CHAPTER II

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This part of the study analyzes and interprets the data gathered in the

light of the different aspects of the problem raised in Chapter I. It encompasses

the findings based on the perception of the respondents. The following aspects

of the study were treated: Profile of the respondents which are the teachers and

the students and their perception of the respondents on the situation of the

teachers and the students during class if the laboratory lacks equipment. For

sensible presentation of the data, the percentage, weighted mean, and T-test

were used in the study. For continuity of purpose, the interpretation presented

follows the sequence of the problem.

Distribution of Respondents

Table I shows the distribution of respondents subjected in this study. A

total of one hundred (100) respondents participated in the study. This consists of

fifty (50.00 percent) for teachers and fifty (50.00 percent) students.

Table I
Distribution of the Respondents
(N=100)
Respondents Frequency Percentage Rank
Teacher 50 50.00 1.5
Students 50 50.00 1.5
Total 100 100 %
Profile of the Respondents

Table II presents the profile of the respondents included in this study. A

look was taken in the aspects of age, gender, year level and educational

attainment for the teachers; and age, gender, year level and educational

attainment for the students.

A. Teachers

Age. As shown in the table, out of fifty (50) teachers, data reveals twenty

nine (58.00 percent) were 26-30 years old, eleven (22.00 percent) were 25 years

old and below, seven (14.00 percent) were 31-35 years old, three (6.00 percent)

were 36-40 years old. Majority of the teachers belonged to the aged group 26-30

years old.

Gender. With regard to gender, forty three (86.00 percent) were female,

seven (14.00 percent) were male. Majority of the teachers were female.

Educational Attainment. As regards to educational attainment, forty

one (82.00 percent) were Bachelor Degree Holder, seven (14.00 percent) were

Master Degree Holder, two (4.00 percent) were Doctorate Degree Holder. Most

of the teachers were Bachelor Degree Holder.

B. Students

Age. With regard to age, twenty five (50.00 percent) aged 25 years old

and below, twenty (40.00 percent) aged 26-30 years old, three (6.00 percent)

aged
 Table II
Profile of the Respondents
(N=100)
Item Teachers Students
(n=50) (n=50)
Age F % R F % R
25 years old and below 11 22.00 2 25 50.00 1
26 – 30 years old 29 58.00 1 20 40.00 2
31 – 35 years old 7 14.00 3 3 6.00 3
36 – 40 years old 3 6.00 4 2 4.00 4
41 years old and above 0 0.00 5 0 0.00
Total 50 100% 50 100%
Gender
Male 7 14.00 1 25 50.00 1.5
Female 43 86.00 2 25 50.00 1.5
LGBTQ 0 0.00 3 0 0.00
Total 50 100% 50 100%
Year Level
1st Year College - - - 3 6.00 4
2nd Year College - - - 19 38.00 2
3rd Year College - - - 25 50.00 1
4th Year College - - - 4 8.00 3
Graduate/Teaching - - - 0 0.00
Total
Educational Attainment
Doctorate Degree Holder 2 4.00 3 - - -
Master Degree Holder 7 14.00 2 - - -
Bachelor Degree Holder 41 82.00 1 - - -
High School Graduate Level 0 0.00 - -
Elementary Graduate Level 0 0.00 - - -
Total 50 100%
31- 35 years old and two (4.00 percent) were 36-40 years old. Majority of the

students aged 25 years old and below.

Gender. With regard to gender, twenty five (50.00 percent) were both

males and females. Majority of the students were both males and females.

Year Level. As regards to year level, twenty five (50.00 percent) were 3 rd

year level, nineteen (38.00 percent) were 2 nd year college, four (8.00 percent)

were 4th year college and three (6.00 percent) were 1 st year college. Most of the

students were 3rd year college.

Responses of the Respondents on the Situation of the Teachers and the

Students during Class if the Laboratory Lacks Equipment

Lack of Laboratory equipment facilities will surely affect the teaching and

learning process in any laboratory subjects. There are some problems

encountered in schools due to lack of adequate facilities. It is known that the

academic performance of each student depends to a large extent on the facilities

exposed to while learning, but when these facilities are lacking some problems is

faced. Table III presents the use of HRM Facilities and Equipment for teacher

student’s performance.
A. Teachers

Two items were rated as Expert by the teachers, the items were

presented along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 2.5) Motivates to

learn and conduct themselves with a mean rating of (3.26); 2.5) Helps for

familiarization of tools and equipment (3.26). The remaining items were rated as

Demonstrating. 4.5) Promotes a more interactive and easy way to study

(3.24); 4.5) Makes the students more productive and creative (3.24); 5) Makes

the classroom environment more conductive to learning (3.30).

The responses of the teachers obtained an average weighted mean of

3.26 or Expert. The result implies that teachers motivates to learn and conduct

themselves. It is evident in the result that laboratory experiences and motivation

given by the teachers may enhance student understanding of specific scientific

facts and concepts and of the way in which these facts and concepts are

organized in the scientific disciplines.

B. Students

Three items were rated Demonstrating by the students, the items were

presented along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 1) Makes the

students more productive and creative with a mean rating of (3.04); 2) Motivates

to learn and conduct themselves (3.02); 3) Promotes a more interactive and easy

way to study (2.96). The remaining items were rated as Basic. 5) Makes the
 Table III

A. Use of HRM Facilities and Equipment for Teacher Students’ Performance

Teachers (n=50)

E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % W Des Ran
M c. k
1. Promotes a more interactive and easy way to 1 32.0 3 62.0 2 4.0 1 2.0 3.2 D 4.5
study. 6 0 1 0 0 0 4
2. Makes the classroom environment more 1 34.0 3 62.0 2 4.0 0 0.0 3.3 D 5
conductive to learning. 7 0 1 0 0 0 0
3. Makes the students more productive and creative. 1 34.0 3 60.0 1 2.0 2 4.0 3.2 D 4.5
7 0 0 0 0 0 4
4. Motivates to learn and conduct themselves. 1 34.0 3 60.0 2 4.0 1 2.0 3.2 E 2.5
7 0 0 0 0 0 6
5. Helps for familiarization of tools and equipment. 2 40.0 2 50.0 3 6.0 2 4.0 3.2 E 2.5
0 0 5 0 0 0 6
Average Weighted Mean 3.2 Experienc
6 ed

