AN INTELLIGENT STUDENT ADVISING

SYSTEM: A MINIMUM SPANNING TREE

APPROACH
Objective of the Study
This study aims to develop an intelligent web-based student advising system for Universidad de Manila
that will alleviate, if not eliminate the time consuming process in subject advising.

Specifically, the study seeks to address the following objectives:

 To develop an application that will recommend the list of subjects to be enrolled by the students
utilizing the concept behind the minimum spanning tree.
 To develop an application that will flag students who are at risk of not graduating on time.
 To develop an application that will determine the academic status of students.
 To evaluate the newly developed system in terms of accuracy.
Conceptual Framework

Figure 3.10 Conceptual Framework

METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.1 Prototype Model
Requirements Modeling
1. Sort all the edges in non-decreasing order of their weight.

self.graph = sorted(self.graph,
key=lambda item: item[2])
parent = []
rank = []

for node in range(self.V):

parent.append(node)
rank.append(0)

while e < self.V - 1:

Figure 4.3 Graph G

2. Pick the smallest edge. Check if it forms a cycle with the spanning tree formed so
far. If cycle is not formed, include its edge. Else, discard it.

u, v, w = self.graph[i]
# print(self.graph[i])
i=i+1
x = self.find(parent, u)
y = self.find(parent, v)
# print(y)

if x != y:
e=e+1
result.append([u, v, w]
self.union(parent, rank, x, y)
3. Repeat step#2 until there are (V-1) edges in the spanning tree

minimumCost = 0
nodes1 = []
nodes2 = []
weights_node = []
print("Edges in the constructed MST")
for u, v, weight in result:
minimumCost += weight
print("%d -- %d == %d" % (u, v, weight))
nodes1.append(u)
nodes2.append(v)
weights_node.append(weight)
print("Minimum Spanning Tree", minimumCost)
return nodes1, nodes2, weights_node
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
 Functionality of the Newly Developed System
Subject Advising

Flagging of Students

Determine Student
Academic Status

Figure 5.1 Main Screen of Student Advising

Figure 5.5 Student Academic Status

Figure 5.4 Student Flagging
Figure 5.3 Recommended
Figure
Courses
5.2 Inputting
by the System
of Grades
Application
Evaluation of the Newly Developed Student Advising System

a.
b. Functionality
Efficiency of the
of the
Intelligent
Newly Developed
Student Advising
Application
System
as Evaluated
as Evaluated
by the
by the
Faculty
Faculty
Members
Members

Table 5.35.2
Table
The
TheWeighted
Weighted Mean
Meanon
onthe
the Evaluation
Evaluationof
of Efficiency
Functionality

Weighted Verbal
FUNCTIONALITY Weighted
EFFICIENCY Mean Verbalinterpretation
interpretation
Mean
1. Completeness of the application 4.82 Excellent
1. Functional
2. Time Behavior
Appropriateness 4.49 4.80 Very Satisfactory
Excellent
3.Functional Correctness 4.89 Excellent
2. Resource Utilization 4.49 Very Satisfactory

General Weighted Mean 4.84 Excellent

General Weighted Mean 4.49 Very Satisfactory
 Table 5.4
Benchmarking Analysis (Speed)

Manual Process vs Proposed System

Speed Evaluation

Instance Manual Process Proposed System

1 7:10 1:50

2 9:10 2:04

3 7:23 2:00

4 8:37 2:56

5 7:40 4:45

6 8:12 3:20

7 9:30 6:10

8 9:25 2:21

9 Figure 5.8 Speed

10:38Evaluation 3:42

10 9:28 3:50

Average Processing Time 8:43 mins 3:17 mins

e.
c. Portability
d. Reliability ofthe
Usability ofof theIntelligent
the IntelligentStudent
Intelligent StudentAdvising
Student AdvisingSystem
Advising Systemasas
System asEvaluated
Evaluatedby
Evaluated bythe
by theFaculty
the FacultyMembers
Faculty Members
Members
Table 5.6
The Weighted Mean Table
on the5.5
Evaluation of Usability
The Weighted Mean onTable
the 5.7
Evaluation of Reliability
The Weighted Mean on the Evaluation
Usability
Weighted of Portability
Verbal
Mean Interpretation
RELIABILITY Weighted Verbal
Mean
Weighted Interpretation
Verbal
PORTABILITY
1. Operational Consistency 4.97 Excellent
Mean Interpretation
2. Interface Attractiveness
1. Availability 4.854.95 Excellent
Excellent
1. System Adaptability 4.95 Excellent
3. User Error Protection 4.90 Excellent
2. Fault Tolerance 4.38 Very Satisfactory
2. User Adaptability
4. Learnability 4.96
4.83 Excellent
Excellent

3. Recoverability
5. Appropriateness recognizability 4.874.32 Very Satisfactory
Excellent
3. Ease of Installation 4.98 Excellent

6. Accessibility 4.86 Excellent

General
General Weighted
Weighted Mean
Mean 4.55
4.96 Excellent
Excellent
General Weighted Mean 4.88 Excellent
Summary of User Evaluation on the Five Criteria

