 22 22

Total 30 30
 Chi-Square Tests

Value
a
Pearson Chi-Square .

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: No statistics are

computed because Influenced by is
a constant.

Table 9 below shows the data between course and the one who is the most persistent factor.

Course * Influenced by Crosstabulation

Count

Influenced by

Own Choice Total

Course Engineering 6 6

Health Sciences 14 14

Others 10 10

Total 30 30

Chi-Square Tests

Value
a
Pearson Chi-Square .

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: No statistics are

computed because Influenced by is
a constant.
Table 10 below shows the data between the choice to shift and the most recent average.

S/N-S * M.R. Average Crosstabulation

Count

M.R. Average

President's Lister Dean's Lister none Total

S/N-S N-S 0 0 3 3

Shifter 2 3 22 27

Total 2 3 25 30

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square .667 2 .717

Likelihood Ratio 1.159 2 .560

Linear-by-Linear Association .562 1 .454

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: 5 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is .20.

Table 11 below shows the data between gender and type of school.

Gender * Type of School Crosstabulation

Count

Type of School

Public Private Total

Gender Male 4 4 8

Female 17 5 22

Total 21 9 30
 Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-

Value df sided) sided) sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 2.078 1 .149
b
Continuity Correction .982 1 .322

Likelihood Ratio 1.979 1 .159

Fisher's Exact Test .195 .161

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.009 1 .156

b
N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: 1 cell (25.0%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.40.

Table 12 below shows the data between course and type of school.

Course * Type of School Crosstabulation

Count

Type of School

Public Private Total

Course Engineering 6 0 6

Health Sciences 10 4 14

Others 5 5 10

Total 21 9 30

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 4.490 2 .106

Likelihood Ratio 6.037 2 .049

Linear-by-Linear Association 4.298 1 .038

N of Valid Cases 30

Explanation: 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 1.80.
 CHAPTER 4
Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Conclusion

The main purpose of this study was to collect information from the different former

students of Le Chatelier 2011-2012 and test the relationship between the gender of the student to

his/her course and the most persistent factor that led him/her to the course he/she chose.

Based on the results, the student’s gender does not have any relationship with his/her
course. Lastly, the student’s families had the greatest effect on his/her choice of course which
eventually led him/her to the school he/she goes to now.

B. Bibliography

Boettcher, J. V. (2006) “21st century teaching and learning patterns: What will we see?”
Syllabus Press. June 2006. Retrieved from:

http://www.designingforlearning.info/services/writing/21century.htm

Burnside Robert M.(2001) “E-learning Who Has the Goods?” The Technology Source,
July/August 2001. Retrieved from:

http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034