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75
 Table III

A. Use of HRM Facilities and Equipment for Teacher Students’ Performance

Students (n=50)
E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % W Des Ran
M c. k
1. Promotes a more interactive and easy way to study. 16 32.0 3 62.0 2 4.00 1 2.0 3.2 D 4.5
0 1 0 0 4
2. Makes the classroom environment more conductive 17 34.0 3 62.0 2 4.00 0 0.0 3.3 D 5
to learning. 0 1 0 0 0

3. Makes the students more productive and creative. 17 34.0 3 60.0 1 2.00 2 4.0 3.2 D 4.5
0 0 0 0 4
4. Motivates to learn and conduct themselves. 17 34.0 3 60.0 2 4.00 1 2.0 3.2 E 2.5
0 0 0 0 6
5. Helps for familiarization of tools and equipment. 20 40.0 2 50.0 3 6.00 2 4.0 3.2 E 2.5
0 5 0 0 6
Average Weighted Mean 3.2 Experience
6 d

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75
classroom environment more conductive to learning (2.09); 5) Helps for

familiarization of tools and equipment (2.09).

The responses of the students obtained an average weighted mean of

2.96 or Demonstrating. The result implies that students promotes a more

interactive and easy way to study. It is evident in the result that developing

scientific reasoning and using different laboratory equipment will enhance their

experiences and promote a student’s ability to identify questions and concepts

that guide effective learning from their teachers.

Statistical Treatment. The computation in Table IV resulted a t-value

0.37 which was found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8 degree

of freedom (df) and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant degree

of difference, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The result implies

that both respondents had different perception on the use of hrm facilities and

equipment for teacher student’s performance. Teachers rated as expert while

students rated as Demonstrating.

Table IV

Difference of the Responses of the Respondents on the Use of HRM

Facilities and Equipment for Teacher Student’s Performance
X1 2
X1 X2 2
X2
3.24 10.49 2.96 8.76
3.30 10.89 2.09 4.36
3.24 10.49 3.04 9.24
3.26 10.62 3.02 9.12
3.26 10.62 2.09 4.36
∑ X 1 =¿16.3 2
∑ X 1 =¿53.11 ∑ X 2=¿13.2 2
∑ X 2=¿35.84
Computation

Σ x1 Σ x2
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
N1 N2

16.3 13.2
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
10 10

x̄ 1=1.63 x̄ 2=1.32

n ( Σ x 1) − ( Σ x 1) n ( Σ x 2) −( Σ x 2)
2 2 2 2
2 2
S=
1 S=
2
n ( n−1 ) n (n−1)
2 2
10 ( 53.11 ) −( 16.3 ) 10 ( 35.84 )−( 1.32 )
= =
10 ( 10−1 ) 10 ( 10−1 )

531.1−265.69 358.4−1.7424
= =
10 ( 9 ) 10(9)

265.41 356.6576
= =
90 90
2 2
S1=2.949 S1=3.962

Thus:

x̄ 1−x̄ 2
t=

√
df =N 1+ N 2−2 2
S1 s 2
2
+
n1 n 2

1.63−1.32
t=
=10+10– 2
√ 2.949 3.962
10
+
10

0.31
t=

√
df =18 6.911
10

0.31
t=
√ 0.83132
 t=0.37

Computed T-Value = 0.37

Tabular T-Value = 2.306 @18 df and 0.05 level of

significance
Table V presents the Effective Teaching and Learning.
0.37 < 2.306, significant, rejected the hypothesis

A. Teachers

All items were rated as Expert by the teachers, the items were presented

along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 1) Fitting lab equipment helps

in the fast- paced process with a mean rating of (3.62); 2) The completeness

laboratory equipment’s provides goods perspective on the scientific approach to

cooking reflecting the interest and passion of the students and for effective

teaching (3.58); 3). Basic equipment for each group of students working in the

laboratory (3.56); 4) Process of cooking using appropriate equipment save time

(3.54); 5) The care and maintenance of laboratory equipment is an integral part

of quality assurance in the laboratory (3.52).

The responses of the teachers obtained an average weighted mean of

3.56 or Expert. The result implies that process of cooking using appropriate

equipment save time. It is evident in the result that using the correct utensils for

cooking ensures that you get the right taste for the dishes you are preparing.

Understand that different dishes usually have different tastes. When you use the

correct utensils, you will find it easier to measure the ingredients needed.
B. Students

All items were rated Demonstrating by the students, the items were

presented along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 1) The

completeness laboratory equipment’s provides goods perspective on the scientific

approach to cooking reflecting the interest and passion of the students and for

effective teaching with a mean rating of (3.14); 2) Process of cooking using

appropriate equipment save time (3.04); 3) Fitting lab equipment helps in the

fast- paced process (2.98); 4) The care and maintenance of laboratory

equipment is an integral part of quality assurance in the laboratory (2.94); 5)

Basic equipment for each group of students working in the laboratory (2.58).

The responses of the students obtained an average weighted mean of

2.94 or Demonstrating. The result implies that basic equipment for each

group of students working in the laboratory. It is evident in the result that

students must know first the basic equipments in working in the laboratory in

order to avoid any kinds of accidents and to gain knowledge on how to use it.
 Table V

B. Effective Teaching and Learning

Teachers (n=50)

E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % W Des Ran
M c. k
1. The completeness laboratory equipment’s provides 3 60.0 1 38.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 3.5 E 2
goods perspective on the scientific approach to 0 0 9 0 0 0 8
cooking reflecting the interest and passion of the
students and for effective teaching.
2. Basic equipment for each group of students 3 70.0 1 20.0 3 6.0 2 4.0 3.5 E 3
working in the laboratory. 5 0 0 0 0 0 6
3. The care and maintenance of laboratory 3 64.0 1 28.0 2 4.0 2 4.0 3.5 E 5
equipment is an integral part of quality assurance in 2 0 4 0 0 0 2
the laboratory.
4. Fitting lab equipment helps in the fast- paced 3 66.0 1 30.0 2 4.0 0 0.0 3.6 E 1
process. 3 0 5 0 0 0 2
5. Process of cooking using appropriate equipment 3 60.0 1 36.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 3.5 E 4
save time. 0 0 8 0 0 0 4
Average Weighted Mean 3.5 Expert
6

