P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

STUDENTS’ LEVELS OF SATISFACTION ON COURSES IN

TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS
IN DISTRICT 6 MANILA

A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Manila

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master in Educational Management

by

CASSIUS LOU M. GARCIA

2013

i
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

CERTIFICATION

This thesis entitled “STUDENTS’ LEVELS OF SATISFACTION ON

COURSES IN TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS IN DISTRICT 6
MANILA” prepared and submitted by Cassius Lou M. Garcia in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master in Educational
Management, has been examined and recommended for Oral Examination.

Thesis Committee

CARMENCITA L. CASTOLO, DEM

Adviser

MILAGRINA A. GOMEZ, Ed.D. SAMUEL M. SALVADOR Ed.D.

Member Member

VICTORIA C. NAVAL, DEM

Member
_______________________________________________________________

APPROVAL

Approved by the PANEL OF EXAMINERS on Oral Examination on April 6, 2013

with the grade of ________.

MILAGRINA A. GOMEZ, Ed.D.

Chair

MARIETTA P. DEMELINO, DEM VICTORIA C. NAVAL, DEM

Member Member

JOSEPH MERCADO, DEM, D CRIM/ PhD

Member

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree

Master in Educational Management

DANILO T. REYES, DBA

Dean, Graduate School

Date of Passing Comprehensive Examination, February 25, 2011

ii
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher expresses his gratitude and sincere appreciation to the

following individuals who helped him in accomplishing this thesis:

Dr. Carmencita L. Castolo, my research adviser, for her patience,

encouragement and expertise in transforming my study into a polished thesis;

Dr. Ponciano A. Menguito, the School Division Superintendent of the

Division of City Schools, Manila, through Dr. Narcisa S. Sta. Ana, for permitting

me to conduct the study in selected tech-voc high schools in District 6 Manila;

The members of the panel of examiners: Dr. Joseph Mercado,

Dr. Marietta P. Demilino, Dr. Victoria C. Naval and Dr. Milagrina A. Gomez,

for their suggestions for the improvement of this research;

Engr. Leodegario Bautista, for his expertise in statistics;

To the principal of Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Tech-Voc High School, Dr.

Beatriz Adriano, for her kind consideration given to the researcher in hosting the

survey instrument and data collection;

Special acknowledgement is due to my school principal, Dr. Adelina A.

Espina of Elpidio Quirino High School for her unwavering kindness and

professional support. The fourth year students batch 2012 of Eulogio Amang

Rodriguez Tech-Voc High School and Elpidio Quirino High School and their

teachers, for their patience and cooperation in answering the questionnaires;

iii
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

The unrelenting love, understanding and financial support of my mother,

Mommy Lutch M. Garcia, and my mother-in-law Mama Delia E. Fausto, just

getting them off my back;

Very special heartfelt gratitude to my loving wife Joanne Del F. Garcia, for

her continual encouragement and confidence in me. To my cheerful daughter,

baby JD Casie, my inspiration; and,

Above all, to our sovereign creator Almighty Jehovah God, thank you very

much.

The Researcher
C.L.G.

iv
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis entitled

“STUDENTS’ LEVELS OF SATISFACTION ON COURSES IN TECHINCAL-

VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS IN DISTRICT 6 MANILA” for the degree of

Master in Educational Management from the Polytechnic University of the

Philippines, Manila embodies the result of original and scholarly work carried out

by the undersigned. This thesis does not contain words or ideas taken from

published sources or written works by other persons which have been accepted

as basis for the award of any degree from other higher education institutions,

except where proper referencing and acknowledgement were made.

CASSIUS LOU M. GARCIA

Researcher
2013

Noted:

CARMENCITA L. CASTOLO, DEM

Adviser
2013

v
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

ABSTRACT

Title: STUDENT’S LEVELS OF SATISFACTION ON COURSES

IN TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS IN
DISTRICT 6 MANILA

Researcher: Cassius Lou M. Garcia

Degree: Master in Educational Management

Institution: Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Year: 2013

Adviser: Dr. Carmencita L. Castolo

The Problem

The main thrust of this study is to know the students’ level of satisfaction

on courses in technical-vocational high schools in District 6 Manila.

Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of satisfaction of student respondents in the key result areas

when they are grouped according to courses:

1.1 Cosmetology

1.2 Electronic Technology

1.3 Automotive Technology

1.4 Commercial Cooking

1.5 Furniture and Cabinet Making

1.6 Service Building and Wiring Installation

vi
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

1.7 Computer Hardware Servicing

1.8 Food and Beverage Service

1.9 Garments

1.10Plumbing

2. What are the satisfaction levels of tech-voc students in terms of:

2.1. Curriculum Development;

2.2. Training Interventions;

2.3. Modules;

2.4. Tools, Equipments and Facilities;

2.5. School Management Development;

2.6. Student Activities and Projects; and,

2.7. Stakeholders Involvement?

3. Is there a significant difference in the level of satisfaction on the key result areas

when respondents are grouped by courses?

Research Methodology

Through quantitative research approach, this study measured the

students’ level of satisfaction on courses in technical-vocational high schools in

District 6 Manila.

Survey method was used in gathering pertinent data from two (2) tech-voc

high schools in District 6, Division of City Schools Manila, namely Elpidio Quirino

High School in Bacood, Sta. Mesa and EARIST Vocational High School in

Nagtahan, Sampaloc.

vii
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

In order to obtain and interpret the data essential in satisfying the general

aim of the study, the method of frequency and percentage distribution was

utilized to analyze the data.

Data on analysis of the difference in the level of satisfaction on the Key

Result Areas were also presented using the frequency and distribution when

respondents are grouped according to their courses.

Findings

This study revealed significant findings such as:

The levels of satisfaction of tech-voc students in the following courses:

1. All courses were rated Very Satisfying. They are in a high degree contented

particularly on the KRAs Training Intervention, Student Activities and Projects, Tools,

Equipment and Facilities, and Modules. While most of them rated Stakeholders

Involvement as the least very satisfying Key Result Area, the courses Commercial

Cooking, Computer Hardware Servicing, and Garments listed Curriculum

Development last.

2. The levels of satisfaction of tech-voc students in terms of:

2.1. Curriculum Development. The respondents’ level of satisfaction on the

curriculum development was rated 3.85 which has a verbal interpretation of

Very Satisfied.

2.2. Training Interventions. All five statements refering to the key result area

of STVEP ‘Training Intervention’, obtained the highest weighted mean of 4.15.

2.3. Modules. Respondents are very satisfied with all items under Modules.

viii
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

2.4. Tools, Equipments and Facilities. It has to be notice that the

respondents’ level of satisfaction on Tools, Equipments and Facilities are very

satisfied having a grand mean of 4.02.

2.5. School Management Development. With a grand mean of 3.91 the

respondents are very satisfied in terms of school management.

2.6. Student Activities and Projects. The respondents are very satisfied with

all statements that set forth in detail about Student Activities and Projects.

2.7. Stakeholders Involvement. With a grand mean of 3.84 the respondents

are very satisfied in terms of stakeholders’ involvement.

3. The computed value is less than the 0.05 level when respondents are grouped

by Courses.

Conclusion

Based on the findings generated in this study the following conclusions have

been formulated:

1. Students of technical-vocational high school were very satisfied on their

respective courses.
2. The top three KRAs: Training Intervention, Student Activities and

Projects, and Tools, Equipment and Facilities define the significant role

of exposing the learners to the actual technical aspects of gaining

employment or business.

ix
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

2. Student’s Course of Specialization is a clear indicator where students

experience satisfaction in learning. Based on the occupation or career

track they wish to pursue, schooling and studying truly, has a positive

effect to the learner. It is where Strengthened Technical-Vocational

Education Program really stands out. Increasing learning satisfaction

through skills-packed tech-voc courses which are literally within one’s

financial reach and mental capability and attainable within shorter time

duration.

