CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research tools, equipment, ingredients, procedures,

experimental design, treatment proportions and statistical analysis of the study.

Methods of Research

The method used in this study is an experimental-developmental method of

research. The experimental method involves the manipulation of variables to establish

cause and effect relationships. The key features are controlled methods and the random

allocation of participants into controlled and experimental groups. An experiment is an

investigation in which a hypothesis is scientifically tested.

The experimental method involves the manipulation of variables to establish

cause and effect relationships. The key features are controlled methods and the random

allocation of participants into controlled and experimental groups. An experiment is an

investigation in which a hypothesis is scientifically tested. Experimental method focuses

the study in the future (what will be) when the variables or the study are carefully

controlled or manipulated (Calmorin, 2010). Hence, in this study, the experimental

method attempted to investigate the proportion of coffee beans in making alternative ink

using three treatments. In the developmental research the product developed was

alternative ink for ballpoint pen and permanent ink using ground coffee, alcohol, and

petroleum jelly, for potential product development and commercialization.

 Tools and Equipment

The tools and equipment used in the study were the following: one (1) unit digital

weighing scale; one (1) mortar and pestle; three (3) clean glass jars; three (3) coffee

filters or cheesecloth; one (1) set of measuring cup; three (3) spoons; three (3) pieces of

disposable syringe; three (3) pieces unused pen barrel; and, three (3) pieces ink chamber

or cartridge.

Experimental Design

This study utilized experimental research design utilizing Completely

Randomized Design (CRD). In which the acceptability of taro kropeck with

zingiberaceae was studied with successive replications conducted to determine the cause

of change. Samples for evaluation was coded and score card was utilized for

randomization. The experiment was carried out in three products formulation with three

treatments and three replications.

Ingredients Used in the Study

The ingredients used in the conduct of the study were: ground coffee beans,

alcohol, and petroleum jelly.

Experimental Treatment

The experiment was carried out the product formulation with three (3) treatment

namely:
 Product 1 comes in three treatment –Treatment A (25ml ground coffee,

12.5ml alcohol, and 12.5 ml petroleum jelly), Treatment B (20ml ground coffee, 15ml

alcohol, and 15ml petroleum jelly), and Treatment C (15ml ground coffee, 17.5ml

alcohol, and 17.5 petroleum jelly). The proportions of the ingredients are found in Table

1 below. The purpose of the treatment was to find out the acceptability of coffee ink with

ground coffee, alcohol, and petroleum jelly.

Table 1. Proportion Of Ingredients Of The Coffee Ink With Ground Coffee,

Alcohol, And Petroleum Jelly For Applicability Evaluation.
Treatment
Ingredients
A B C

Ground coffee 25ml 20ml 15ml

Alcohol 12.5ml 15ml 17.5ml

Petroleum jelly 12.5ml 15ml 17.5ml

Table 2 shows the proportion of variables among the 3 treatments. The data

gathered on the third trial, these proportions were taken best for the consumer’s

acceptability.

Table 2. Proportion Of Variables Of Coffee Ink With Ground Coffee, Alcohol, And
Petroleum Jelly For Consumer’s Acceptability.

Ingredients Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C

Color
Absorbency
Consistency
Texture
General Acceptability
 Table 3 shows the different ingredients and their functions in the conduct of the
study.

Table 3. Shows How The Different Ingredients Were Used In This Study.

Ingredients Functions

Ground coffee Main ingredients in making coffee ink, and it is

important in the end product quality of the ink.

Alcohol It enhances the flavor and aroma of the products.

Petroleum jelly Adds volume in kropeck, gives additional nutrients

to the product. If purely taro was used in the
treatment it is very sticky, to minimize the
stickiness of taro rice flour is added.

Petroleum jelly Soften the rice flour.

Experimental Procedure

Step 1. Preparing of Raw Materials

The raw materials needed for the development of taro kropeck with zingebereceae

(ginger, langkawas, turmeric) were gathered and inspected to ensure good quality.

a.

The 1000 grams of taro root was purchased at Bagong Lipunan Trade Center from

a known vendor. Then it was peeled and washed in clean running water. The taro roots

were sliced thinly and were dry under the sun or until became crisp and brittle. Then the

dried taro was ground until smooth in texture and was set aside for later use.1000 grams

of taro roots was equivalent to 315 grams of taro flour.

 Taro roots

Peeling and Washing taro roots

Slicing thinly the taro roots

Drying Taro roots

Powdering taro roots

Taro flour

Figure 1. Process flow chart in the preparation of Taro flour.

b. Preparation of rice flour

One (1) kilo of white rice was purchased at Bagong Lipunan trade Center from a

known rice vendor then it was powder and soak in hot water for 5 minutes to make it soft.

White rice

Grinding the white rice

Soaking the rice flour

Soaked rice flour

Figure 2. Preparation of rice flour.

c. Preparation of ginger, turmeric, langkawas

One (1) kilo of ginger, langkawas andturmeric was purchased at Bagong Lipunan

Trade Center from a known vendor. The roots are washed in clean running water. Then it

was slice thinly and let dry under the heat of the sun until crisp and brittle. Then it was

grind and set aside for later use.

Step 2. Procedures in Making Taro Kroepeck with Zingibereceae

(ginger, langkawas, turmeric)

The tools and equipment needed was prepared. All ingredients are measured using

a digital weighing scale. In a mixing bowl, all the dry ingredients are mixed thoroughly.