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
 1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75

Table V

B. Effective Teaching and Learning

Students (n=50)
E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % W Desc. Rank
M
1. The completeness laboratory equipment’s provides 16 32.0 2 50.0 9 18.0 0 0.0 3.1 D 1
goods perspective on the scientific approach to 0 5 0 0 0 4

cooking reflecting the interest and passion of the

students and for effective teaching.
2. Basic equipment for each group of students working 9 18.0 2 42.0 1 30.0 0 0.0 2.5 D 5
in the laboratory. 0 1 0 5 0 0 8

3. The care and maintenance of laboratory equipment 12 24.0 2 46.0 1 30.0 0 0.0 2.9 D 4
is an integral part of quality assurance in the 0 3 0 5 0 0 4

laboratory.
4. Fitting lab equipment helps in the fast- paced 11 22.0 2 50.0 1 30.0 0 0.0 2.9 D 3
process. 0 5 0 5 0 0 8

5. Process of cooking using appropriate equipment 17 34.0 1 36.0 1 30.0 0 0.0 3.0 D 2
save time. 0 8 0 5 0 0 4
Average Weighted Mean 2.9 Demonstrati
4 ng

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75
reasoning and using different laboratory equipment will enhance their

experiences and promote a student’s ability to identify questions and concepts

that guide effective learning from their teachers.

Statistical Treatment. The computation in Table VI resulted a t-value

0.41 which was found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8 degree

of freedom (df) and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant degree

of difference, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The result implies

that both respondents had different perception on the effective teaching and

learning. Teachers rated as expert while students rated as Demonstrating.

Table VI

Difference of the Responses of the Respondents on the Effective

Teaching and Learning
X1 2
X1 X2 2
X2
3.58 12.02 3.14 9.85
3.56 12.67 2.58 6.65
3.52 12.39 2.94 8.64
3.62 13.10 2.98 8.88
3.54 12.53 3.04 9.24
∑ X 1 =¿17.82 2
∑ X 1 =¿62.71 ∑ X 2=¿14.68 2
∑ X 2=¿43.26
Computation

Σ x1 Σ x2
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
N1 N2

17.82 14.68
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
10 10

x̄ 1=1.78 x̄ 2=1.46
 n ( Σ x 1) − ( Σ x 1) n ( Σ x 2) −( Σ x 2)
2 2 2 2
2 2
S=
1 S=
2
n ( n−1 ) n (n−1)
2 2
10 ( 62.71 ) −( 17.82 ) 10 ( 43.26 )− (14.68 )
= =
10 ( 10−1 ) 10 ( 10−1 )

627.1−317.5524 432.6−215.5024
= =
10 ( 9 ) 10( 9)

309.5476 217.0976
= =
90 90
2 2
S1=3.43 S1=2.4121

Thus:

x̄ 1−x̄ 2
t=

√
df =N 1+ N 2−2 2
S1 s 2
2
+
n1 n 2

1.78−1.46
t=
=10+10– 2
√ 3.43 2.4121
10
+
10

0.32
t=
df =18
√ 5.8421
10

0.32
t=
√ 0.83132

t=0.41

Computed T-Value = 0.41

Tabular T-Value = 2.306 @8 df and 0.05 level of significance

0.41 < 2.306, significant, rejected the hypothesis

Table VII presents the Hot and Cold Kitchen.

A. Teachers

All items were rated as Expert by the teachers, the items were presented

along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 1) Food models for easy

reference with a mean rating of (4.00); 2) Segregation of waste (3.74); 4).

Space students working area (3.54); 4) Working table per group of 5 to 7

students (3.54); 4) Lights and ventilation of facilities and utilities (3.54).

The responses of the teachers obtained an average weighted mean of

3.67 or Expert. The result implies that teachers must provide proper lights and

ventilation of facilities and utilities. It is evident in the result that Heating and

cooling should be adequate for the comfort of laboratory occupants and

operation of laboratory equipment. A differential should exist between the

amount of air exhausted from the laboratory and the amount supplied to the

laboratory to maintain a negative pressure between the laboratory and adjacent

nonlaboratory spaces. This pressure differential prevents uncontrolled chemical

vapors from leaving the laboratory. Clean rooms may require a slightly positive

pressure differential. There should be separation between common spaces and

the clean room to prevent migration of airborne contaminants.

B. Students

Four items were rated Demonstrating by the students, the items were

presented along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 1) Segregation of

waste with a mean rating of (3.08); 2) Space students working area (2.96); 3)

Working table per group of 5 to 7 students (2.84); 4) Food models for easy

reference (2.09). The remaining item were rated as Basic. 5) Lights and

ventilation of facilities and utilities (2.09).

The responses of the students obtained an average weighted mean of

2.76 or Demonstrating. The result implies that students must segregate the

wastes in the garbage. It is evident in the result that waste segregation is an

ideal way to diminish the impact of landfills on the environment as well as health

issues that can result from improperly disposed of wastes and toxins.
 Table VII

C. Hot and Cold Kitchen

Teachers (n=50)

E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % W Des Ran
M c. k
1. Space students working area. 3 60.0 1 36.0 1 2.00 1 2.0 3.5 E 4
0 0 8 0 0 4
2. Working table per group of 5 to 7 students. 3 60.0 2 40.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 3.5 E 4
0 0 0 0 0 4
3. Food models for easy reference. 2 56.0 2 40.0 1 2.00 1 2.0 4.0 E 1
8 0 0 0 0 0
4. Lights and ventilation of facilities and utilities. 3 60.0 1 36.0 1 2.00 1 2.0 3.5 E 4
0 0 8 0 0 4
5. Segregation of waste. 2 52.0 2 40.0 3 6.00 1 2.0 3.7 E 2
6 0 0 0 0 4
Average Weighted Mean 3.6 Expert
7

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75
 Table VII

C. Effective Teaching and Learning

Students (n=50)
E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % WM Desc. Rank
1. Space students working area. 1 26.0 2 44.0 1 30.0 0 0.0 2.9 D 2
3 0 2 0 5 0 0 6
2. Working table per group of 5 to 7 students. 1 24.0 1 38.0 1 36.0 1 2.0 2.8 D 3
2 0 9 0 8 0 0 4
3. Food models for easy reference. 6 12.0 2 58.0 1 30.0 0 0.0 2.8 D 4
0 9 0 5 0 0 2
4. Lights and ventilation of facilities and utilities. 9 18.0 2 54.0 1 28.0 0 0.0 2.0 B 5
0 7 0 4 0 0 9
5. Segregation of waste. 1 30.0 2 48.0 1 22.0 0 0.0 3.0 D 1
5 0 4 0 1 0 0 8
Average Weighted Mean 2.7 Demonstrati
6 ng

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75
 Statistical Treatment. The computation in Table VIII resulted a t-

value 0.59 which was found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8

degree of freedom (df) and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a

significant degree of difference, leading to the rejection of the null

hypothesis. The result implies that both respondents had different perception

effective learning and teaching. Teachers rated as expert while students rated as

Demonstrating.

