CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents, expounds and studies the data gathered through the answers of the

respondents on the research questionnaires.

These data include:

I. Demographic Profile of Respondents in terms of:

1.1 Sex

1.2 SHS Strand

II. Effectiveness of Work Immersion Training in terms of:

2.1 Workplace Environment

2.2 Workplace Supervision

2.3 Workplace Experience

III. The significant difference of WIT effectiveness in terms of:

3.1 Sex

3.2 SHS Strand

The data gathered was statistically treated according to the specific problems needed to

be answered at the end of this study. Graphs and charts were used to present the results and were

arranged according to the Statement of the Problem. The discussion of the findings includes their

description, interpretation and statement on the acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses.
 I. Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 1.1 Respondent Distribution (Sex)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Male 77 48.4 48.4 48.4

Valid Female 82 51.6 51.6 100.0
Total 159 100.0 100.0

The Table 1.1 shows the respondent distribution in terms of sex. 82 (51.6%) were female

and 77 (48.4%) were male. This implies that there were more female respondents than male.

Table 1.2 Respondent Distribution (SHS Strand)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

ABM 51 32.1 32.1 32.1

TVL 20 12.6 12.6 44.7

STEM 21 13.2 13.2 57.9

Valid

HUMSS 67 42.1 42.1 100.0

Total 159 100.0 100.0

The Table 1.2 shows the respondent distribution according to their Senior High School

(SHS) Strand. 67 (42.1%) respondents were from the Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS)

strand. 51 (32.1%) respondents were from the Accountancy and Business Management (ABM)
strand. 21 (13.2%) of the respondents were from the Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) strand. 20 (12.6%) of the respondents were from the Technical, Vocational

and Livelihood (TVL) track.

The respondent distribution according to their SHS strand/track suggests that most of the

respondents were from the HUMSS strand.

 II. Effectiveness of Work Immersion Training

Table 2 Summary Profile of the Effectiveness of Work Immersion Training

RESPONDENTS

Indicators n WM DER

I. Workplace Environment 159 3.71 VET

1. Was the workplace appropriate for your type of 159 3.74 VET
training required and / or desired?
2. Does the workplace have adequate facilities to 159 3.69 VET
help you in the training?
3. Has the industry partner facilitated the training
including the provision of the necessary resources 159 3.53 VET
such as facilities and equipment needed to achieve
your WIT objectives?
4. Are the facilities and equipment functional for 159 3.67 VET
you to learn and explore?
5. Is the workplace environment safe and 159 3.94 VET
conducive?
II. Workplace Supervision 159 3.82 VET
1. Has the industry partner and its staff welcomed 159 4.13 VET
and treated you with respect and understanding?
2. Has the industry partner assigned a supervisor to 159 3.78 VET
oversee your work or training?
3. Was the supervisor effective in supervising you 159 3.65 VET
through regular meetings, consultations and advise?
4. Has the supervision been effective in achieving 159 3.65 VET
your WIT objectives and providing feedback?
5. Are you satisfied with the workplace supervision? 159 3.87 VET
III. Workplace Experience 159 3.73 VET
1. Has the industry partner designed the training to 159 3.62 VET
meet your objectives and expectation?
2. Has the training provided you with necessary 159 3.65 VET
technical and administrative exposure of real world
problems and practices?
3. Has the training program allowed you to develop
self-confidence, self-motivation, and positive 159 3.82 VET
attitude towards work?
4. Has the experience improved your personal skills 159 3.82 VET
 and human relations?
5. Are you satisfied with your training in the 159 3.75 VET
industry?
OVER-ALL WMR 159 3.75 VET

LEGEND:
WM – WEIGHTED MEAN
DER – DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT RATING
n – SAMPLE SIZE

Points Rating Scale Range DER

5 Outstanding (O) 4.50 – 5.00 Outstanding training (OT)
4 Very Good (VG) 3.50 – 4.49 Very Effective training (VET)
3 Good (G) 2.50 – 3.49 Effective training (ET)
2 Fair (F) 1.50 – 2.49 Ineffective training (IT)
1 Poor (P) 1.00 – 1.49 Poor training (PT)

Table 2 shows that the effectiveness of the WIT in terms of workplace environment got a

Very Effective Training rating having the weighted mean of 3.71. The effectiveness of WIT in

terms of the workplace supervision got a Very Effective Training Rating having the weighted

mean of 3.82. The WIT effectiveness in terms of the workplace experience also got a Very

Effective Training rating having the weighted mean of 3.73. This implies that the WIT

effectiveness of Saint Joseph College is very effective in terms of workplace environment,

workplace supervision and workplace experience.

