Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Chapter 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

183,277 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Read this heartfelt letter below from Sonasi Samita, a disease-ridden man stricken with kidney failure, diabetes, gout, heart problems, and blindness. He tells his tear-jerking story on how the Demolisher system has totally changed his life! Sonasi says he's convinced that the Demolisher system is God's answer to his prayers! ➤➤ http://t.cn/A6zP24pL
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Thankfully this community blesses you with the right information and tools to get through the inevitable tough times and the joy of having people who are in the same situation and helping you as you go. I'm forever thankful for having the irreplaceable support to fight for what is best for me with all force and knowledge and much love! Shaye and other girls did it, I'm doing it and do can anyone struggling from this, no matter how deep and dark it seems! One step at a time, TOGETHER! ◆◆◆ http://scamcb.com/bulimiarec/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Dating direct: ♥♥♥ http://bit.ly/39mQKz3 ♥♥♥
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • This Single Mother Makes Over $700 per Week Helping Businesses with their Facebook and Twitter Accounts! and Now You Can Too! ★★★ http://ishbv.com/socialpaid/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Dating direct: ♥♥♥ http://bit.ly/2LaDVgK ♥♥♥
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Chapter 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

  1. 1. 54 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 4 Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data This chapter presents the findings, analysis andinterpretation of data gathered whose main objective is tofound out the expectations and perceptions of touristtowards Filipino tour Guides. More specifically, the researchers sought to answer thefollowing questions: Sub problem No.1. How do the Local Tourists perceive theFilipino Tour Guides in terms of:
  2. 2. 55 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 1.1 Personality Table 4 Respondents’ Assessments as to Personality Respondents Tour Guide Tourist TotalCriteria WM VI WM VI WM VIGrooming 4.71 O 4.05 O 4.38 OPersonal Hygiene 4.29 O 4.19 O 4.24 OProfessional Appearance 4.71 O 4.19 O 4.45 OPersonal Integrity 4.71 O 4.28 O 4.05 OFlexibility 4.86 O 4.37 O 4.62 O Composite Mean 4.67 O 4.21 O 4.44 O Table 4 presents the respondents’ assessment as topersonality. It can be gleaned from the data that all the criteriawere interpreted by the two groups of respondents as highextent. These are grooming (WM=4.38); personal hygiene(WM=4.24); professional appearance (WM=4.50) andflexibility.
  3. 3. 56 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Legend Scale Rate Interpretation Symbol 5 4.20 – 5.00 Outstanding O 4 3.40 - 4.19 Very Good VG 3 2.60 - 3.39 Good G 2 1.80 – 2.59 Fair F 1 1.00 - 1.79 Poor P The overall computed weighted mean of 4.44 wereinterpreted the respondents as high extent as topersonality. 1.2 Communication Skills Table 5 shows the respondents assessment as tocommunication skills. As shown in the data, two (2) out of five (5) criteriawere interpreted as high extent: language proficiency(WM=4.52) and speak audibly (not too soft not too loud)(WM=4.22) while, the other two (2) were interpreted asmoderate extent. These are not using highfalutin words(WM=2.89) and use non-verbal communication (WM=2.77). Only
  4. 4. 57 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENTone (1) criterion was interpreted as great extent: try toget rid of regional extent (WM=3.04). Table 5 Respondents’ Assessment as to Communication Skills Respondents Tour Guide Tourist TotalCriteria WM VI WM VI WM VILanguage proficiency 4.71 O 4.33 O 4.52 O 2.43 G 3.35 VG 2.89 GNot using highfalutin wordsTry to get rid of regional 2.57 G 3.31 VG 3.04 VGaccentUse non-verbal communication 2.14 G 3.51 VG 2.77 GSpeak audibly (not too soft, nottoo loud ) 4.43 O 4 O 4.22 O COMPOSITE MEAN 3.26 VG 3.72 VG 3.49 VG In general, the computed value of weighted mean is 3.49interpreted by the two groups of respondents as great extentas to communication skills. 1.3 Technical Skills
  5. 5. 58 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Table 6 reveals the respondents’ assessment as totechnical skills. Table 6 Respondents’ Assessment as to Technical Skills Tour Guide Tourists Total RespondentsCriteria WM VI WM VI WM VIPunctuality 5 O 4.21 O 4.61 O 4.86 O 4.33 O 4.06 OResourcefulnessSense of humor 4.57 O 4.33 O 4.45 OTactfulness 4.57 O 4.05 O 4.31 O Composite Mean 4.75 O 4.23 O 4.49 O As revealed in the data; all the criteria undertechnical skills were interpreted by the respondents as highextent. These are: punctuality (WM=4.61); resourcefulness(WM=4.60); sense of humor (WM=4.45) and tactfulness(WM=4.31).
  6. 6. 59 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT The computed weighted mean of 4.49 were verballyinterpreted by the respondents as high extent as totechnical skills. 1.4 Summary Table 7 presents the summary on the respondents’assessment on the Filipino Tour Guides. Table 7 Summary on Respondents’ Assessment on the Filipino Tour Guides Respondents Tour Guide Tourists Composite MeanCriteria WM VI WM VI WM VIPersonality 4.67 O 4.21 O 4.44 O 3.26 VG 3.72 VG 3.49 VGCommunication SkillsTechbical Skills 4.75 O 4.23 O 4.49 O Composite Mean 4.23 O 4.05 VG 4.14 VG