Table VIII

Difference of the Responses of the Respondents on the Effective

Teaching and Learning
X1 X 21 X2 X 22
3.54 12.53 2.96 8.76
3.54 12.53 2.84 8.06
4.00 16.00 2.82 7.95
3.54 12.53 2.09 4.36
3.74 13.98 3.08 9.48
∑ X 1 =¿18.36 2
∑ X 1 =¿67.57 ∑ X 2=¿13.79 2
∑ X 2=¿38.61
Computation

Σ x1 Σ x2
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
N1 N2

18.36 13.79
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
10 10

x̄ 1=1. 83 x̄ 2=1. 37

n ( Σ x 21) −( Σ x 1) n ( Σ x 22) −( Σ x 2)
2 2
2 2
S=
1 S=
2
n ( n−1 ) n (n−1)

10 ( 67.57 )−( 18.36 )2 10 ( 38.61 ) −( 13.79 )2

= =
10 ( 10−1 ) 10 ( 10−1 )
 675.7−335.988 386.1−190.1641
= =
10 ( 9 ) 10(9)

339.712 195.9359
= =
90 90

S21=3. 77 S21=2. 177

Thus:

x̄ 1−x̄ 2
t=

√
df =N 1+ N 2−2 2
S1 s 2
2
+
n1 n 2

1. 83−1.37
t=
=5+5– 2
√ 3. 77 2. 177
10
+
10

0. 46
t=
df =8
√ 5. 947
10

0. 46
t=
√ 0. 7711

t=0. 59

Computed T-Value = 0.59

Tabular T-Value = 2.306 @8 df and 0.05 level of significance

0.59 < 2.306, significant, rejected the hypothesis

Table IX presents the Kitchen Laboratory Safety.

A. Teachers

All items were rated as Expert by the teachers, the items were presented

along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 1) Efficient and effective used

of time with a mean rating of (3.46); 2) Proper use of oven, refrigerators and

cookers (3.44); 3). All equipment returns to correct place (3.36); 4) Safety and

kitchen and accidents prevention (3.34); 5) Cleanliness and organize kitchen with

proper labelling (3.32).

The responses of the teachers obtained an average weighted mean of

3.38 or Expert. The result implies that teachers must provide safety and

kitchen and accidents prevention. It is evident in the result that when using

kitchen students must be guided and know how to use proper laboratory

equipments to avoid the spilling of other chemicals and explosion.

B. Students

One item were rated Expert by the students, the items were presented

along with their weighted means and ranks to wit: 1) Efficient and effective used
of time a mean rating of (3.34). Three items were rated as Demonstrating. 2)

Safety and kitchen and accidents prevention (3.02); 4.5) Cleanliness and

organize kitchen with proper labelling (3.00); 4.5) All equipment return to correct

place (3.00). The remaining item were rated as Basic. 5) Proper use of oven,

refrigerators and cookers (2.86).

The responses of the students obtained an average weighted mean of 3.0

or Demonstrating. The result implies that students must observe cleanliness

and organize kitchen and proper labelling. It is evident in the result that when

your laboratory is unclean, tidiness becomes harder to manage. Items may end

up misplaced, making you less efficient. When you clean, it's normal to put items

back in their proper place. This makes your lab more organized, and that can

boost productivity. An unclean laboratory is as harmful as an inaccurate result.

The apparatus, especially the glassware, used in labs must be cleaned after

every use. The remnants of previous tests, moisture, or even dust particles can

alter the laboratory results. This can result in a waste of money and energy.
 Table IX

D. Kitchen Laboratory Safety

Teachers (n=50)

E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % W Des Ran
M c. k
1. Safety and kitchen and accidents prevention 2 50.0 1 38.0 4 8.00 2 4.0 3.3 E 4
5 0 9 0 0 4
2. Cleanliness and organize kitchen with proper 2 58.0 1 30.0 4 8.00 2 4.0
labelling. 9 0 5 0 0
3.3 E 5
2
3. All equipment returns to correct place. 2 50.0 1 38.0 5 10.0 1 2.0 3.3 E 3
5 0 9 0 0 0 6
4. Efficient and effective used of time. 2 58.0 1 34.0 2 4.00 2 4.0 3.4 E 1
9 0 7 0 0 6
5. Proper use of oven, refrigerators and cookers. 2 30.0 1 38.0 3 6.00 1 2.0 3.4 E 2
7 0 9 0 0 4
Average Weighted Mean 3.3 Expert
8

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75
 Table IX

D. Kitchen and Laboratory Safety

Students (n=50)
E D B N/L
Items 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % WM Desc. Rank
1. Safety and kitchen and accidents prevention 1 34.0 1 38.0 1 24.0 2 4.0 3.0 D 2
7 0 9 0 2 0 0 2
2. Cleanliness and organize kitchen with proper 1 26.0 2 48.0 1 26.0 0 0.0 3.0 D 4.5
labelling. 3 0 4 0 3 0 0 0
3. All equipment returns to correct place. 1 20.0 3 60.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 3.0 D 4.5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. Efficient and effective used of time. 1 30.0 2 54.0 8 16.0 0 0.0 3.3 E 1
5 0 7 0 0 0 4
5. Proper use of oven, refrigerators and cookers. 9 18.0 2 54.0 1 26.0 0 0.0 2.8 B 5
0 7 0 3 0 0 6
Average Weighted Mean 3.0 Demonstrati
ng

Legend:
Scale Description Symbol Range
4 Expert (E) 3.26-4.00
3 Demonstrating (D) 2.51-3.25
2 Basic (B) 1.76-2.50
1 None/Low (N/L) 1.00-1.75
 Statistical Treatment. The computation in Table X resulted a t-value 0.41

which was found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8 degree of freedom

(df) and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant degree of difference,

leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The result implies that both

respondents had different perception on the kitchen laboratory safety. Teachers rated

as expert while students rated as Demonstrating.

