1. 54
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 4
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
This chapter presents the findings, analysis and
interpretation of data gathered whose main objective is to
found out the expectations and perceptions of tourist
towards Filipino tour Guides.
More specifically, the researchers sought to answer the
following questions:
Sub problem No.1. How do the Local Tourists perceive the
Filipino Tour Guides in terms of:

2. 55
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
1.1 Personality
Table 4
Respondents’ Assessments as to Personality
Respondents Tour Guide Tourist Total
Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI
Grooming 4.71 O 4.05 O 4.38 O
Personal Hygiene 4.29 O 4.19 O 4.24 O
Professional Appearance 4.71 O 4.19 O 4.45 O
Personal Integrity 4.71 O 4.28 O 4.05 O
Flexibility 4.86 O 4.37 O 4.62 O
Composite Mean 4.67 O 4.21 O 4.44 O
Table 4 presents the respondents’ assessment as to
personality.
It can be gleaned from the data that all the criteria
were interpreted by the two groups of respondents as high
extent. These are grooming (WM=4.38); personal hygiene
(WM=4.24); professional appearance (WM=4.50) and
flexibility.

3. 56
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
Legend
Scale Rate Interpretation Symbol
5 4.20 – 5.00 Outstanding O
4 3.40 - 4.19 Very Good VG
3 2.60 - 3.39 Good G
2 1.80 – 2.59 Fair F
1 1.00 - 1.79 Poor P
The overall computed weighted mean of 4.44 were
interpreted the respondents as high extent as to
personality.
1.2 Communication Skills
Table 5 shows the respondents assessment as to
communication skills.
As shown in the data, two (2) out of five (5) criteria
were interpreted as high extent: language proficiency
(WM=4.52) and speak audibly (not too soft not too loud)
(WM=4.22) while, the other two (2) were interpreted as
moderate extent. These are not using highfalutin words
(WM=2.89) and use non-verbal communication (WM=2.77). Only

4. 57
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
one (1) criterion was interpreted as great extent: try to
get rid of regional extent (WM=3.04).
Table 5
Respondents’ Assessment as to Communication Skills
Respondents Tour Guide Tourist Total
Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI
Language proficiency 4.71 O 4.33 O 4.52 O
2.43 G 3.35 VG 2.89 G
Not using highfalutin words
Try to get rid of regional
2.57 G 3.31 VG 3.04 VG
accent
Use non-verbal communication 2.14 G 3.51 VG 2.77 G
Speak audibly (not too soft, not
too loud ) 4.43 O 4 O 4.22 O
COMPOSITE MEAN 3.26 VG 3.72 VG 3.49 VG
In general, the computed value of weighted mean is 3.49
interpreted by the two groups of respondents as great extent
as to communication skills.
1.3 Technical Skills

5. 58
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
Table 6 reveals the respondents’ assessment as to
technical skills.
Table 6
Respondents’ Assessment as to Technical Skills
Tour Guide Tourists Total
Respondents
Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI
Punctuality 5 O 4.21 O 4.61 O
4.86 O 4.33 O 4.06 O
Resourcefulness
Sense of humor 4.57 O 4.33 O 4.45 O
Tactfulness 4.57 O 4.05 O 4.31 O
Composite Mean 4.75 O 4.23 O 4.49 O
As revealed in the data; all the criteria under
technical skills were interpreted by the respondents as high
extent. These are: punctuality (WM=4.61); resourcefulness
(WM=4.60); sense of humor (WM=4.45) and tactfulness
(WM=4.31).

6. 59
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
The computed weighted mean of 4.49 were verbally
interpreted by the respondents as high extent as to
technical skills.
1.4 Summary
Table 7 presents the summary on the respondents’
assessment on the Filipino Tour Guides.
Table 7
Summary on Respondents’ Assessment on the Filipino Tour
Guides
Respondents Tour Guide Tourists Composite Mean
Criteria WM VI WM VI WM VI
Personality 4.67 O 4.21 O 4.44 O
3.26 VG 3.72 VG 3.49 VG
Communication Skills
Techbical Skills 4.75 O 4.23 O 4.49 O
Composite Mean 4.23 O 4.05 VG 4.14 VG

7. 60
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
As present in the data, two (2) out of three (3)
criteria were interpreted as high extent. These are
personality (WM=4.44) and technical skills (WM=4.49) while,
only were interpreted as great extent: communication skills
(WM=3.49).
Generally, the overall computed weighted mean of 4.14
were interpreted by the two groups of respondents as great
extent.
Sub-Problem No.2 Is there significant difference on
perception of the local tourists to the Filipino Tour Guides
using the above mentioned variables?
2.1 Personality
Table 8 depicts the comparison on the assessment on
their personality.
As depicted in the table, only one (1) criteria were
interpreted t-value is lower that the critical value of
1.645 at 0.05 percent level of significance. While, the
other four (4) criteria were interpreted as significant.

