38

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSES, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter discusses and presents the final developed system. The

discussion includes the functions and operations, the different system logical

operations and processes, and the systems generated data and results of

operations among others.

System Design CMES (Classroom Management using Expert System)

CMES is an expert system that can do class and room scheduling which

are tasks that burden the department head every school year. It is written in C#

programming language as its front end and SQL light as its back end. It runs on a

typical type of windows computer. It is a small and simple expert system, but

has a powerful application written in an AI language that can do decision

making and support for the administrator.

Through this study, the class management process would be easily

managed and the record data would be easily tracked, processed, and stored,

because the system has the ability to project. This system is deemed to be of big

help to the administrator. With the use of an expert system, the system would

generate an automatic and error-free schedule and can generate projections

based on the given data. The system is capable of interacting with other system

technology like the Samar College enrolment system through wireless fidelity

access and portable class record using universal serial bus flash disk.
 39

System Design Process and Operation

Modeling the administrator’s decision making in class management is

primarily important in designing and building the process. The system has a

projection scheme generator wherein the end user can input a class size and

section number projected in every grade level. The system will derive a result of

the possible number of population in every grade level. Expert system comes up

with results regarding the unassigned classroom and unassigned teachers based

on the data that have been inputted during the configuration process.

Below is Figure 7 showing the total number of teachers and rooms with a

summary result.

Figure 7 Total Number of Teachers and Rooms & Summary Reports

To start the system, the necessary data such as the list of subjects, rooms

and teachers must be encoded. Then the user will input the desired number of
 40

sections per grade level and its class size. With inputted data from the user, the

system will show a result with a projected population to be accommodated upon

enrollment. Once it is set, the system can generate the entire schedule for a

particular school year. Below is Figure 8 showing the summary of the available

rooms and teaching load status of teachers.

Figure 8. Class Management Projection Scheme & Summary

In generating the schedule, the system executes rules that are represented

by a set of IF-THEN rules such as Class_Period, Subject, and Teachers_

availability. Class Period defines the time allotment in every class period for each

grade level. Elementary Department is divided into two class types: the primary

class which comprise of grades 1 to 3 and the intermediate class which comprise

of grades 4 to 6. Each class type has different timetable pattern that is used as a

guide to set the schedule. Subject rule defines the subjects in every grade level to

be scheduled. The subjects have different time durations which range from 30

minutes to 50 minutes. Once the Subject is match up with the class_Period then
 41

the third rule will be executed. Teachers_ availability rule defines the list of

teachers to be scheduled on a priority basis. Four levels of priority are

implemented: 1) tenureship of the teachers; 2) postgraduate degree; 3) the length

of service to the institutions; and 4) probationary/non-LET passer status. The

system matches the available teacher to a specific time slot. The inference engine

compares each rule stored in the knowledge base with data contained in the

database. When the condition is satisfied then the statement is executed based on

the data stored in the database. The satisfied-execute cycle stops when no further

rules can be matched. The inference chain indicates that the expert system

applies the rules to reach a conclusion. The following Figure shows the inference

engine cycles via a satisfied- executes Procedures of the data that are executed

and stored in the database.

DATABASE
E
STORED DATA NEW DATA
STORED
executes satisfied

RULE
IF, THEN

Figure 10 The Inference Engine Cycles via a Satisfied-Executes Procedure

User Interface
 42

For an expert system to be operational, knowledge concerning the specific

application must be provided. If the application knowledge is changed, then the

input to the expert system must be modified. The application versatility which is

allowed by the modification of data unfortunately creates a burden to the user.

The more complex the input data, the greater the expertise the user must have.

Therefore, one of the main objectives of this expert system is to create a user-

friendly environment. This may include the creation of a natural language

interface to simplify the input of data to the expert system. Another technique to

generate a user-friendly environment is to reduce the amount of knowledge the

user needs to know about operating the expert system. The classroom

management project combined both of these approaches to produce a

generalized expert system.

Input/Output Files

To achieve a user-friendly environment, the CMES project uses natural

language in a file structured system. As shown in Figure 11, the files include

class period file, faculty file, subjects file, and result file.

Figure 11. Generated Schedule with Different Time Pattern

Each file is responsible for data input. The information found in the input

files allows the expert system to custom-tailor for a specific application. The class
 43

period file provided the expert system with knowledge concerning the available

time slot. This information advises the expert system when classes maybe

thought in a given week.