Table X

Difference of the Responses of the Respondents on the Kitchen Laboratory

Safety
X1 X 21 X2 X 22
3.34 11.15 3.02 9.12
3.32 11.02 3.00 9.00
3.36 11.28 3.00 9.00
3.46 11.97 3.34 11.15
3.44 11.83 2.86 8.17
∑ X 1 =¿16.92 2
∑ X 1 =¿57.25 ∑ X 2=¿15.22 2
∑ X 2=¿46.44
Computation

Σ x1 Σ x2
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
N1 N2

16.92 13.79
x̄ 1= x̄ 2=
10 10

x̄ 1=1. 69 x̄ 2=1.37

n ( Σ x 21) −( Σ x 1) n ( Σ x 22) −( Σ x 2)
2 2
2 2
S=
1 S=
2
n ( n−1 ) n (n−1)

10 ( 57.25 )−( 16.92 )2 10 ( 46.44 ) −( 15.22 )2

= =
10 ( 10−1 ) 10 ( 10−1 )
 572.5−286.2864 464.4−231. 64 84
= =
10 ( 9 ) 10 (9)

286.2136 232.7516
= =
90 90

S21=3. 18 S21=2.58

Thus:

x̄ 1−x̄ 2
t=

√
df =N 1+ N 2−2 2
S1 s 2
2
+
n1 n 2

1. 69−1.37
t=
=5+5– 2
√ 3. 18 2. 58
10
+
10

0. 32
t=
df =8
√ 5. 76
10

0.32
t=
√ 0. 7586

t=0. 41

Computed T-Value = 0.41

Tabular T-Value = 2.306 @8 df and 0.05 level of significance

0.41 < 2.306, significant, rejected the hypothesis

Summary of Results on the Responses of the Respondents on the the

Situation of the Teachers and the Students during Class if the Laboratory
Lacks Equipment

Table XI presents the summary of the responses of the respondents on the The

situation of the teachers and the students during class if the laboratory lacks equipment
 For the responses in the use of HRM Facilities and Equipment for teacher

student’s performance. Teachers responded as Expert and Students responded

Demonstrating. Teacher’s perception obtained a rating of 3.26 while the students

gathered a rating of 2.96.

For the responses in the Effective Teaching and Learning. Teachers responded as

Expert and Students responded Demonstrating. Teacher’s perception obtained a

rating of 3.56 while the students gathered a rating of 2.94.

For the responses in the Hot and Cold Kitchen. Teachers responded as Expert

and Students responded Demonstrating. Teacher’s perception obtained a rating of

3.67 while the students gathered a rating of 2.76.

For the responses in the Kitchen Laboratory Safety. Teachers responded as

Expert and Students responded Demonstrating. Teacher’s perception obtained a

rating of 3.38 while the students gathered a rating of 3.00.

Table XI

Summary of Results on the Responses of the Respondents on the Situation of

the Teachers and the Students during Class if the Laboratory Lacks
Equipment

Teachers Students Overall Rating

AWM Desc. AWM Desc. AWM Desc.

Use of HRM Facilities and
Equipment for Teacher student’s 3.26 E 2.96 D 3.11 D
performance.
Effective Teaching and Learning. 3.56 E 2.94 D 3.25 D
Hot and Cold Kitchen. 3.67 E 2.76 D 3.21 D
 Kitchen Laboratory Safety. 3.38 E 3.00 D 3.19 D

Summary of Difference on the Responses of the Respondents on the

Situation of the Teachers and the Students during Class if the Laboratory

Lacks Equipment

Table XII presents the summary of difference on the Responses of the

Respondents on the Situation of the Teachers and the Students during Class if the

Laboratory Lacks Equipment.

The computation for the use of HRM Facilities and Equipment for Teacher

student’s performance resulted to a t- value of 0.37 which was found to be lower than

the tabular value of 2.306 at 8 df at 0.05 level of significance, there was a significant

degree of difference leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.

The computation for the Effective Teaching and Learning resulted to a t- value of

0.41 which was found to be lower than the tabular value of 2.306 at 8 df at 0.05 level

of significance, there was a significant degree of difference leading to the rejection

of the null hypothesis.

The computation for the Hot and Cold Kitchen resulted to a t- value of 0.59

which was found to be lower than the tabular value of 2.306 at 8 df at 0.05 level of
significance, there was a significant degree of difference leading to the rejection of

the null hypothesis.

The computation for the Hot and Cold Kitchen resulted to a t- value of 0.41
 which was found to be lower than the tabular value of 2.306 at 8 df at

0.05 level of significance, there was a significant degree of difference leading

to the rejection of the null hypothesis.

Table XII

Summary of Difference on the Responses of the Respondents on the

Situation of the Teachers and the Students during Class if the

Laboratory Lacks Equipment

Items Computed df Critical Level of Test of

Value Value Significance Hypotheses
Use of HRM Facilities and
Equipment for Teacher 0.37 8 2.306 .05 Rejected
student’s performance.
Effective Teaching and 0.41 8 2.306 .05 Rejected
Learning.
Hot and Cold Kitchen. 0.59 8 2.306 .05 Rejected
Kitchen Laboratory Safety. 0.41 8 2.306 .05 Rejected
 CHAPTER III

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings of the study, the

conclusions and recommendations based on the analysis and interpretation of

the gathered data. It also includes a proposed improvement measures.

SUMMARY

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Program. The purpose of this study is to assess the Impact

of Laboratory Equipment for Effective Teaching and Learning of BSHM Teachers

and Students in BIT IC Tagbilaran City with an end view of proposing an

improvement measure.

