Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter includes the discussion of the data gathered through the questionnaire

of the Currimao National High School Students’ socio demographic profile, their level of

satisfaction on the quality of services. Appropriate statistical tools were utilized to interpret

the findings of this study.

Socio-Demographic Profile of Respondents

This part presents the socio-demographic profile of the Currimao National High

School students. The students’ personal demographic profile includes sex, age, grade level

and how often they go to the canteen.

Table 1: Socio-demographic profile of the respondents. (N = 30)

Characteristics f %
Sex

Male 13 43.33
Female 17 56.67
________________________________________________________________________
Age
18-20 6 20
15-17 14 46.67
12-14 10 33.33
________________________________________________________________________
Grade Level
Grade 7 4 13.33
Grade 8 4 13.33
Grade 9 5 16.67
Grade 10 5 16.67
Grade 11 6 20
Grade 12 6 20
Address
Salugan 1 3.33
Gabut Norte 1 3.33
Maglaoi Centro 1 3.33
Poblacion 2 1 3.33
Pinili 1 3.33
San Simeon 1 3.33
Anggapang Norte 2 6.67
Cabuusan 2 6.67
Maglaoi Sur 2 6.67
Pias Sur 3 10
Maglaoi Norte 3 10
Gaang 3 10
Victoria 8 26.67
How often they visit the school canteen
Daily 24 80
Several Times a week 6 20
Once a Week 0 0
Several times a month 0 0

Sex. In this study, majority of the respondents are females (17 or 56.67%) while

there are only 13 males which represents 42.33% of the sample.

Age. Most of the students are aged 15-17 representing46.67% of the sample while

10 or 33.33% fall under the age bracket 12-14 years old. It is also noted that 6 or 20% fall

under the age range of 18-20 years old.

Grade Level. The respondents are came from different grade level wherein most

of them are in Grade Level 11 and 12 representing 6 or 20% of the sample respectively.

Meanwhile, 5 or 16.67% are in Grade 9 and 10 respectively. The rest are in Grade 7 and 8

representing 4 or 13.33% respectively.

Address. The students who were surveyed on this study are also from different

places though studying from the same school. Table 4 shows that majority of the

respondents are from Barangay Victoria representing 8 or 26.67% of the sample. Moreover,
 3 or 10% of them are from Barangay Pias Sur, Gaang and Maglaoi Norte respectively. The

rest of the students are from Maglaoi Sur, Cabuusan Anggapang Norte (2 or 6.77%)

respectively.

This study further revealed how often the students visit the school canteen. Majority

of the students visit the canteen daily representing 24 or 80% while 6 or 20% visits the

canteen several times a week only.

Table 2. Quality of Services of the School Canteen

Mean Descriptive
Statement Interpretation
Score

1 The price of food in the canteen are not expensive 2.43 Disagree

2 The price of food is/are worth it 2.9 Neutral

3 All the food served in the canteen are nutritious 2.53 Disagree

4 The food they serve are always hot 2.43 Disagree

5 The quality of food are excellent 2.4 Disagree

6 The food served in the canteen is of variety 2.83 Neutral

7 The food served are tasty and flavorful 2.9 Neutral

8 The food are served well 2.7 Neutral

9 The food are served just in time 2.8 Neutral

10 The food served are presentable 3.03 Neutral

11 The canteen can cater all the needs of the students 3.37 Neutral

12 The ambiance is good 2.7 Neutral

13 The canteen is not very crowded during break time 1.6 Strongly Disagree
14 The canteen is at its best when raining 1.8 Disagree

15 Kitchen utensils are very clean 2.5 Disagree

16 Eating utensil are well sterilized 2.47 Disagree

17 Tables are always clean 2.73 Neutral

The canteen personnel maintains the cleanliness of

18 2.87 Neutral
the canteen

19 Proper handling of food is observed 2.3 Disagree

20 The sanitation in preparing the food is maintained 2.2 Disagree

Legend: Range of Mean Score Descriptive Interpretation

4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Disagree

3.41 – 4.20 Disagree
2.61 – 3.40 Undecided
1.81 – 2.60 Agree
1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Agree

