You are on page 1of 28

97

APPENDICES

98

APPENDIX A
Sample Letter for the Reliability of the Questionnaire to the Dean
Saint Louis College
Beacon of Wisdom in the North
City of San Fernando (La Union)
December 12, 2013
Mrs. Armida D. Marbella
OIC Dean, Office of Student Services and Alumni Affairs
Union Christian College
City of San Fernando, La Union
Dear Mrs. Marbella:
Greetings!
May we respectfully request assistance from your good office relative to our Research
Paper, entitled Compliance to Parliamentary Procedure of College Student Council
of Saint Louis College. As part of the curriculum requirements for the degree,
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, particularly for the pre-testing of the researchermade test to measure its reliability as the main data-gathering tool for the said study.
In this regard, may we ask your permission to administer the said test to all of the
officers of the Student Council in your College. Rest assured that any and all data
gathered for this purpose will be held in strictest confidence and will be used exclusively
for this academic endeavor. Thank you very much.
Please find the following attachments for your kind perusal:
Statement of the Problem
Researcher-made Test
Yours truly,
Maria Caroline C. Asperin
Researcher
Joemar G. Datlag
Researcher
Jiezel C. Flores
Researcher

99
Noted by:
Dr. Daniel B. Paguia
Research Adviser
Dr. Aurora Carbonell
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

APPENDIX B
Sample Letter to the Panel Members

Saint Louis College

Beacon of Wisdom
in the North
City of San Fernando (La Union)
RESEARCH MANAGEMENT OFFICE
Tel (072) 242 5535 loc 102

Name of the Panel member


Position
Saint Louis College
Dear Sir/Madam :
Happy Golden greetings. The herein named students are currently enrolled in
Res 1 (Introduction to Research) and are working on a proposed study, entitled
Usage of Parliamentary Procedures in the Conduct of Meeting in College
Student Council of Saint Louis College as part of their requirements therein.
In this regard and cognizant of your expertise in the field and your passion for
quality in research, we have the honor to request your assistance in this
worthy endeavour. May we thus invite you to be one of the members of the
Panel of Evaluators during their Research Proposal Presentation and Defense
on September 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm; at the Discussion Room, First
Floor, College Library.
Enclosure:

a copy of the manuscript


tool for evaluating a research proposal

100
Name of Students:
Maria Caroline C. Asperin
Joemar G. Datlag
Jiezel C. Flores

Thank you very much.

Dr. Daniel B. Paguia


Professor, Res 1

APPENDIX C
Sample Letter for the Validity of the Test

Saint Louis College

Beacon of Wisdom in the North


College of Arts and Sciences, Teacher Education
Information Technology and Criminology
Carlatan, City of San Fernando, La Union

Name of the Validator


Position
Saint Louis College
Dear Sir/Madam :
Warm Golden Greetings.
The undersigned students are conducting a study entitled, Compliance to
Parliamentary Procedures in College Student Council of Saint Louis College as
part of their requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts Major in Political Science.
In this regard, the undersigned students earnestly request your generous assistance in
this endeavor by looking into the validity and acceptability of researcher-made
questionnaire herewith attached for your kind perusal. Certain with your expertise and
advocacy toward quality and excellence in Research, your assessment of the said

101
questionnaire will contribute immeasurably to the worthiness and success of this
academic pursuit.
God bless and thank you very much.
Attachments:
Research paradigm
Statement of the problems
Survey questionnaire
Questionnaire validity tool
Yours Truly,
Maria Caroline C. Asperin
Researcher

Joemar G. Datlag
Researcher
Jiezel C. Flores
Researcher

Noted by:
Dr. Daniel B. Paguia
Research Adviser

APPENDIX D
Sample Questionnaire

SAINT LOUIS COLLEGE


The Beacon of Wisdom in the North
City of San Fernando (La Union)

Dear Student Leaders:


We are fourth year AB major in Political Science students conducting a research
entitled COMPLIANCE TO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES IN COLLEGE STUDENT
COUNCIL OF SAINT LOUIS COLLEGE and we are requesting for your cooperation in
helping us in undertaking out study by answering this questionnaire with accuracy and
veracity. Your responses will supply the relevant data that we need.

