821
1 INTRODUCTION
The information and communication systems have
been generally used in many sectors, one is the
academe or institution. This is widely used
particularly by the instructors and students at
universities, especially among highly developed
countries(Kantabutra&Jariangprasert,2013).Inline
withthisstudy,theresearchersdeterminedthe
roleof
CBT in the different subjects of the marine
engineering students of JBLFMU‐Molo, Iloilo City,
Philippines. This mode of determination was in the
formofevaluationorassessment.
Assessment includes students’ specific individual
characteristics such as age, skills, and academic
proficiency(Cawthon&Leppo,2013).Thesevariables
have
an effect on the assessment outcomes of the
students.Assessmentsystemisapartofthelearning
context,thus,flexibleassessmentsystemcouldrelieve
stress of students in the examination. Academic
motivationisarobustpredictoroflearningoutcomes
andwhichassessmentispartoftheacademicactivity
(Ariani, 2016). As
mentioned by Brookhart (2004),
assessment occurs at the intersection of the three
teaching functions such as instruction, classroom
management,andacademiccounseling.Inthestudies
ofSiritonghawon&Kairit(2006)andOzlan,Koeler,&
Baykal (2009),itwasmentionedthatthesubjecthas
influenced the measure of students’ perception
towards
thisparticularcomputer‐basedteaching.This
perceptionhasaffectedtheacceptanceandsuccessof
the delivery of instruction of this particular subject,
CBT (Computer Based‐Teaching) subjects of marine
engineeringstudents.
Computer-Based Training (CBT): Innovation and
Influence Towards Teaching-Learning Process at
JBLFMU-Molo
R.A.Alimen,N.B.Ortega,R.Galve&L.B.Bito‐onon
J
ohnB.LacsonFoundationMaritimeUniversity‐Molo,IloiloCity,ThePhilipines
ABSTRACT:ThisstudydeterminedthelevelofassessmentofsubjectswithCBT(Computer‐Based‐Training)
applicationamongmarineengineeringstudentsofJohnB.LacsonFoundationMaritimeUniversity‐Molo,Iloilo
City. The participants in this study were the randomly selected one
hundred and thirty‐three (133) marine
engineering students of JBLFMU‐Molo, Iloilo City who had taken subjects with CBTs. The present study
employedquantitative‐qualitativeresearchdesignbyCreswell(2013).Resultsrevealthefollowing:(1)review
with CBT or CBTR review is the mostly utilized subject because this is needed
in the marine engineering
licensure examinations; (2) level of assessment of CBTs is excellent; (3) no significant differences in the
assessmentof CBTs were found out amongmarine engineering students as classified according to different
variablessuchasacademicperformance,students’classification,typeofstudents,andsection.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 12
Number 4
December 2018
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.04.22
822
2 STATEMENTOFTHEPROBLEM
1 What is the subject that mostly utilized CBT
(Computer‐Based Teaching) among marine
engineeringstudents?
2 What is the level of assessment of CBT among
marine engineering students as an entire group
andwhengroupedaccordingtothefollowing:(a)
academicperformance,(b)students’
classification,
(c)typeofstudents,and(d)section?
3 Are there significant differences in the subjects
usingCBTwhencategorizedaccordingtodifferent
categories such as (a) academic performance, (b)
students’ classification, (c) type of students, and
(d)section?
4 What are the respondents’ views or ideas about
CBTin
relationtotheteaching‐learningprocess?
3 CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK
The conceptual framework of this study presents
the assessment of CBT subjects among marine
engineering students. This assessment is further
determinedintermsoftherespondent‐relatedfactors
such as academic performance, students’
classification, type of scholarship, and section. To
understand
the inter‐relationship of each variable
clearly,thediagramispresentedinFigure1below.
Figure1.AssessmentoftheCBTssubjects
4 METHOD
The present study employed quantitative‐qualitative
research design by Creswell (2013). This research
design is appropriate with different sample sizes, a
general rule of thumb for qualitative research the
samples for a single study involving individual
interviewusuallylieatunder50.Ifmuchlargerthan
50 it becomes
difficult to manage in terms of data
collection and analysis that can be achieved. Some
experts in qualitative research suggested to move
furtherawayfromthetraditionalformsandpractices
(Ritchie, Lewis, Nichols, & Ormston, 2013). The
respondents were distributed according to different
groupings such as according to grade, students’
classification,typeofscholarshipsofthestudents,and
section.