Table 3. Student’s Level of Satisfaction

Mean Descriptive
Statement Interpretation
Score

1 Accommodation 2.4 Slightly Satisfied

2 Ambiance 2.2 Slightly Satisfied

3 Availability of condiments 2.6 Slightly Satisfied

4 Availability of eating utensils 2.33 Slightly Satisfied

5 Availability of Tables & Chairs 2.43 Slightly Satisfied

6 Canteen Personnel’s Cooking etiquette 2.57 Slightly Satisfied

7 Cleanliness of the eating utensils 2.43 Slightly Satisfied

8 Cleanliness of the School Canteen 2.27 Slightly Satisfied

9 Daily Menu 2.3 Slightly Satisfied

10 Delivery of food 2.5 Slightly Satisfied

11 Food Handling 2.47 Slightly Satisfied

12 Food Nutritional Value 2.7 Moderately Satisfied

13 Location of the school canteen 2.06 Slightly Satisfied

14 Price 2.1 Slightly Satisfied

15 Quality of Canteen Personnel’s service 2.67 Moderately Satisfied

16 Quality of Food 2.7 Moderately Satisfied

17 Serving of food System 2.73 Moderately Satisfied

18 Taste of Food 2.87 Moderately Satisfied

Legend: Range of Mean Score Descriptive Interpretation

4.21 – 5.00 Extremely Satisfied

3.41 – 4.20 Very Satisfied
2.61 – 3.40 Moderately Satisfied
1.81 – 2.60 Slightly Satisfied
1.00 – 1.80 Not Satisfied at All
Table 4. Pearson’s Correlation
Respondents x y X2 Y2 xy
1 1.9 2.11 3.61 4.45 4.01
2 27 272 7.29 7.40 7.34
3 3.25 2.8 10.56 7.84 9.1
4 2.8 2.17 7.84 4.71 6.08
5 2.55 3 6.50 9 7.65
6 1.45 2.11 2.10 4.45 3.06
7 2.8 2.78 7.84 7.73 7.78
8 3.45 1.56 6 2.43 3.82
9 2.4 1.89 5.76 3.57 4.54
10 2.3 2 5.29 4 4.6
11 2.6 2.72 6.76 7.40 7.07
12 29 3.17 8.41 10.05 9.19
13 2.85 2.8 8.12 7.84 7.98
14 2.95 3.22 8.70 10.37 9.50
15 2.7 3.67 7.29 13.47 9.91
16 2.9 1 8.41 1 2.9
17 2.8 3.17 7.84 10.05 8.88
18 2.8 1.89 7.84 3.57 5.29
19 2.55 2 6.50 4 5.1
20 2.55 2.44 6.50 5.95 6.22
21 2.45 2.5 6.00 6.25 6.13
22 2.3 3 5.29 9 6.9
23 2.5 2.39 6.25 5.71 5.98
24 2.2 1.72 4.84 2.96 3.78
25 2.55 2.22 6.50 4.93 5.66
26 2.5 2.67 6.25 7.13 6.68
27 2.8 1.89 7.84 3.57 5.29
28 2.65 2.61 7.02 6.81 6.92
29 3.1 3.94 9.16 15.52 12.21
30 2.65 5.72 7.02 32.72 15.16
∑x=77.9 ∑y=77.86 ∑x =205.78
2
∑y =268.43
2
∑xy=201.63
r = -0.04

t = -0.20

Table 5. Coefficient of correlation between the Independent and Dependent Variable

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable ________________________

 Level of Satisfaction
________________________________________________________________________

Quality of Services -0.20

**significant at 0.01 probability level Critical Values: (2-tailed, α = 0.01, df = 28) ±2.763

*significant at 0.05 probability level (2-tailed, α = 0.05, df = 28) ±2.048

Table 5 shows the coefficient of correlation between the independent and

dependent variables. It is noted that the quality of services in the school canteen does not

affect the level of satisfaction of the students because the computed t-value of ≠-0.20 is

lower than the critical values which is ≠2.048 at 0.05 level of significance.