102
Please provide the necessary information by simply placing a check mark under
the column that corresponds to your answer. Please be guided by the scales presented.
Thank you and God bless!
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ASPERIN, MARIA CAROLINE C.
(Sgd.) DATLAG, JOEMAR G.
(Sgd.) FLORES, JIEZEL C.
I. Personal Information
Name (Optional): _________________________
Executive Council

Position: __________________________

Legislative Council

Department: ______________________

II. Objective
Level of Awareness

Extent of Compliance

5- Very Highly Aware

5- Almost Always

4- Highly Aware

4- Often

3- Moderately Aware

3- Sometimes

2- Slightly Aware

2- Rarely

1- Not Aware

1- Never

103

Level of
Awarenes
s
5 4 3 2 1

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES
A. ORDER OF BUSINESS

Extent of
Complianc
e
5 4 3 2 1

1. The Presiding Officer begins the meeting by


calling the meeting to order saying something
like The meeting will now come to order.
2. Calling of the roll is performed by the
secretary with the members present saying
Here or Present as their respective names
are called.
3. The Presiding Officer conducts the meeting
in accordance with the approved agenda.
4. The Agenda or Order of Business always
includes the reading of the Minutes of the
Previous Meeting by the Secretary, and a
discussion on matters arising from the
previous meetings.
5. Any business left over from the previous
meeting is included as unfinished business.
6. A new business not previously specified in
the agenda is presented in the form of
resolution or as a simple motion from the floor.
7. Committee reports are rendered to the
assembly for the information of the members
on matters of general interest or for any action
needed.
8. A meeting ends after vote to adjourn is
taken and announcement by the Presiding
Officer that the meeting is adjourned.
5 4 3 2 1

B. MOTIONS
1. A member who wants the body to do
something makes the appropriate motion.
2. The speaker addresses the Presiding officer

5 4 3 2 1

104

before presenting the motion.


3. The speaker presents the motion only upon
being recognized by the Presiding Officer.
4. The speaker makes a motion by saying I
move that or I move for...
5. The motion is seconded by another member
where needed before it is discussed;
Otherwise, it is lost.
6. The Presiding Officer repeats the motion in
full. The usual statement is: The motion has
been made and seconded that Is there any
discussion?
7. When the motion is open for discussion,
the Presiding Officer encourages as much
discussion as possible.
8. When a member wishes to offer a complete
alternative to a main motion, that member
gets recognized by the Presiding Officer and
states the alternate motion that must be
seconded.
9. For a motion to be considered in order,
the motion must relate to the business at
hand and be presented at the proper time.
10. After discussion of the motion raised, a
vote is taken.
11. The only kinds of motions that allow a
member to interrupt the Presiding Officer or a
speaker and do not require a second or a vote
are point of privilege, point of order,
parliamentary inquiry, and a call for a division
of the assembly.
5 4 3 2 1

C. VOTING
1. No member may vote if he is absent when a
question is made, unless the by-laws or
standing rules of the organization provide

5 4 3 2 1

105

otherwise.
2. The result of any voting is not considered
official until it has been announced by the
chair.
3. A member who fails to vote because of late
arrival or some other valid reason may be
allowed to vote through a motion to reopen
the polls, provided that the vote is taken by
ballot and before the announcement of its
result.
4. A member may change his vote up to the
time the results are announced by the
presiding officer except where voting is by
ballot.
5. The Presiding Officer does not vote and
remains impartial, unless to break a tie.
6. When the vote is taken by voice or show of
hands any member has a right to require
a division of the assembly by having the
affirmative rise and then the negative, so
that all may see how members vote.
7. If the question is undebatable, or debate
has been closed by order of the assembly,
the presiding officer, immediately after
stating the question, puts it to vote.
8. The member should first obtain the floor
before he can make a motion or address the
assembly in debate.
9. Every board member must vote on every
issue and can ONLY abstain if the presiding
officer has ruled that the member has a
conflict of interest on the particular matter
being voted on.
10.

Every members vote is recorded as a

106

yes or no and may be given as a show of


hands. If the bylaws dont already require
it, anyone on the board may request a roll
call vote where the secretary calls each
members name and their name and vote is
entered into the record.

107

APPENDIX E
Summary of Validity of Questionnaire

Indicators
1. Comprehensiveness of the
indicators/items relative to the
acceptable manifestations of the
level of awareness of the College
Student Council to the
Parliamentary Procedure
2. Comprehensiveness of the
indicators/items relative to the
acceptable manifestations of the
Extent of Compliance of the
College Student Council to the
Parliamentary Procedure
3. Precision and clarity of the
indicators/items to elicit the
appropriate response as basis
in obtaining relevant and
accurate data
4. Use of correct and appropriate
grammar and syntax
5. Use of appropriate and
acceptable structures in terms
of style, format, appearance,
and length of the questionnaire
in order to sustain the
respondents enthusiasm in
diligently answering the entire
questionnaire.
GRAND AVERAGE

Evaluators Ratings
5

Average

3.8

3.8

4.2

3.4

3.84
Highly Valid

108

Validators:
Mr. Wilfred F. Cabauatan
Mr. John Kenneth Airol D. Valdez
Mr. Jocel R. Opena
Dr. Nora A. Oredina
Ms. Denise Marie C. Lorenzo