The WIT effectiveness got a Very Effective Training rating with an overall weighted

mean of 3.75. This implies that the Work Immersion Training is very effective.

III. The Significant Difference of the WIT Effectiveness

Table 3.1 Summary Profile of WIT Effectiveness in terms of Sex

MALE FEMALE
Indicators n W DER n WM DER
 M
IV. Workplace Environment 77 3.50 VET 82 3.91 VET

1. Was the workplace appropriate for your type 77 3.45 ET 82 4.01 VET
of training required and / or desired?
2. Does the workplace have adequate facilities 77 3.47 ET 82 3.89 VET
to help you in the training?
3. Has the industry partner facilitated the
training including the provision of the 77 3.32 ET 82 3.73 VET
necessary resources such as facilities and
equipment needed to achieve your WIT
objectives?
4. Are the facilities and equipment functional 77 3.48 ET 82 3.84 VET
for you to learn and explore?
5. Is the workplace environment safe and 77 3.78 VET 82 4.09 VET
conducive?
V. Workplace Supervision 77 3.63 VET 82 3.99 VET

1. Has the industry partner and its staff

welcomed and treated you with respect and 77 3.81 VET 82 4.44 VET
understanding?
2. Has the industry partner assigned a 77 3.55 VET 82 4.00 VET
supervisor to oversee your work or training?
3. Was the supervisor effective in supervising
you through regular meetings, consultations 77 3.49 ET 82 3.79 VET
and advise?
4. Has the supervision been effective in 77 3.58 VET 82 3.71 VET
achieving your WIT objectives and providing
feedback?
5. Are you satisfied with the workplace 77 3.73 VET 82 4.00 VET
supervision?
VI. Workplace Experience 77 3.54 VET 82 3.91 VET

1. Has the industry partner designed the

training to meet your objectives and 77 3.43 ET 82 3.80 VET
expectation?
2. Has the training provided you with
necessary technical and administrative 77 3.44 ET 82 3.85 VET
exposure of real world problems and practices?

3. Has the training program allowed you to

develop self-confidence, self-motivation, and 77 3.64 VET 82 3.99 VET
positive attitude towards work?
4. Has the experience improved your personal 77 3.62 VET 82 4.00 VET
skills and human relations?
5. Are you satisfied with your training in the 77 3.57 VET 82 3.93 VET
industry?
 OVER-ALL WMR 77 3.56 VET 82 3.94 VET

LEGEND:
WM – WEIGHTED MEAN
DER – DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT RATING
n – SAMPLE SIZE

Points Rating Scale Range DER

5 Outstanding (O) 4.50 – 5.00 Outstanding training (OT)
4 Very Good (VG) 3.50 – 4.49 Very Effective training (VET)
3 Good (G) 2.50 – 3.49 Effective training (ET)
2 Fair (F) 1.50 – 2.49 Ineffective training (IT)
1 Poor (P) 1.00 – 1.49 Poor training (PT)

The Work Immersion Training (WIT) of Saint Joseph College got a Very Effective

training rating from both male and female respondents on all the indicators namely: workplace

environment, workplace supervision and workplace experience. Overall, both male and female

respondents find the WIT very effective based on the evaluation.

Table 3.2 Significant Difference of WIT Effectiveness in terms of Sex

Variable Groups n Mean Std. T - test Req. Decision

t Sig. Sig.