The “class_period” statement (e.g. //Class_period [ days of the

week] [hours]//)at the beginning of each line indicates that time slot

information is provided. Since there are only two types of class_period in every

week for Elementary and a one-time block for Junior High Shcool in every week,

the class_period was embedded to the expert system.

At the beginning of the classroom management process, it was assumed

that the department would provide information on its teachers. This information

includes their names and their priority rank. This knowledge is presented in the

teachers’ file using the following format:

//teacher_name:[name_of_faculty_member]//

//teacher_priority_rank:[overall]

Each teacher will have his/her own knowledge block for the expert system to

draw a form. The following Figure shows the input/output file structuring were

it shows from where does the input of data come from, then after the data have

been input the process of the expert system were occurred, then the output.

Input Output

Teacher Expert
system Result
Subject
 44

Figure 13. Input/output File Structure

System Scheduling Logical Algorithm

List<Section> CreatedSections = new Sections<Section>()

projected_section = 22;
while( [Link] < projeted_section){
Section nSection = new Section();
Class_period[] classperiods = getClassPeriod();
[Link]( classperiods );
foreach( [Link]() as classperiod){
Subject[] subjects = getUnAssignedSubjects();
foreach( subjects as subject){
if([Link] ==
[Link]){
[Link](subject)//subject
selected*

The logical process starts with the total number of sections inputted in the

projection generating scheme. This means that the system can make an array of

sections based on the projections. Once a new section is created, it will be

assigned with a set of class period. These class periods are the timetable patterns

allotted to a particular grade level. It is composed of different time durations.

The following codes are used for the teachers in assigned the subject teacher and

filtering the qualification of teachers in the stored data.

 45

Teacher[] teachers= getTeachers()

foreach( teachers as teacher ){
if([Link]( class_period.period
){
if( [Link](){
[Link](teacher)//assign teacher
and exit block
Goto jump_point;
}else if( [Link](){
[Link](teacher)// assign teacher
and exit block
Goto jump_point;
}else if( [Link] of service(){
[Link](teacher)// assign teacher
and exit block
Goto jump_point;
}else{// probationary
[Link](teacher)// assign teacher and exit
block
Goto jump_point;
}//subject
jump_point:
}// classperiods
[Link]( nSection );}

After assigning a subject for a particular period, the next step is to search

for teachers who are available in that time period. The result could be an array of

teachers in the list. With that, the priority rule is executed, wherein each available

teacher is filtered based on the following priority attributes: 1) to check if a

 46

teacher is a regular employee/LET passer; 2) if the teacher has a postgraduate

degree; 3) if the teacher has rendered a service of at least a year; and 4) if the

teacher is in a probationary status/non-LET passer. The first level of priority

attributes filters out all the teachers’ list, and then if the result comes up with

more than one teacher, the second level of priority is executed. If it still can

produce more than one result, third priority is also executed, until such that the

result is equal to one. But if result has more than one, the system randomly picks

a teacher from the given result. If the result returns to one, the teacher is assigned

on that class period. The process is repeated for the next class period until all

class periods have been assigned to a subject and a teacher. Then, it will proceed

by creating a new section. The cycle will be repeated until the projected total

number of sections is created.

System Capabilities

The primary operations of the school are consistent starting pre-enrolment

period up to the end of school year. Several activities are executed by the

department heads before classes start, namely: 1) arranging class and teachers’

schedules; 2) projecting the number of sections to be opened in every grade level;

3) monitoring the capacity of every classes or class size for every section; 4)

considering priority of teachers for teaching load; and 5) preparing classrooms

for the students and faculty. CMES eliminates the need to involve a human

expert in the class management process as it emulates human decision

mechanism. CMES is developed with the knowledge and logic necessary to

 47

replace the current human expert with classroom management using expert

system that can detect conflict automatically, filter teaching status of teachers,

distributes classroom resources well, print teacher’s program and classroom

program of every grade level, an d interact with other system technology like the

Samar College enrollment system and portable class record through wireless

access fidelity and universal serial bus flash disk drive.

The following features and functionalities are integrated into the

system to achieve maximum performance:

1. The system has the capability to switch between the current semester

and the upcoming semester, and allow user to set schedules in advance without

affecting the current schedules.

2. The system has the capability to monitor the current enrollment status

such as shown in the figure below

Figure 13. Monitoring the current enrollment status

1. The system has the capability to upload the generated schedule to Samar

College enrollment system such as what is shown in the Figure below

 48

Figure 14. Generated Schedule to Samar College Enrollment System

2. The system has the capability of exporting teaching load to portable class

record through universal serial bus flash disk drive such as what is shown

in the Figure below.