Table 5.8

Summary of User Evaluation

Criteria General Weighted Mean Verbal interpretation

1. Functionality 4.86 Excellent

Completeness of the 4.82 Excellent

application

Functional Appropriateness 4.80 Excellent

Functional Correctness 4.89 Excellent

2. Efficiency 4.49 Very Satisfactory

Time Behavior 4.49 Very Satisfactory

Resource Utilization 4.49 Very Satisfactory

3. Reliability 4.55 Excellent

Availability 4.95 Excellent

Fault Tolerance 4.38 Very Satisfactory

Recoverability 4.32 Very Satisfactory

4. Usability 4.88 Excellent

Operational Consistency 4.97 Excellent

Interface Attractiveness 4.85 Excellent

User Error Protection 4.90 Excellent

Learnability 4.83 Excellent

Appropriateness 4.87 Excellent

Recognizability

Accessibility 4.86 Excellent

5. Portability 4.96 Excellent

System Adaptability 4.95 Excellent

User Adaptability 4.96 Excellent

Ease of Installation 4.98 Excellent

 Conclusions

Based on the stated objectives of the study, the researcher concludes the following:

1. The excellent overall evaluation of the faculty members on the functionality, efficiency, reliability,
usability and portability is based on how the respondents perceive the outputs of the intelligent student
advising system. This means that presently, the application was able to deliver what is expected of it by the
end user.
2. The tools used in the development of the Student Advising System: A Minimum Spanning Tree
Approach made a major contribution to the overall objective of designing this application. The developed
Student Advising System has a lot of remarkable advantages compared to the manual processes of the
subject advising system. This conclusion is based on the testing for accuracy and speed testing. There
is a drastic difference in terms of providing accurate results, ease of use and speed of processing with
the benchmarking method. The application established was proved accurate and this was justified by
the findings of the assessment performed. The developed application, Intelligent Student Advising
System: A Minimum Spanning Tree Approach is designed to automate the subject advising
system utilized by the university.
 Recommendations

This study recommends the use of an intelligent subject advising since it can provide the
following advantages:

1. The developed application can recommend the list of subjects to be enrolled by the students.
2. The developed application has the ability to identify students who are at risk of not
graduating time.
3. It has the capability to determine the academic status of the students and the application is
accurate in providing results.
Further development and enhancement of the system is thereby recommended to future researchers,
especially to include the following:

1. Integration to the existing student information system utilized by the university so that filed
grades of the students will be systematically retrieved from the existing database.

2. Include as part of the system the other colleges and the Graduate School to simulate the
advising process.

3. Implementation of the same algorithm and model in a mobile application. This way,
portability and accessibility options can also be improved.
THANK YOU!
GOD BLESS!
How do we determine the variables for the computation of weights

1. Determine first the total weight of the subject using this formula.

Example: Computer Programming 1

Total weight = (course_weight* .5) + (w_distance * 100 * .2)

= (course_weight* .5) + (w_distance * 100 * .5)

   = (43.5 * .5) + (0.0909090909 * 100 * .5)

= 21.75 + 4.545454545
Total_weight = 26.295454545
How do we determine the variables for the computation of weights

2. Compute for the total weight of the second subject using this formula.

Example: Discrete Math

Total weight = (course_weight* weight1) + (w_distance * 100 * weight2)

= (course_weight* .5) + (w_distance * 100 * .5)

= (33.5 * .5) + (0.181818 * 100 * .5)

=16.75 + 9.0909
Total_weight = 25.8409
How do we determine the variables for the computation of weights

3. Compute the weight of the two nodes or vertices.

Examples: Computer Programming 1 and Discrete Math

(Total_weight) + (Total_weight)

= 26.295454545 +  25.8409

Weight = 52.136354545 or 52.14

In determining course_weight of the subject we will use this formula.

Example: Computer Programming 1

Course_weight = w_mediangrade + w_units + w_lecLab

CSC 112 = 8.5 + 10 + 25

= 18.5 +  25
Course_weight = 43.5
In determining w_mediangrade of the subject we will use this formula.

Example: Computer Programming 1

= (100-j) * .5
 = (100-83) * 0.5
= 17 * 0.5
 w_mediangrade = 8.5
In determining w_units of the subject we will use this formula.

Example: Computer Programming 1

= (j/6)*weight_units*100
= (3/6) * 0.2 *  100
  = 0.5 * 0.2  * 100
= 0.1 * 100
w_units = 10
In determining w_distance of the subject we will use this formula.

Example: Computer Programming 1

= distance/11
= 1/11
w_distance = 0.0909090909
In determining w_lecLab of the subject we will use this formula.

Example: Computer Programming 1

= (j / 6) * weight_lecLab * 100
= (5/6) * .3 *100
   = 0.83333333333 * .3 * 100
= 0.25 * 100
w_lecLab = 25
 SVM KNN RF Final List

Science Technology Science Technology Science Technology Science Technology

and Society and Society and Society and Society

Computer Prog 2 Discrete Math Discrete Math Discrete Math

Discrete Math Purposive Intro to Ethics  

Art App Intro to Ethics Purposive  

Intro to Ethics Computer Prog 2 Computer Prog 2 Computer Prog 2