109
APPENDIX F
Level of Validity of Primer

Indicators
1

Face

Content
a Accuracy

Average

4.3

Acceptability

Timeless

4.67

Implementability

4.3

Sustainability

4.67

Functionality

4.67

GRAND AVERAGE

4.37
Highly Valid

110

APPENDIX G
Sample Computation of the Reliability Test
Reliability Test administered to 12 respondents with the following scores:
238,232,248,222,287,216,228,264,254,246,268,272
n=290
2 =437.41
M=247.92
2

r=

n M ( nM )
( n1 ) 2

290 (437.41) 247.92 ( 290247.92 )


( 2901 ) 437.41

290 (437.41) 247.92 ( 42.08 )


( 2901 ) 437.41

290 (437.41) 10,432.4736


( 2901 ) 437.41

126,848.9 10,432.4736
(2901 ) 437.41

111

116416.4264
( 289 ) 437.41

116416.4264
126411.49

0.92

Interpretation= Very High Reliability


APPENDIX H
Sample frequency distribution
Executive
Number of Participants:10
Order of Business
Level of
Awareness

Item #
A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Grand

5
3
4
5
2
3
2
2
5

4
5
2
3
7
3
2
4
4

3
1
2
1
0
4
3
3
0

2
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
1

Extent of
Compliance

WM
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

4.00
3.80
4.20
4.00
3.90
3.20
3.70
4.30
3.89

5
2
3
4
1
2
0
0
2

4
3
1
3
4
4
3
5
6

3
3
2
2
3
3
5
3
1

2
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
0

WM
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1

3.50
3.30
4.00
3.40
3.70
3.00
3.20
3.80
3.49

Motions
Level of
Awareness

Item #
B.
1

5
3

4
3

3
3

2
0

Extent of
Compliance

WM
1
1

3.70

5
1

4
4

3
4

2
0

WM
1
1

3.40

112

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Grand

2
3
4
5
3
4
1
0
3
0

4
4
5
2
5
3
7
5
5
1

3
2
1
2
0
3
1
3
1
8

1
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

3.70
3.80
4.30
4.10
3.90
4.10
3.80
3.20
4.00
3.00
3.78

0
0
2
1
1
3
1
0
2
0

3
6
5
7
7
3
6
3
3
1

5
3
1
1
0
3
2
5
3
8

1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1

1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
0

3.00
3.40
3.60
3.80
3.60
3.80
3.60
3.00
3.30
3.00
3.41

Voting
Level of
Awareness

Item #
C.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Grand

5
5
3
1
1
3
2
2
0
2
1

4
4
6
5
3
3
4
4
4
3
7

3
1
1
3
2
1
2
4
4
4
1

2
0
0
1
4
2
2
0
1
1
1

Extent of
Compliance

WM
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0

4.40
4.20
3.60
3.10
3.50
3.60
3.80
3.10
3.60
3.80
3.67

5
3
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
3

4
4
4
3
2
3
5
3
2
2
3

3
2
3
2
4
1
1
2
4
5
2

Legislative
Number of Participants:42

Order of Business

2
1
0
3
3
1
3
2
2
0
1

WM
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
2
1

3.90
4.00
3.00
3.10
3.00
3.40
3.70
3.00
3.00
3.60
3.37

113

Item #
A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Grand

Level of Awareness
5
16
14
25
18
17
9
10
19

4
19
14
11
14
14
17
15
12

3
5
8
6
5
8
11
13
8

2
2
5
0
3
3
3
3
0

1
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
3

WM
4.17
3.83
4.45
4.02
4.07
3.67
3.71
4.05
4.00

Extent of Compliance
5
10
7
19
11
11
4
6
12

4
19
17
15
8
14
19
14
13

3
6
10
6
12
7
11
14
9

2
6
2
2
6
6
4
4
3

1
1
6
0
5
4
4
4
5

WM
3.74
3.40
4.21
3.33
3.52
3.36
3.33
3.57
3.56

Motions
Item #
B.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Grand

Level of Awareness
5
11
13
8
22
20
13
13
8
15
21
8

4
21
21
19
8
11
16
20
25
17
13
9

3
8
6
7
7
7
7
7
4
6
5
22

2
2
2
2
4
3
5
2
4
3
1
1

1
0
0
6
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
2

WM
3.98
4.07
3.50
4.10
4.10
3.83
4.05
3.83
4.00
4.19
3.48
3.92

Extent of Compliance
5
7
6
4
8
13
11
10
7
9
13
4

4
17
21
21
17
14
12
17
21
20
15
11

3
10
7
10
6
6
8
12
10
6
11
22

2
6
5
5
8
7
8
2
3
3
0
1

1
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
1
4
3
4

WM
3.50
3.52
3.48
3.45
3.69
3.48
3.79
3.71
3.64
3.83
3.24
3.58

Voting
Item #
C.