Furthermore, the respondents were requested to
answer the Assessment Rating Scale instrument on
CBT, which contained open‐ended question such as
“what are the ideas about latest CBT in relation to
learning of the marine engineering students?” The
answers of the respondents
were gathered and
analyzed according in order to answer the specific
questions of the present study. The instrument was
submittedtotheexpertsandmembersoftheResearch
Committee to determine the validity.Revision,
refinement, and alignment of the items of the
instrument were followed and done by the
researchers.
Comments and suggestions from the
jurorsandexpertswerefollowedinordertoimprove
the intended instrument for this particula r study.
Pilot‐testing was conducted only to thirty (30)
students in order to gauge if the items were
understood properly. Reactions from the students
weregatheredandrevisionsontheinstrument
were
done prior to the final administration. Appropriate
statistical tools used were frequency, percentage,
rank,andmean.
5 PARTICIPANTSOFTHESTUDY
The participants of this study were one hundred
thirtythree(133)marine engineering studentsof the
College of maritime Education of JBLFMU‐Molo for
this school year 2016‐
2017. The participants were
using CBTs in their professional and allied subjects.
The distribution of the participants is presented in
Table1.
Table1.DistributionoftheParticipants
_______________________________________________
Categoryf%
_______________________________________________
A.EntireGroup133 100.00
B.AcademicPerformance
80andbelow2015.04
81‐858866.17
86andabove2518.79
C.Student’sClassification
Regular108 81.20
Irregular129.03
SpecialProgram139.77
D.TypeofStudents
Company‐SponsoredStudents 1712.78
Non‐CompanySponsored
Students 116 87.22
E.Section
Argon107.52
Barium107.52
Cobalt107.52
Dysium107.52
Enstium107.52
Flourine107.52
Germanium107.52
Helium107.52
Iridium107.52
Jetsam107.52
Krypton107.52
Lithium107.52
Polaris139.77
_______________________________________________
The utilization result indicates that subject that
used CBT mostly is the CBTR (CBT review), which
was ranked 1 compared to Auxiliary Machinery
subject.Thismeansthatmarineengineeringstudents
usedtheCBTRmostofthetime.
823
Table2. Utilization of CBTs of the Subjects of Marine
EngineeringStudents
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Categoryf R f
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
A.SubjectsUsingCBT 133100
CBTR45 1 34
AuxiliaryMachinery 37 2 28
Chemistry30 3 22
Math21 4 16
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
FortheLevelofEvaluationofCBT
TodeterminethelevelofevaluationofCBTs,the5,
4,3,2,and1scalewereusedtodeterminethelevelof
evaluationofCBTsubjectsamongmarineengineering
students. For statistical analysis, the following
descriptivelevelsanddescriptionswereemployed:
ScaleDescription
________________________________
4.21‐5.00 Excellent
3.41‐4.20VeryGood
2.61‐3.40Good
1.80‐2.60Poor
1.00–1.79 VeryPoor
The level of assessment of CBTs is excellent as
showninTable3.
Table3. Level of Assessment of CBT subjects when
respondents were classified according to Different
Categories
_______________________________________________
CategoryMean Description
_______________________________________________
EntireGroup4.24Excellent
AcademicPerformance
80andbelow4.33Excellent
81‐854.19VeryGood
86andabove4.32Excellent
StudentClassification
Regular4.23Excellent
Irregular4.48Excellent
SpecialProgram4.08VeryGood
TypeofStudents
Company‐SponsoredStudent 4.31Excellent
Non‐CompanySponsoredStudent4.23Excellent
Section
Argon4.47Excellent
Barium4.11VeryGood
Cobalt4.37Excellent
Dysium4.27Excellent
Enstium4.59Excellent
Flourine4.44Excellent
Germanium4.39Excellent
Helium4.14VeryGood
Iridium4.65Excellent
Jetsam3.99VeryGood
Krypton3.90VeryGood
Lithium3.80VeryGood
Polaris4.06
VeryGood
_______________________________________________
Scale Description
4.21‐5.00 Excellent
3.41‐4.20 VeryGood
2.61‐3.40 Good
1.80‐2.60 Poor
1.00–1.79 VeryPoor
6 INFERENTIALDATA‐ANALYSIS
This section of the research discusses the results
pertaining to the differences of the assessment of
CBTs among marine engineering students. The
appropriate statistical tools used in order to
determine the significant differences on CBTs are t‐
test and ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) when the
respondents are
grouped to two and three or more
categories.