Specifically, the study will seek to answer the following:

1. What is the profile of BSHM teacher and students in terms of:

A. Teacher B. Students

a. Age a. Age

b. Gender; b. Gender;

c. Year Level; and c. Year Level; and

d. Educational Attainment? d. Educational Attainment?

2. What is the situation of the teacher and the students during class if the

laboratory lacks equipment?

3. Is there a significant degree of correlation on the responses of the

respondents in the following areas?

a. The situation of the teacher and the students during class if the

laboratory lack of equipment?

4. What proposed program could be designed to the improvement for teaching

and learning of BSHM teacher and students in Bit IC Tagbilaran City?

Null Hypothesis

The following null hypotheses were formulated for testing at 0.05 level of

significance. There is no significant degree of correlation on the responses of the

respondents in the following areas?

a. The situation of the teacher and the students during class if the

laboratory lack of equipment.

Research Design

The researcher employs the descriptive normative survey method using a

self- made questionnaire as the main data gathering tool to obtain the objectives

of the inquisition. This method is used in order to ascertain the normal condition,

to practice or to compare research results with a standard norm.

 The responses were tallied and tabulated in tables for purposes of

analyzes and interpretation. The degree of difference of the responses of the

respondents was subjected to t-test.

FINDINGS

Based on the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered, these are

the findings:

1. On the Profile of the Respondents

A. Teachers. Majority of the teachers were females, aged 26-30 years

old and bachelor degree holder.

B. Students. Half of the respondents were males and the other half

were females. Belonged to age group 25 years old and below and were 3 rd year

college.

2. Perception of the respondents on the HRM Facilities and Equipment

for Teacher student’s performance.

A. Teachers. The responses of the teachers obtained an average

weighted mean of 3.26 or Expert. The result implies that teachers motivates to

learn and conduct themselves. It is evident in the result that laboratory

experiences and motivation given by the teachers may enhance student

understanding of specific scientific facts and concepts and of the way in which

these facts and concepts are organized in the scientific disciplines.

 B. Students. The responses of the students obtained an average

weighted mean of 2.96 or Demonstrating. The result implies that students

promotes a more interactive and easy way to study. It is evident in the result

that developing scientific reasoning and using different laboratory equipment will

enhance their experiences and promote a student’s ability to identify questions

and concepts that guide effective learning from their teachers.

3. Statistical Treatment. The computation resulted a t-value –0.37 which was

found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8 degree of freedom (df)

and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant degree of difference,

leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The result implies that both

respondents had different perception on the use of hrm facilities and equipment

for teacher student’s performance. Teachers rated as expert while students rated

as Demonstrating.

4. Perception of the respondents on the Effective Teaching and

Learning.

A. Teachers. The responses of the teachers obtained an average

weighted mean of 3.56 or Expert. The result implies that process of cooking

using appropriate equipment save time. It is evident in the result that using the

correct utensils for cooking ensures that you get the right taste for the dishes

you are preparing. Understand that different dishes usually have different tastes.

When you use the correct utensils, you will find it easier to measure the

ingredients needed.
 B. Students. The responses of the students obtained an average

weighted mean of 2.94 or Demonstrating. The result implies that basic

equipment for each group of students working in the laboratory. It is evident in

the result that students must know first the basic equipments in working in the

laboratory in order to avoid any kinds of accidents and to gain knowledge on

how to use it.

5. Statistical Treatment. The computation resulted a t-value 0.41 which was

found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8 degree of freedom (df)

and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant degree of difference,

leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The result implies that both

respondents had different perception on the effective teaching and learning.

Teachers rated as expert while students rated as Demonstrating.

6. Perception of the respondents on the Hot and Cold Kitchen.

A. Teachers. The responses of the teachers obtained an average

weighted mean of 3.67 or Expert. The result implies that teachers must provide

proper lights and ventilation of facilities and utilities. It is evident in the result

that Heating and cooling should be adequate for the comfort of laboratory

occupants and operation of laboratory equipment. A differential should exist

between the amount of air exhausted from the laboratory and the amount

supplied to the laboratory to maintain a negative pressure between the

laboratory and adjacent nonlaboratory spaces. This pressure differential prevents

uncontrolled chemical vapors from leaving the laboratory. Clean rooms may
require a slightly positive pressure differential. There should be separation

between common spaces and the clean room to prevent migration of airborne

contaminants.

B. Students. The responses of the students obtained an average

weighted mean of 2.76 or Demonstrating. The result implies that students

must segregate the wastes in the garbage. It is evident in the result that waste

segregation is an ideal way to diminish the impact of landfills on the environment

as well as health issues that can result from improperly disposed of wastes and

toxins.

7. Statistical Treatment. The computation resulted a t-value 0.59 which was

found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8 degree of freedom (df)

and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant degree of difference,

leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The result implies that both

respondents had different perception on the Hot and Cold Kitchen. Teachers

rated as expert while students rated as Demonstrating.

8. Perception of the respondents on the Kitchen Laboratory Safety.

A. Teachers. The responses of the teachers obtained an average

weighted mean of 3.38 or Expert. The result implies that teachers must provide

safety and kitchen and accidents prevention. It is evident in the result that when

using kitchen students must be guided and know how to use proper laboratory

equipments to avoid the spilling of other chemicals and explosion.

 B. Students. The responses of the students obtained an average

weighted mean of 3.0 or Demonstrating. The result implies that students must

observe cleanliness and organize kitchen and proper labelling. It is evident in the

result that when your laboratory is unclean, tidiness becomes harder to manage.

Items may end up misplaced, making you less efficient. When you clean, it's

normal to put items back in their proper place. This makes your lab more

organized, and that can boost productivity. An unclean laboratory is as harmful

as an inaccurate result. The apparatus, especially the glassware, used in labs

must be cleaned after every use. The remnants of previous tests, moisture, or

even dust particles can alter the laboratory results. This can result in a waste of

money and energy.

9. Statistical Treatment. The computation resulted a t-value 0.41 which was

found to be lower than the tabular t-value of 2.306 at 8 degree of freedom (df)

and at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant degree of difference,

leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The result implies that both

respondents had different perception on the Kitchen Laboratory Safety. Teachers

rated as expert while students rated as Demonstrating.

 CONCLUSIONS

After thorough study of the data, the researchers were able to arrive at

the following conclusions:

1. Majority of the teachers were females, aged 26-30 years old and bachelor

degree holder.