Then the ground rice which was soaked in hot water are added and was stir very well

until it forms into a thick batter and blended well. Prepare the steamer with water and let

it boil then pour ¼ tsp of the batter mixture in a molder and steam for about 20 to 30

minutes or until the batter has solidified. The cooked kropeck was removed from the

molder carefully and was arranged on a tray with a screen to protect from any flies, to dry

under the sun for 10 to 12 hours. When thoroughly dry the kropeck was stored in a cool

dry place and was deep fry until puff when about to be eaten.
 Ginger Turmeric Langkawas

Washing

Peeling

Slicing

Drying

Pounding

Powdered Ginger, Langkawas, Turmeric

Figure 3. Preparation of Roots (Ginger, Turmeric and Langkawas).

 Preparing of tools equipment and ingredients

Mixing of all ingredients

Pouring the mixture into molder

Steaming the mixture

Removing from the molder

Drying the kropeck

Storing

Deep frying the kropeck

Taro Kroepeck with Zingibereceae

Figure 4. Process flow chart showing the procedure in making

Taro Kroepeck with Zingibereceae .
 Collection of Data

To evaluate the sensory qualities of the products, a score card was used in this

study. It looked into the quality attributes of the product such as appearance, aroma, taste

and texture. These four sensory qualities included in determining the general

acceptability of Taro Kropeck with Zingibereceae (ginger, langkawas, turmeric).

The evaluators were invited and were given an instruction on how to evaluate the

product. The evaluation sheet was given to the participants, 10 experts, 10 teachers, 10

students and 20 outside consumers with their honest opinions was solicited. The

evaluators were instructed to evaluate the product using a nine - point Hedonic Scale as

to appearance, aroma, taste, and texture. The evaluators evaluated the acceptability of the

product prepared in three treatments.

The 50 evaluators of the study were comprised of 10 vendors, 10 Grade 8-

Students, 10 teachers of Marciano M. Patricio National High School, 10 housewives and

10 potential consumers. Since it is pandemic the researcher makes sure that they follow

the safety protocols in evaluating the product. During the evaluation of the students the

researcher gave the product and the evaluation sheet to the parents together with the

modules and instructed them to return it when they come back for another set of modules.

After the evaluation of the product, the evaluation sheets were gathered, tally,

summarize and was ready for computation. The mean was used to determine the sensory

qualities of Taro kropeck with Zingibereceae (ginger, langkawas, turmeric) in terms of

appearance, aroma, taste, and texture and its general acceptability as a whole.
 Scoring of Variables

In scoring the variables, the researcher will use the Hedonic Nine Point Rating

Scale to rate the product. To have a better understanding of the result, the researcher was

given the equivalent interpretation of each step in the nine-point Hedonic Scale.

In determining the level of acceptability of the product the following scoring

guide (Table 4) was used.

The categorizations of each variation are as follows:

1. Appearance of the product

Score Mean Score Adjectival Description

9 8.12 – 9.00 Extremely Appealing

8 7.23 – 8.11
7 6.34 – 7.22
6 5.45 – 6.33
5 4.56 – 5.44
4 3.67 – 4.55
3 2.78 – 3.66
2 1.89 – 2.77
1 1.00 – 1.88
Very Much Appealing
Moderately Appealing
Slightly Appealing
Neither appealing nor unappealing
Slightly Unappealing
Moderately Unappealing
Very Much Unappealing
Extremely Unappealing

2. Aroma of the product

Score Mean Score Adjectival Description

9 8.12 – 9.00 Extremely Pleasant

8 7.23 – 8.11
7 6.34 – 7.22
6 5.45 – 6.33
5 4.56 – 5.44
4 3.67 – 4.55
Very Much Pleasant
Moderately Pleasant
Slightly Pleasant
Neither Pleasant nor Unpleasant
Slightly Unpleasant
 3 2.78 – 3.66 Moderately Unpleasant
2 1.89 – 2.77 Very Much Unpleasant
1 1.00 – 1.88 Extremely Unpleasant

3. Taste of the product

Score Mean Score Adjectival Description

9 8.12 – 9.00 Extremely Delicious

8 7.23 – 8.11 Very Much Delicious
7 6.34 – 7.22 Moderately Delicious
6 5.45 – 6.33 Slightly Delicious
5 4.56 – 5.44 Neither Delicious nor Not Delicious
4 3.67 – 4.55 Slightly Not Delicious
3 2.78 – 3.66 Moderately Not Delicious
2 1.89 – 2.77 Very Much Not Delicious
1 1.00 – 1.88 Extremely Not Delicious

4. Texture of the product

Score Mean Score Adjectival Description

9 8.12 – 9.00 Extremely Crunchy

8 7.23 – 8.11 Very Much Crunchy
7 6.34 – 7.22 Moderately Crunchy
6 5.45 – 6.33 Slightly Crunchy
5 4.56 – 5.44 Neither Crunchy and Not Crunchy
4 3.67 – 4.55 Slightly Not Crunchy
3 2.78 – 3.66 Moderately Not Crunchy
2 1.89 – 2.77 Very Much Not Crunchy
1 1.00 – 1.88 Extremely Not Crunchy
 5. Acceptability of the Product

Score Mean Score Qualitative Description

9 8.12 – 9.00 Liked Extremely

8 7.23 – 8.11 Liked Very Much
7 6.34 – 7.22 Liked Moderately
6 5.45 – 6.33 Liked Slightly
5 4.56 – 5.44 Neither Liked nor Disliked
4 3.67 – 4.55 Disliked Slightly
3 2.78 – 3.66 Disliked Moderately
2 1.89 – 2.77 Disliked Very Much
1 1.00 – 1.88 Disliked Extremely

Statistical Tools and Analysis

The data was tabulated and statistically analyze by SPSS software using the

Arithmetic Mean and the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significant

difference in the sensory qualities of the product in terms of appearance, aroma, taste and

texture as well as on the differences among the three treatments (Larson, 2008). Level of

significance was set 0.01 alpha.