x
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE …………………………………………………………………….…….i

CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL SHEET ……………………………………..ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………………….iii

CETIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY …………………………………………………v

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………...vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………..xi

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………....xiv

LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………….…xvi

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND ………………..1

Introduction ……………………………………...............1
Background of the Study ………………………………..4
Theoretical Framework …………………………............7
Conceptual Framework ……………………………….....8
Statement of the Problem ………………….…………...10
Hypothesis ...………………………………….................11
Scope and Limitations of the Study …………...............11
Significance of the Study ……….……………………....12
Definition of Terms ………….…………………………...13

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES…..16

Local Literature ………………………………………….16

Local Studies ………………………………..………......40
Foreign Literature………………………………………..43

xi
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

Foreign Studies ……………………………………….…62

Synthesis and Relevance to the Study ...……………..64

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ………………..…………….68

Method of Research …………………………………….68

Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique….68
Description of Respondents …………………………...70
Research Instrument …………………………………...71
Data Gathering Procedure ……………………………..73
Statistical Treatment of Data …………………………..74

CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND………………………...78

INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on the

Key Result Areas of TVE When They are Grouped
According to their Courses ……...……………..…………….80

Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on each

Key Result Areas of TVE ……...……………..…………..….90

Significant Difference in the Level of Satisfaction When

Respondents are Grouped by
Courses………………………………………………………..101

Focus Group Discussion………………...…………………..102

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS…………..…...………………….….104

Summary of Findings .……………………………….104

Conclusions....……………………………………..….111
Recommendations ……………………………..…....113

BIBLIOGRAPY…….…………………………………………………………………..116

xii
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

APPENDICES...……………………………………………………………………....122

Appendix A: Items Taken from Reviewed Literatures and Studies and

Existing Instruments ……………………...................................................123

Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Guide..………………………….....131

Appendix C: Results of Focused Group Discussion……………………....138

Appendix D: Questionnaire………………..……………………………..…..146

Appendix E: Letter for Expert’s Validation………………………................148

Appendix F: Letter for Expert’s Validation………….……………………….149

Appendix G: Letter to the Superintendent…..…………………………..…..150

Appendix H: Endorsement to EARTVHS Principal..………...…................151

Appendix I: Endorsement to EQHS Principal……….……………………...152

CURRICULUM VITAE...……………………………………………………………....153

xiii
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 Distribution of Respondents By Courses…..……………...……...79

2 Cosmetology Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the KRAs………80

3 Electronic Technology Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the

KRAs………………………………………………………………..…81

4 Automotive Technology Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the

KRAs…………………………………………………………………..82

5 Commercial Cooking Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the

KRAs………..………………………...………………………..……...83

6 Furniture and Cabinet Making Students’ Level of Satisfaction

in the KRAs………………………………………………………….84

7 Service Building and Wiring Installation Students’ Level of

Satisfaction in the KRAs..………………………...……………….....85

8 Computer Hardware Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the

KRAS……………………….…………………………………..……...86

9 Food and Beverage Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the

KRAs……………………………………………….………………......87

10 Garments Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the KRAs…..……….88

11 Plumbing Students’ Level of Satisfaction in the KRAs…………..89

12 Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on Curriculum

Development………………………………………………………….90

13 Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on Training Intervention…...91

14 Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on Modules………………….94

15 Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on Tools, Equipments
And Facilities …………………………………………………………95

16 Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on School

xiv
P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

Management…………………………………………………………...96

17 Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on Student Activities

And Projects…………………………………………………………..98

18 Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on Stakeholders

Involvement…………………………………………………………..99

19 Significant Difference in the Level of Satisfaction in the KRAs

When Respondents are Grouped by Courses ...………………...101

xv
 P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure Title Page

1 Research Paradigm: Input-Process- Output Model

(Harris and Taylor, 1997)………………………...………………8

xvi