2. Half of the respondents were males and the other half were females.

Belonged to age group 25 years old and below and were 3rd year college.

3. Teachers respondents rated Expert while the students rated as

Demonstrating on the Use of HRM Facilities and Equipment for Teacher’s

Students Performance.

4. Teachers respondents rated Expert while the students rated as

Demonstrating on the Effective Teaching and Learning.

5. Teachers respondents rated Expert while the students rated as

Demonstrating on the Hot and Cold Kitchen.

6. Teachers respondents rated Expert while the students rated as

Demonstrating on the Kitchen Laboratoy Safety.

7. There was a significant degree of difference on the responses of the

respondents on the level of awareness of both the cadets and passengers on

the situation of the teachers and the students during class if the laboratory

lacks equipment, thus the null hypothesis was rejected.

8.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and conclusions drawn, the following measures are

suggested:

1. The study recommends that teachers must guide their students in the use of

laboratory equipments and teach them the proper storage to avoid spills of

chemicals and destroy of equipments.

2. Establish a laboratory safety plan to outline the procedures necessary to

prevent accidents before, during and after use of equipments. This plan

should be communicated with all the teachers and students using the

laboratories and this must be available in writing for review at any time.

3. Every students that are using the laboratory should receive required training

and be briefed for new or updated regulations.

4. Implement a routine maintenance plan to check the destroy and replace

broken or burnt-out equipments.

5. Develop a team of teachers who are trained and educated in laboratory safety

plan procedures and are willing to teach more students.

 A PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

Rationale

One of the main objectives of science teaching is to train individuals who

will be able to adapt to rapidly changing and developing age and benefit from

the latest technological innovations. Teachers have great responsibilities to reach

this goal. In short, in this process, teacher should be in the role of a guide that

shares the importance of science teaching and the responsibility and enthusiasm

of reaching scientific knowledge and at the same time guides the research

process in its class. Students will play a more active role in such learning

environments. It is known that science laboratories play an extremely important

role in students' active participation in the learning process. Laboratory practices

play a central role to fill the gap between theory and practice. Laboratory

applications have been stated to help students define the concepts of science in

a more comprehensive and meaningful manner. Laboratories have long been

regarded as an important component in science education.

It is very important for the techniques applied in a laboratory as well as

for the laboratory use in science teaching. As is known, it is suggested that

closed-ended experiments cannot contribute much to the meaningful learning of

students. As already known, most of the teacher candidates carry out close-

ended laboratory practices throughout their university education. As experiment

guidelines defining the process step-step-step for teacher candidates are used in
such laboratory practices, the students might be hindered from taking an active

role. Likewise, most of the teachers tend to perform demonstration and close-

ended experiment for the students.

The findings of the study showed that the teachers rated expert and

students rated demonstrating in terms of the situation of the teachers and the

students during class if the laboratory lacks equipment.

Objectives

The following objectives have been formulated for the purpose of

providing direction to the proposed improvement measures.

1. To strengthen the awareness of the students and teachers on what will

be the effects if the labpratory lacks equipment.

2. To help individuals in improving their capabilities and knowledge as

regards to the use of laboratory.

3. To enrich students knowledge in connection to their laboratory

subjects for them to be more productive and responsive when incident

occurs.

4. To give awareness to the individuals on the importance of orientation,

seminars and proper use of laboratory.

Mechanics of Implementation
 Once approved by the examining panel, a copy of this research study will

be presented to the School Director and subsequently endorse to the Dean of

HRM for approval, with the request that special attention will be given to the

proposed improvement measures and the implementation thereof. The items of

this program are merely suggestive thus, it may be modified to suit present

conditions.

Schedule of Implementation

The immediate implementation of this proposed improvement measures

will be as soon as it is approved. It will be advantageous and useful so that

weaknesses could be prevented and strong points could be developed.

 A PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

Areas Objectives Strategies Persons Time Success Indicator

Concern Involved Frame
(Findings
)
Teachers To intensify the information Conduct or organize
needed by students the training and orientation in Teachers Once Prepared and Knowledgeable
importance of complete using the laboratory. every teachers.
equipments in using laboratory. Students semester
Responsive and productive cadets.

Students To strengthen their knowledge To provide students with Once Well-informed students on the
and understanding on the proper enough information in the every emergency procedures when
usage of laboratory and knows use of laboratory. Teachers semester accident occurs during
the effects when using lack experiments.
facilities and materials in the Orient students proper Students
conduct of experiments. usage of the equipments, Knowledgeable Students.
where to find the first-aid
equipment when accident
occurs during experiments.

Provide brochures or
printed materials for
students to be guided on
the laboratory procedures
and facilities.
 QUESTIONNAIRE

LABORATORY EQUIPMENT FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING

OF BSHM TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN BIT IC TAGBILARAN CITY:
BASIS FOR IMPROVEMENT

To All our Dear Respondents:

Here is a set of questions which serves as data instrument for the

present study. Kindly answer these questions with due honesty to ensure the
accuracy of the data and for a more reliable result. All information gathered will
be held confidential and shall be used only for the purpose of research.
Thank you so much!
Researchers

Part I. Profile of the Respondents

Direction: Please indicate with a check mark [√] of your choice on the space
provided.