Level of Awareness
5

WM

Extent of Compliance
5

WM

114

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Grand

22
25
10
12
15
16
13
12
11
17

10
11
11
13
9
11
15
14
13
14

5
3
10
9
12
11
8
7
11
6

2
0
4
4
1
3
2
3
3
2

3
3
7
4
5
1
4
6
4
3

4.10
4.31
3.31
3.60
3.67
3.90
3.74
3.55
3.57
3.95
3.77

13
14
6
4
5
11
9
8
10
15

16
17
11
15
14
20
12
12
11
14

6
6
10
10
13
6
12
12
12
10

4
3
7
6
6
3
4
5
6
2

3
2
8
7
4
2
5
5
3
1

3.76
3.90
3.00
3.07
3.24
3.83
3.38
3.31
3.45
3.95
3.49

APPENDIX I
Sample Computation on the Correlation of the Level of Awareness and
the Extent of Compliance

Item #
A.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
B.1
2
3

Level of
Awareness

Extent of
Compliance

4.08
3.82
4.33
4.01
3.99
3.43
3.71
4.17
3.84
3.89
3.65

3.62
3.35
4.11
3.37
3.61
3.18
3.27
3.69
3.45
3.26
3.44

Item #
8
9
10
11
C.1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Level of
Awareness

Extent of
Compliance

3.82
3.60
4.10
3.24
4.25
4.25
3.45
3.35
3.58
3.75
3.77

3.66
3.32
3.57
3.12
3.83
3.95
3.00
3.09
3.12
3.62
3.54

115
4
5
6
7

4.20
4.10
3.87
4.07

3.53
3.75
3.54
3.79

8
9
10

3.32
3.59
3.88

3.15
3.23
3.78

Correlation using The Data Analysis


Level of Awareness
Level of Awareness

Extent of
Compliance

0.856634302

Extent of Compliance

116

Testing the significance of r using t-ratio:

t=r

n2
1r 2

1. Ho:
There is no significant correlation between the level of Awareness and
the Extent of Compliance
Ha:
There is no significant correlation between the level of Awareness and
the Extent of Compliance
2. Alpha=0.05
Two-tailed
t-crit = 2.05
3. Significance of r: t-ratio
4. Computation:

= 0.86

292
10.862

=0.86

27
10.862

=0.86

27
10.7396

=0.86

27
0.2604

=0.86

103.69

=0.86(10.18)
=8.76
5. Tcal>tcrit(8.76>2.05)
Reject Ho:
Accept Ha:

117

There is a significant difference between Level of Awareness


and Extent of Compliance.
6. The extent of compliance is highly correlated with the level of
awareness.

118

APPENDIX J
Sample Computation on the Comparison of the Level of Awareness on
Parliamentary Procedure in Executive Council and Legislative Assembly
of College Student Council
Item #
a1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
b1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Executive
4.00
3.80
4.20
4.00
3.90
3.20
3.70
4.30
3.70
3.70
3.80
4.30
4.10
3.90
4.10

Legislative
4.17
3.83
4.45
4.02
4.07
3.67
3.71
4.05
3.98
4.07
3.5
4.1
4.1
3.83
4.05

Item #
8
9
10
11
c1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Executive
3.80
3.20
4.00
3.00
4.40
4.20
3.60
3.10
3.50
3.60
3.80
3.10
3.60
3.80

Legislative
3.83
4
4.19
3.48
4.1
4.31
3.31
3.6
3.67
3.9
3.74
3.55
3.57
3.95

t-Test Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail

Executive
3.7724137
93
0.1449261
08
29
0.7033065
53
0
28
2.3326904
97
0.0135385
74

Legislativ
e
3.889655
172
0.073882
02
29

119
one-tail Legislative
Item # t Critical
Executive
a1
3.5
3.74
P(T<=t) two-tail
2
3.3
3.4
3
4 two-tail
4.21
t Critical
4
3.4
3.33
5
3.7
3.52
6
3
3.36
7
3.2
3.33
8
3.8
3.57
b1
3.4
3.5
2
3
3.52
3
3.4
3.48
4
3.6
3.45
5
3.8
3.69
6
3.6
3.48
7
3.8
3.79

Item 1.7011309
#
Executive
34
8
3.6
0.0270771
9
3
49
102.0484071
3.3
11
423
c1
3.9
2
4
3
3
4
3.1
5
3
6
3.4
7
3.7
8
3
9
3
10
3.6

Legislative
3.71
3.64
3.83
3.24
3.76
3.9
3
3.07
3.24
3.83
3.38
3.31
3.45
3.95

APPENDIX K
Sample Computation on the Comparison of the Level of Awareness on
Parliamentary Procedure in Executive Council and Legislative Assembly
of College Student Council

120

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

EXE
3.417241379
0.115049261
29
0.676053542
0
28
-2.622652812
0.006978117
1.701130934
0.013956235
2.048407142

APPENDIX L
Documentation

LEGI
3.540689655
0.073749507
29

121

122

123

124