Figure 15. Exporting teaching load to portable class record

 49

3. The system has the capability to detect conflicts automatically while

plotting schedules.

Figure 17. Detecting conflicts

automatically
3. The system can generate specific reports for the instructor, section, or

room schedule

Figure 18. Teachers Program Print out

 50

4. The system has capability to export specific schedule reports into MS

Excel Application.

5. The system can monitor each classroom if their classes are held through

the CCTV that is installed in each classroom.

System Evaluation

Tables 1 to 6 present the evaluation of the two groups of respondents,

elementary and junior high school users for the System Quality Attributes as to

functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, and portability.

The descriptions for each mean of quality attribute indicator is adopted from the

Five-Likert Scale of International Standards Organization (ISO)/International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 2510:2011, this was similarly used for the

questionnaire provided to the trained users. Where, 1.00 – 1.50 mean rating is

described as Very Poor (VP); 1.51 – 2.50 as Poor (P); 2.51 – 3.50 as Fair (F); 3.51 –

4.50 as Good (G) and 4.51 – 5.00 as Excellent (E).

Functionality. For this system quality attribute, as can be gleaned in Table

1, the mean rating of the two groups pegged at 4.51 – 5.00 in which according to

ISO/IEC (2011), the functionality of the developed system is excellent. This is

supported with combined means of the two groups for the system quality

attribute indicators since three out five of it are with descriptive letter E, which

refer to excellent functionality of the developed system.

 51

Table 1

System Quality Attributes as to Functionality

Elementar
Junior High Combined
Quality Attribute’ Indicators y Users’
Users’ Mean Mean
Mean
1. The proposed system has
4.80 4.90 4.85
available all function required
(E) (E) (E)
for its execution.
2. The proposed system is 4.30 4.40 4.35
precise in its results. (G) (G) (G)
3. The proposed system
4.30 4.70 4.50
interacts with specified
(G) (E) (G)
modules.
4. The proposed system
4.90 4.70 4.80
complies with standards, laws,
(E) (E) (E)
etc.
5. The proposed system has
4.80 4.90 4.85
secured access through
(E) (E) (E)
password.
Grand Weighted Mean 4.62 (E) 4.66 (E) 4.64 (E)

Reliability. For this system quality attribute along reliability, as can be

viewed in Table 2, the mean rating of the two groups pegged at 4.51 – 5.00 in

which according to ISO/IEC standards the reliability of the developed system is

excellent. This is supported by the combined means of both users from

elementary and junior high since three out of three system quality attribute

indicators are with descriptive letter E, which refer to excellent reliability of the

developed system regardless of the groups who rated the system and the

number of indicators provided.

Table 2
 52

System Quality Attributes as to Reliability

Elementar
Junior High Combined
Quality Attribute’ Indicators y Users’
Users’ Mean Mean
Mean
1. The proposed system reacts
4.90 4.90 4.90
appropriately when failure
(E) (E) (E)
occurred.
2. The proposed system informs
4.40 4.90 4.65
user concerning invalid data
(E) (E) (E)
entry.
3. The proposed system is
4.70 4.80 4.75
capable of recovering data in
(E) (E) (E)
the event of failure.
4.66 4.87 4.77
Grand Weighted Mean
(E) (E) (E)

Usability. When it comes to system quality attribute, usability. It is

display in Table 3 that the mean rating of the two groups pegged at 4.51 – 5.00 in

which according to ISO/IEC standards, the usability of the developed system is

excellent.

This is supported by the combined means of both users from elementary and

junior high since three out of three system quality attribute indicators are with

descriptive letter E, which again into excellent usability of the developed system.

The results further describe that the Classroom Management using Expert

System (CMES) is user-friendly, it is easy to use and can be easily manipulated,

the elements of informational components (indicator 1), navigational component

(indicator 2) and input controls (indicator 3) are featured in CMES.

 53

Table 3

System Quality Attributes as to Usability

Elementary
Junior High Combined
Quality Attribute’ Indicators Users’
Users’ Mean Mean
Mean
1. It’s easy to understand the 4.80 4.80 4.80
concept and application. (E) (E) (E)
4.90 4.60 4.75
2. It’s easy to learn how to use.
(E) (E) (E)
3. It’s easy to operate and 4.70 4.80 4.75
control. (E) (E) (E)
4.80 4.73 4.76
Grand Weighted Mean
(E) (E) (E)

Efficiency. As to the System Quality Attribute- efficiency, it is presented

in Table 4 the indicators and scores provided by users from elementary and

junior high school groups.