Sex Male 3.55

77 .77436
8
Female -3.216 .002 0.05 Reject
3.93
82 .71785
8

The Table 3.2 shows the significant difference in the WIT effectiveness between sexes.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the effectiveness of the WIT

program in terms of:

a) Sex
 In terms of sex, since the significance (Sig.) is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is

rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference between effectiveness of the WIT

program perceived by male and female respondents.

Table 3.3 Summary Profile of the Level of WIT Effectiveness in terms of SHS Strand

STEM HUMSS ABM TVL

Indicators
n WM DER n WM DER N WM DER n WM DER
I. Workplace 21 3.86 VET 67 3.80 VET 51 3.68 VET 20 3.35 ET
Environment
1. 21 4.10 VET 67 3.79 VET 51 3.73 VET 20 3.25 ET

2. 21 3.86 VET 67 3.76 VET 51 3.65 VET 20 3.35 ET

3. 21 3.52 VET 67 3.72 VET 51 3.39 ET 20 3.30 ET

4. 21 3.76 VET 67 3.73 VET 51 3.57 VET 20 3.60 VET

5. 21 4.05 VET 67 4.01 VET 51 4.06 VET 20 3.25 ET

II. Workplace 21 3.97 VET 67 3.96 VET 51 3.77 VET 20 3.27 ET

Supervision
1. 21 4.33 VET 67 4.25 VET 51 4.16 VET 20 3.45 ET

2. 21 3.95 VET 67 3.90 VET 51 3.80 VET 20 3.15 ET

3. 21 3.71 VET 67 3.84 VET 51 3.61 VET 20 3.05 ET

4. 21 3.86 VET 67 3.79 VET 51 3.55 VET 20 3.20 ET

5. 21 4.00 VET 67 4.03 VET 51 3.75 VET 20 3.50 VET

III. Workplace 21 3.87 VET 67 3.90 VET 51 3.59 VET 20 3.38 ET

Experience
1. 21 3.95 VET 67 3.82 VET 51 3.37 ET 20 3.25 ET

2. 21 3.81 VET 67 3.81 VET 51 3.45 ET 20 3.50 VET

3. 21 3.86 VET 67 4.01 VET 51 3.71 VET 20 3.40 ET

4. 21 3.90 VET 67 3.94 VET 51 3.78 VET 20 3.40 ET

5. 21 3.81 VET 67 3.94 VET 51 3.65 VET 20 3.35 ET

OVER-ALL 21 3.90 VET 67 3.89 VET 51 3.68 VET 20 3.33 ET

WMR

LEGEND:
WM – WEIGHTED MEAN
DER – DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT RATING
n – SAMPLE SIZE

Points Rating Scale Range DER

5 Outstanding (O) 4.50 – 5.00 Outstanding training (OT)
4 Very Good (VG) 3.50 – 4.49 Very Effective training (VET)
3 Good (G) 2.50 – 3.49 Effective training (ET)
2 Fair (F) 1.50 – 2.49 Ineffective training (IT)
1 Poor (P) 1.00 – 1.49 Poor training (PT)

The SJC Work Immersion Training program got a Very Effective Training rating from

the respondents of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), Accountancy

and Business Management (ABM) and Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) strand on all

indicators namely: workplace environment, workplace supervision, and workplace experience.

For the effectiveness of the WIT according to the respondents from the Technical, Vocational

and Livelihood (TVL) track, it got an Effective Training rating on all indicators.

Based on the results, it can be inferred that the students from the STEM, ABM, and

HUMSS strand find the WIT program of SJC very effective. While the students from the TVL

track find the WIT program just effective.

Table 3.4 Summary on Significant Difference of WIT Effectiveness in terms of SHS Strand

Sum of df Mean F Sig. Req. Decision

Squares Square Sig.
Between
5.480 3 1.827 3.232 .024 0.05 Reject
Groups
Within
87.587 155 .565
Groups
Total 93.066 158

The Table 3.4 shows how significant the difference of the WIT effectiveness between

SHS strands.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the effectiveness of the WIT

program in terms of:

b) SHS Strand

In terms of SHS strands, since the significance (Sig.) is less than 0.05, then the null

hypothesis is rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference between the effectiveness

of SJC’s WIT program perceived by students from the STEM, ABM, HUMSS strand and TVL

track.
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary of Findings

The findings are the following:

1. There were more female respondents than male in the study. 82 (51.6%) were

female and 77 (48.4%) were male.