  7. 7. 60 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT As present in the data, two (2) out of three (3)criteria were interpreted as high extent. These arepersonality (WM=4.44) and technical skills (WM=4.49) while,only were interpreted as great extent: communication skills(WM=3.49). Generally, the overall computed weighted mean of 4.14were interpreted by the two groups of respondents as greatextent. Sub-Problem No.2 Is there significant difference onperception of the local tourists to the Filipino Tour Guidesusing the above mentioned variables? 2.1 Personality Table 8 depicts the comparison on the assessment ontheir personality. As depicted in the table, only one (1) criteria wereinterpreted t-value is lower that the critical value of1.645 at 0.05 percent level of significance. While, theother four (4) criteria were interpreted as significant.
  8. 8. 61 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENTThese are: grooming (t-value=3.01); personal hygiene (t-value=0.34); professional appearance (t-value=2.53);personal integrity (t-value=2.24); flexibility (t-value=2.87). Professional Appearance (t-value=2.53);Personal Integrity (t-value=2.24) and Flexibility (t-value=2.87)
  9. 9. 62 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Table 8 Comparison on the Assessment on their Personality Respondents TOUR GUIDE TOURIST T-test t-computedCriteria WM SD WM SD Interpretation DECISION valueGROOMING 4.71 0.45 4.05 0.91 3.01 S Reject HoPERSONAL 4.29 0.70 4.19 0.87 0.34 NS Accept HoHygienePROFESSIONAL 4.71 0.45 4.19 0.76 2.53 S Reject HoAPPEARANCEPERSONAL 4.71 0.45 4.28 0.58 2.24 S Reject HoINTEGRITYFLEXIBILITY 4.86 0.35 4.37 0.71 2.87 S Reject Ho COMPOSITE MEAN 4.67 0.48 4.21 0.77 2.13 S Reject HoLegend: CV at 5% = 1.645 NS – Not Significant S-Significant The computed t-value of 2.13 is higher than thecritical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level of significance, interpreted assignificant hence, rejecting the hypothesis.
  10. 10. 63 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT2.2 Communication Skills Table 9 reflects the comparison on the assessment ontheir communication skills. Table 9 Comparison on the assessment on their Communication Skills RESPONDENTS TOUR GUIDE TOURIST t-testCriteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation DECISION valuePUNCTUALTY 5 0 4.31 0.82 6.32 S Reject HoRESOURCEFULNESS 4.86 0.35 4.33 0.67 3.17 S Reject HoSENSE OF HUMOR 4.57 0.49 4.33 0.8 1.08 NS Accept HoTACTFULNESS 4.57 0.49 4.05 0.86 2.29 S Reject Ho COMPOSITE MEAN 4.75 0.33 4.23 0.79 3 S Reject Ho As reflected on the data; only one criterion wasinterpreted as not significant: sense of humor (t-
  11. 11. 64 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENTvalue=1.08) while the other three criteria were interpretedas significant. These are: punctuality (t-value-6.32);resourcefulness (t-value=3.17) and tactfulness (t-value=2.29). Generally the computed t-value of 3 is higher than thecritical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level ofsignificance; it was interpreted as significant thereforethe hypothesis is rejected. 2.3 Technical Skills. Table 10 present the comparison on the assessment ontheir technical skills. As presented in the data; four (4) out of (5) criteriawere interpreted as significant. These are: languageproficiency (t-value=1.88); not using highfalutin words (t-value=1.88); try to get rid of regional accent (t-value=1.94) and use non-verbal communication (t-value=3.00)while, only one (1) were interpreted as not significant:speak audibly (not too soft, not too loud) (t-value=1.34)
  12. 12. 65 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT Table 10 Comparison on the assessment on their Technical Skills RESPONDENTS TOUR GUIDE TOURIST t-testCriteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation DECISION valueLanguage 4.71 0.45 4.33 0.71 1.85 S Reject HoproficiencyNot using 2.43 1.18 3.35 1.31 1.88 S Reject Hohighfalutin wordsTry to get rid of 2.57 1.18 3.51 1.23 1.94 S Reject Horegional accentUse non-verbal 2.14 0.99 3.40 1.26 3.00 S Reject HocommunicationSpeak audibly 4.43 0.73 4.00 1.08 1.34 NS Accept Ho Composite Mean 3.26 0.91 3.72 1.12 1.20 NS Accept Ho Generally, the computed t-value of 1.20 is lower thanthe critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level ofsignificant. It was the interpreted as not significanthence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
  13. 13. 66 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 2.4 Summary Table 11 shows the summary on the comparison onrespondents’ assessment the local tourist to the FilipinoTour Guides. Table 11 Summary on the Comparison on Responds Assessment of the Local Tourist to the Filipino Tour Guides Respondents Tour Guides Tourist t-testCriteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation Decision valuePersonality 4.67 0.48 4.21 0.77 2.13 S Reject HoCommunication 4.75 0.33 4.23 0.79 3 S Reject HoSkillsTechnical 3.26 0.91 3.72 1.12 1.20 NS Accept HoSkills Composite Mean 4.23 0.57 4.05 0.89 0.71 NS Accept Ho It can be gleaned from the data that two (2) criteriawere interpreted as significant. These are: personality (t-
  14. 14. 67 EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENTvalue=2.13) and communication skills (t-value=3.00) whiletechnical skills (t-value=1.20) were interpreted as notsignificant. Generally, the overall computed t-value of 0.71 islower than the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent levelof significance with 48 degrees of the freedom. It wasinterpreted as not significant therefore, the hypothesis isaccepted.

×