Table 4

System Quality Attributes as to Efficiency

Elementar
Junior High Combined
Quality Attribute’ Indicators y Users’
Users’ Mean Mean
Mean
1. The system response time is 4.80 4.70 4.75
appropriate. (E) (E) (E)
2. The system execution time is 4.70 4.80 4.75
appropriate. (E) (E) (E)
3. The resources used are 4.60 4.60 4.60
appropriate. (E) (E) (E)
4.70 4.70 4.70
Grand Weighted Mean
(E) (E) (E)

From the table, the mean rating of the two groups pegged at 4.51 – 5.00 in

which according to ISO/IEC standards, the efficiency of the developed system is

excellent. This is supported by the combined means of both users from

 54

elementary and junior high since three out of three system quality attribute

indicators are with descriptive letter E, which refer to excellent efficiency of the

developed system regardless of the groups who rated the system and the

number of indicators provided.

Maintainability. When it comes to system quality attribute, usability. It is

display in Table 3 that the mean rating of the two groups pegged at 4.51 – 5.00 in

which according to ISO/IEC standards, the maintability of the developed system

is excellent. This is supported by the combined means of both users from

elementary and junior high since three out of three system quality attribute

indicators are with descriptive letter E, which again into excellent maintainability

of the developed system.

Table 5

System Quality Attributes as to Maintainability

Elementar
Junior High Combined
Quality Attribute’ Indicators y Users’
Users’ Mean Mean
Mean
1. It’s easy to find failure when 4.70 4.70 4.70
it occurs. (E) (E) (E)
2. It’s easy to modify and adopt. 4.90 4.70 4.80
(E) (E) (E)
3. Changes are easy to test. 4.60 4.60 4.60
(E) (E) (E)
4.73 4.67 4.70
Grand Weighted Mean
(E) (E) (E)

Portability. There are four indicators for the System Quality Attribute -

Portability, as shown in Table 6, all the combined mean of each indicator range
 55

from 4.51 – 5.00, a standard quality portability attribute as excellent. It is

supported by the grand weighted mean of 4.79 in which it also falls on the said

range and standards.

Table 6

System Quality Attributes as to Portability

Elementar
Junior High Combined
Quality Attribute’ Indicators y Users’
Users’ Mean Mean
Mean
1. It’s easy to adopt with other 4.90 4.80 4.85
environment. (E) (E) (E)
2. It’s easy to install in other 4.90 4.80 4.85
environment. (E) (E) (E)
3. It is in agreement with 4.70 4.90 4.80
portability standard (E) (E) (E)
4. It’s easy to use to replace 4.70 4.60 4.65
another program (E) (E) (E)
4.80 4.78 4.79
Grand Weighted Mean
(E) (E) (E)

It is presented in Table 7 the validation of results for each system quality

attribute, the researcher conducted validation test with the help of statistical tool

(t-test for assumed unequal variances) to prove the null hypothesis there is no

significant difference on the ratings of the two groups of respondents. Once this is

proven accepted, it means that the system has followed the ISO/IEC standards

and which part of the system was overdone or needs improvement.

Table 7

Validation of System Quality Attributes

 56

System Group t-
Computed Decision/
Quality Means critica df
t-value Interpretation
Attributes Elem Junior l
Functionality 4.62 4.66 -0.87 Accept Ho/NS
Reliability 4.66 4.87 -4.18 Reject Ho/S
Usability 4.80 4.73 -0.03 Accept Ho/NS
2.11
Efficiency 4.70 4.70 18 0.00 Accept Ho/NS
Maintainability 4.73 4.67 -0.02 Accept Ho/NS
Portability 4.70 4.68 -0.03 Accept Ho/NS
Legend: Significant (S); Reject Ho if t-computed is higher than the critical value at 0.05 margin of error
Not Significant; Accept Ho if t-computed is lower than the critical value at 0.05 margin of error

From the result, all the system quality attributes rated by the two groups

have no significant differences (NS), however it is detected that there is a

significant difference (S) between the rating of users from the elementary group

and junior high school group. The users from the junior high school group found

reliability as excellent while the user from the elementary group found it good,

specifically on the system quality attribute indicator 2, the proposed system

informs user concerning invalid data entry (kindly refer to Table 2). Thus, it is

deemed necessary to improve this attribute so the developed system can fully

comply to ISO/IEC 2510:2011 standards.