2. Most of the respondents were from the HUMSS strand. 67 (42.1%) respondents

were from the Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) strand. 51 (32.1%)

respondents were from the Accountancy and Business Management (ABM)

strand. 21 (13.2%) of the respondents were from the Science, Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) strand. 20 (12.6%) of the respondents

were from the Technical, Vocational and Livelihood (TVL) track.

3. The effectiveness of the WIT in terms of workplace environment got a Very

Effective Training rating having the weighted mean of 3.71. The effectiveness of

WIT in terms of the workplace supervision got a Very Effective Training Rating

having the weighted mean of 3.82. The WIT effectiveness in terms of the

workplace experience also got a Very Effective Training rating having the

weighted mean of 3.73.

4. There is a significant difference between the effectiveness of the WIT program in

terms of:

a) Sex

b) SHS Strand
Conclusion

Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions are drawn:

There were more female respondents than males. And most of the respondents are from

the Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) strand.

The Saint Joseph College Work Immersion Training (WIT) program have Very Effective

Training according to the respondents of the study on all indicators: workplace environment,

workplace supervision and workplace experience.

There is a significant difference between the effectiveness of the WIT program of SJC

perceived by males and females. Also, there is a significant difference between the WIT

effectiveness of SJC perceived by the students from different strands/track namely: Technical,

Vocational and Livelihood (TVL) track, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

(STEM) strand, Accountancy and Business Management (ABM) strand, and Humanities and

Social Sciences (HUMSS) strand.

Recommendation

The following recommendations were made for future researchers:

1. Studies of the same concept should be done with a larger sample size for the study

to have a wider scope and to have a more generalized perspective on the

effectiveness of Saint Joseph College Work Immersion Training (WIT) program.

2. Future studies should identify the WIT effectiveness by considering more

indicators.

3. Identify more demographic profile of the respondents aside from sex and strand to

determine how significant the differences of the WIT effectiveness in terms of

those demographic profiles.

4. Similar studies in the future should provide or suggest different intervention

programs for the improvement of the WIT program.

 CHAPTER VI

INTERVENTION PROGRAM

This chapter presents the intervention program to be recommended for the Work Immersion

Training program of Saint Joseph College.

I. Rationale

It can be elucidated that the Work Immersion Training program of the Saint Joseph

College is very effective according to the results. However, an intervention program is

recommended for the WIT program to improve the quality of training. The intervention program

is to be addressed to the school administration and WIT coordinator. The generated improvement

plan will serve as basis in conditioning grounds for improvements in achieving the best WIT

program.

II. The Improvement Plan

Part 1. An orientation to all grade 11 students by strand before the deployment for the WIT

program

The Program:

The program will be discussing clearly how deep the training the students will receive

from the WIT program. An open forum will be conducted to clarify misconceptions and

questions of students about the WIT. Furthermore, students will be encouraged to cooperate

during their immersion training to have adequate knowledge about the background of their field

of interest.

Objectives:
  To make the students understand the depth of training of the WIT program.

 To teach the students the importance of WIT and how vital their cooperation is in making

the whole training process successful.

Recipients:

The recipients of the orientation program will be the upcoming grade 12 students of Saint

Joseph College.

Part 2. Provision of more industry partners to be selected by the students of the Technical,

Vocational and Livelihood (TVL) track

Discussion:

Since the TVL track finds the WIT training less effective than the other strands, the TVL

track should be provided with more choices of industry partners for their immersion training.

Additional choices will make the students from this track to choose freely of which industry

partner they think is effective.

Objectives:

 To provide more choices of industry partners for the TVL track.

 To improve the quality of training received by the students from the TVL track.

Recipient:

The recipients of this improvement plan will be the students from the TVL track.