7 DIFFERENCESINTHELEVELOFASSESSMENT
OFCBT
Table 4 below shows the t‐test results when the
respondents were categorized according to two
categoriessuchastypeofstudents.Theresultshows
that there were no significant differences in the
assessment of CBTs among marine engineering
students either the respondents were classified
company‐sponsored or non‐company sponsored
students. This simply means that the respondents’
assessmentonCBTswasnotinfluencedbythetypeof
scholarship.
ThedataareshowninTable4.
Table4.t‐test Results inAssessmentof CBTs accordingto
TypeofStudents
_______________________________________________
CategoryN Meant df Sig.
_______________________________________________
TypeofStudents:
Company‐Sponsored 17 4.3118 .501 131 .617
Non‐CompanySponsored 116 4.2276
_______________________________________________
8 ANALYSISOFVARIANCEINASSESSMENT
(ANOVA)OFCBTSAMONGMARINE
ENGINEERINGSTUDENTS
Analysis of Variance in Assessment (ANOVA) of
CBTswhengroupedaccordingtoaveragegrade,type
ofstudent,andsection.Table5showsthatthereare
no significant differences on their assessment when
therespondents were groupedaccording
to three or
more categories such as average grade, students’
classification,andsectionwiththeresultsof.523,.152,
and.111attwo‐tailedlevelofsignificance.
ThedataareshowninTable5.
824
Table5.ANOVAoftheAssessmentonCBTswhentherespondents werecategorizedaccordingtoAcademicPerformance,
Students’Classification,andSection
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
VariableDegreesofFreedomSumofSquaresMeanSquaresF Sig
Between Within Total Between Within Total Between Within
Groups GroupsGroups GroupsGroups Groups
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
A.AcademicPerformance 2128 130 13.345 31.467 44.81 .334 .342.975 .523
B.Students’Classification 2128 130 19.944 33.944 53.14 .480 .3691.30 .152
C.Section12118 130 718.270 1207.29 1925.56 17.957 13.123 1.37 .111
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 QUALITATIVEANALYSIS
The views or ideas on CBTs in relation to teaching‐
learningprocess bythe marine engineering students
are discussed in this section. Majority of the
respondentsagreedthatusingCBTsinthesubjectis
an inter‐active teaching strategy. This is supported
by sharing the following statements:
“learn the
importanceofCBTstowardsmodernized strategy in
teaching”,“CBTsarestimulatingandenjoyable”,and
“helptheinstructorstoteachproperlytheirsubjects”.
The respondents mentioned also that CBTs
improvecomputerskills.Thisstatementissupported
bytheremarksoftherespondents“CBTsenhancethe
studentsʹcomputerskillsin
relationtohowtousethe
moderntechnologyonboard”.
ThethirdisCBTsdevelopcriticalthinkingskills.
This idea is grounded on the insights given by the
respondentswhenthey sharedthat “CBTsallowthe
students to develop their critical thinking and
spontaneous inter‐action”, and “CBTs give them
simulationsaboutthereallifesituationonboard”.
Figure2. Views and ideas of the respondents on CBTs in
relationtoteaching‐learningprocess
10 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the present study, the
followingconclusionsweredrawn:
1 The review with CBT or CBTR review is the
mostly utilized subject because this is needed in
the marine engineering licensure examinations.
Mostoftheareasinthemarineengineeringexams
arecomputer‐based,therefore,
thismayhelpthem
to be familiar with the system of examinations
givenbyMARINA.
2 ThelevelofassessmentofCBTsisexcellent.This
shows that the marine engineering students
recognize the role of CBT in the delivery of
instruction.
3 Thenosignificantdifferencesintheassessmentof
CBTs among marine engineering students as
classified according to different variables imply
thatthedifferencesintheassessmentofCBTisnot
influencedbytheacademicperformance,students’
classification,typeofstudents,andsection.Maybe
there are other factors that may influence the
differencesintheassessmentofCBTs.
4 CBTs
are considered as inter‐active teaching
strategies can improve computer skills of the
students and can develop their critical thinking
skills.TheimportanceandsignificantroleofCBTs
in the maritime instruction are required by the
STCW, which supported in the results of the
presentstudy.