1.1 Teacher
a) Age
[ ] 25 years old and below

[ ] 26-30 years old

[ ] 31-35 years old

[ ] 36-40 years old

[ ] 41 years old and above

b) Gender

[ ] Male

[ ] Female

c.) Educational Attainment

 [ ] Doctorate Degree Holder

[ ] Master’s Degree Holder

[ ] Bachelor’s Degree Holder

[ ] High School Graduate/Level

1.2 Student
a) Age
[ ] 25 years old and below

[ ] 26-30 years old

[ ] 31-35 years old

[ ] 36-40 years old

[ ] 41 years old and above

b) Gender

[ ] Male

[ ] Female

c) Year Level

[ ] 1ST Year College

[ ] 2nd Year College

[ ] 3rd Year College

[ ] 4th Year College

[ ] Graduate/ Teaching

II. The situation of the teachers and the students during class if the
laboratory lacks equipment

Direction: Please indicate a checkmark [√] of your response to the column that
corresponds to your answer. Numerical Choices corresponds to the following
quantifiers:
 4- Expert 2- Basic
3- Demonstrating 1- None/Low
Items 4 3 2 1
A. Use of HRM Facilities and equipment for Teacher
students’ performance
1. Promotes a more interactive and easy way to study.
2. Makes the classroom environment more conductive to learning.
3. Makes the students more productive and creative.
4. Motivates to learn and conduct themselves.
5. Helps for familiarization of tools and equipment.
B. Effective Teaching and Learning
1. The completeness laboratory equipment’s provides goods
perspective on the scientific approach to cooking reflecting the
interest and passion of the students and for effective teaching.
2. Basic equipment for each group of students working in the
laboratory
3. The care and maintenance of laboratory equipment is an
integral part of quality assurance in the laboratory.
4. Fitting lab equipment helps in the fast- paced process
5. Process of cooking using appropriate equipment save time.
C. Hot and Cold Kitchen
1. Space students working area.
2. Working table per group of 5 to 7 students.
3. Food models for easy reference.
4. Lights and ventilation of facilities and utilities.
5. Segregation of waste
D. Kitchen Laboratory Safety
1. Safety and kitchen and accidents prevention
2. Cleanliness and organize kitchen with proper labeling.
3. All equipment returns to correct place.
4. Efficient and effective used of time.
5. Proper use of oven, refrigerators and cookers.

Thank you so much for your time, GODBLESS!!!

 RESEARCHERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The Kitchen as Laboratory

Reflections on the Science of Food and Cooking
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7312/vega15344/html

2. Laboratory Experiences and Student Learning

https://www.nap.edu/read/11311/chapter/5#81
3. A Set of Utensils for the Kitchen Laboratory by: MaUD Welson and Helen E.
McCullough
https://file:///C:/Users/Wing/Downloads/StationCircular134.pdf

4. The 1987 constitution of the republic of the Philippines- article II

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-
republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-
philippines-article-ii/

5. Facilities, Equipment, and Safety

https://www.nap.edu/read/11311/chapter/8

6. Factors that influence students level of satisfaction with regards to higher

education facilities services
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11796228.pdf?
fdclid=IwAR37jHfHCOZ4rH_WOY6505JJmwMnSZfOdP2e4DWqUAKrg5DxMX6-
sDwMrog

7. Teacher Professional Learning, Teaching Practice and Student Learning

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
226853425_Teacher_Professional_Learning_Teaching_Practice_and_Stude
nt_Learning_Outcomes_Important_Issues
8. The Role of Laboratory in Science Teaching/ NARST
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnarst.org%2Fresearch-
matters%2Flaboratory-in-science-teaching%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1-
tDqCPXrA1oeZooRNOeU6t39YMpmgyDUyNrfcMVkXQYHz1eJLMz-
6GsE&h=AT0OPESpvU23masBd0onQ86ipqKQfa7F-plG6BlkYNtA-
E6Vx3vcLskhuXYOvs4slsaNh0WFw11l2PQ32j4NkPFbZ0jveZd_gqy6ZctMnppE977q
QrYX53kd9A4xs47xsjXsfaX2isDDCFvtzY93xQ

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Markin B. Amplayo

Date of Birth : October 12, 2000

Place of Birth : Katipunan, Alicia, Bohol

Address : Santo Nino, Katipunan, Alicia, Bohol

Parents : Mr. Mario Amplayo

Mrs. Leonila Amplayo

Nationality : Filipino

Educational Background
Elementary : Katipunan Elementary School

Katipunan, Alicia, Bohol

Secondary : Pilar Technical Vocational High School

Poblacion, Pilar, Bohol

Tertiary : BIT International College

200 Gallares St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Course : Bachelor of Science in
Hospitality Management

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : John Ivan Baclohan

Date of Birth : January 18, 1999

Place of Birth : Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Address : Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Parents : Leodegario C. Capuno

Ivy G. Baclohan

Nationality : Filipino

Educational Background
Elementary : Foundation Preparation Academy

Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Secondary : Dumaguete City National High School

Dumaguete City, Negros Oreintal

Tertiary : BIT International College

200 Gallares St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Course : Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Jelmar Q. Buslon

Date of Birth : Febuary 09, 2001

Place of Birth : Rizal, Pilar, Bohol

Address : Rizal, Pilar, Bohol

Parents : Mr. Bonifacio T. Buslon

Mrs. Dionisia T. Buslon

Nationality : Filipino

Educational Background
Elementary : Rizal Elementary School

Rizal, Pilar, Bohol

Secondary : Sierra Bullones Technical Vocational High School

Salvador, Sierra Bullones, Bohol

Tertiary : BIT International College

200 Gallares St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Course : Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management

 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Jessa B. Maluenda

Date of Birth : May 31, 2000

Place of Birth : Rizal, Pilar, Bohol

Address : Rizal, Pilar, Bohol

Parents : Mr. Mariano J. Maluenda

Mrs. Lydia B. Maluenda

Nationality : Filipino

Educational Background
Elementary : Rizal Elementary School

Rizal, Pilar, Bohol

Secondary : Pilar Technical Vocational High School

Poblacion, Pilar, Bohol

Tertiary : BIT International College

200 Gallares St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Course : Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management

 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Sandra E. Menguito

Date of Birth : June 27, 2000

Place of Birth : Napo, Inabanga, Bohol

Address : San Juan, Sierra Bullones, Bohol

Parents : Mrs. Aquilina E. Menguito

Nationality : Filipino

Educational Background
Elementary : San Juan Elementary School

San Juan, Sierra Bullones, Bohol

Secondary : Saint Pauls Academy

Poblacion, Inabanga, Bohol

Tertiary : BIT International College

200 Gallares St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Course : Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management

 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Edison G. Mercado ll

Date of Birth : October 29, 2000

Place of Birth : Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Address : Poblacion Sur, Batuan, Bohol

Parents : Mr. Edison L. Mercado

Mrs. Catalina G. Mercado

Nationality : Filipino

Educational Background
Elementary : Batuan Elementary School

Poblacion Sur, Batuan, Bohol

Secondary : Saint Anthony Academy

Poblacion Sur, Batuan, Bohol

Tertiary : BIT International College

200 Gallares St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Course : Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management