11 RECOMMENDATIONS:
Basedon
thefindingsandconclusionsofthis study,
thefollowingrecommendationswereadvanced:
1 TheothersubjectsshouldalsoutilizetheCBTsso
thatlearningwillbemaximized.
2 Theassessmentandevaluationofsubjectsutilizing
CBT should be done regularly in order to gather
feedbackandenhancethelearningoutcomes.
3
The researchers need to suggest other variables
that might influence the differences in the
assessmentofCBTs.
4 The role and importance of CBTS should be
emphasized always in the different subjects in
ordertodeterminetheextentofCBTs.
5 The researchers suggest parallel studies to
determine other variables
that may influence the
levelofassessmentofCBTsanditsimplicationin
the teaching‐learning process of the marine
engineeringstudents.
REFERENCES:
Ariani,D.(2016).WhydoIstudy?ThemediatingEffectof
Motivationandself‐RegulationonStudentPerformance.
Business, Management, and Education Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University, Department of
ConstructionEconomics,Lithuania.ISSN20297491.
Brookhart, S.M. (2004). Classroom Assessment: Tensions
and Intersections in Theory and Practice. Teachers
College Record, N.Y., Blackwell Publishing
Ltd. ISSN‐
01614681.
Cawthon, S. & Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment on tests of
Academic Achievement for Students who are Deaf or
Hard of Hearing: A Qualitative Meta‐Analysis of
ResearchLiterature. Published by American Annualof
theDwaf,Washington,USA.ISSN‐0002726X.
825
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research
Design:ChoosingamongFive Appriaches,3rd Edition,
London:Sage.
Freeze, R., Alshare, K., Lane, P. , & Wen, H. (2010).IS
SuccessModelinE‐LearningContextbasedonStudents’
Perceptions.JournalofInformationSystemEducation,
Kantabutra,S.&Jariangprasert,N.(2013).TheEvaluationof
E
‐Learning System of Faculty of Business
Administration,ChiangMaiUniversity,Thailand.
Ozkan, S., Koseler, R., & Baykal, N. (2009). Evaluating
Learningmanagementsystems,AdoptionofHexagonal
E‐Learning assessment Model in Higher Education.
TransformingGovernment:People,Process,andPolicy.
Siritongthaworn, S. & Krairit, D. (2006). Satisfaction in E‐
Learning: The
Context of Supplementary instruction.
CampuswideInformationSystem.
Waheed,M.&Jam,E.(2010).Teachers’IntentiontoAccept
On‐line education Extended TAM Model.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business.
APPENDIXA
WhatareyourviewsorideasabouttheRolesofCBT
inteaching‐learningprocess?
Ilearn necessary for learning they teach first aid
properlyandotherpartsofmachinery
howtooperatecomputer
Ilearnhowimportantofpurifierandhowitworks
onboard
ship
Ilearntheimportanceofpurifier
theyteachproperly
they teach first aid properly and other parts of
machinery
theyteachproperlyandeasy
teachingusthroughcomputers
Givesussimulationaboutwhatwouldhappenon
board
Itguidesandgivesinformation
throughcomputer
training
helpsusunderstandingthesubject
gives us the near to life situation on operating
certainsystemsonboard
ithelpsusunderstandthesubjectalsotofeelwhat
isreallyhappeningonboard
in order to have an idea in computer and
technology
itisatrainingthatenhancesourcomputerskillsin
automatic and manual operations of certain
machineries
studentswouldappreciateandlearnhowtoapply
invessel
we can learn more to the fact that the more
interactivethe lesson ina computerthe more we
canlearn
withsimulationsandanimations
modernizestrategyonteachingthestudents
willbeableto know theprinciple,operation and
maintenance(troubleshootingofeverymachines,
plants & equipments onboard thru computer
program)
even if it about computer but you can easily
understandanddoitinactual
it
isnecessarybutbetterifseeitinactualsituation
toknowhowtooperateinactual
tobefamiliaraboutcontrolsofdifferentsystems
subjects that have CBT are stimulating and
enjoyed
tolearnandtousethemoderntechnology
providesinformationandupdates
ofthesubjects
toknowhowtousethemodernequipment
CBThelpsstudentsthepracticaltrainingonboard
shipusingcomputers
Considered as an informal channel that allows
spontaneous interaction and develops critical
thinking