8. 61
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
These are: grooming (t-value=3.01); personal hygiene (t-
value=0.34); professional appearance (t-value=2.53);
personal integrity (t-value=2.24); flexibility (t-
value=2.87). Professional Appearance (t-value=2.53);
Personal Integrity (t-value=2.24) and Flexibility (t-
value=2.87)

9. 62
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
Table 8
Comparison on the Assessment on their Personality
Respondents TOUR GUIDE TOURIST T-test
t-computed
Criteria WM SD WM SD Interpretation DECISION
value
GROOMING 4.71 0.45 4.05 0.91 3.01 S Reject Ho
PERSONAL
4.29 0.70 4.19 0.87 0.34 NS Accept Ho
Hygiene
PROFESSIONAL
4.71 0.45 4.19 0.76 2.53 S Reject Ho
APPEARANCE
PERSONAL
4.71 0.45 4.28 0.58 2.24 S Reject Ho
INTEGRITY
FLEXIBILITY 4.86 0.35 4.37 0.71 2.87 S Reject Ho
COMPOSITE MEAN 4.67 0.48 4.21 0.77 2.13 S Reject Ho
Legend: CV at 5% = 1.645 NS – Not Significant S-Significant
The computed t-value of 2.13 is higher than the
critical value of 1.64
5 at 0.05 percent level of significance, interpreted as
significant hence, rejecting the hypothesis.

10. 63
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
2.2 Communication Skills
Table 9 reflects the comparison on the assessment on
their communication skills.
Table 9
Comparison on the assessment on their Communication Skills
RESPONDENTS TOUR GUIDE TOURIST t-test
Criteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation DECISION
value
PUNCTUALTY 5 0 4.31 0.82 6.32 S Reject Ho
RESOURCEFULNESS 4.86 0.35 4.33 0.67 3.17 S Reject Ho
SENSE OF HUMOR 4.57 0.49 4.33 0.8 1.08 NS Accept Ho
TACTFULNESS 4.57 0.49 4.05 0.86 2.29 S Reject Ho
COMPOSITE MEAN 4.75 0.33 4.23 0.79 3 S Reject Ho
As reflected on the data; only one criterion was
interpreted as not significant: sense of humor (t-

11. 64
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
value=1.08) while the other three criteria were interpreted
as significant. These are: punctuality (t-value-6.32);
resourcefulness (t-value=3.17) and tactfulness (t-
value=2.29).
Generally the computed t-value of 3 is higher than the
critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level of
significance; it was interpreted as significant therefore
the hypothesis is rejected.
2.3 Technical Skills.
Table 10 present the comparison on the assessment on
their technical skills.
As presented in the data; four (4) out of (5) criteria
were interpreted as significant. These are: language
proficiency (t-value=1.88); not using highfalutin words (t-
value=1.88); try to get rid of regional accent (t-
value=1.94) and use non-verbal communication (t-value=3.00)
while, only one (1) were interpreted as not significant:
speak audibly (not too soft, not too loud) (t-value=1.34)

12. 65
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
Table 10
Comparison on the assessment on their Technical Skills
RESPONDENTS TOUR GUIDE TOURIST t-test
Criteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation DECISION
value
Language
4.71 0.45 4.33 0.71 1.85 S Reject Ho
proficiency
Not using
2.43 1.18 3.35 1.31 1.88 S Reject Ho
highfalutin words
Try to get rid of
2.57 1.18 3.51 1.23 1.94 S Reject Ho
regional accent
Use non-verbal
2.14 0.99 3.40 1.26 3.00 S Reject Ho
communication
Speak audibly 4.43 0.73 4.00 1.08 1.34 NS Accept Ho
Composite Mean 3.26 0.91 3.72 1.12 1.20 NS Accept Ho
Generally, the computed t-value of 1.20 is lower than
the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level of
significant. It was the interpreted as not significant
hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.

13. 66
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
2.4 Summary
Table 11 shows the summary on the comparison on
respondents’ assessment the local tourist to the Filipino
Tour Guides.
Table 11
Summary on the Comparison on Responds Assessment of the
Local Tourist to the Filipino Tour Guides
Respondents Tour Guides Tourist t-test
Criteria WM SD WM SD t-computed Interpretation Decision
value
Personality 4.67 0.48 4.21 0.77 2.13 S Reject Ho
Communication 4.75 0.33 4.23 0.79 3 S Reject Ho
Skills
Technical 3.26 0.91 3.72 1.12 1.20 NS Accept Ho
Skills
Composite Mean 4.23 0.57 4.05 0.89 0.71 NS Accept Ho
It can be gleaned from the data that two (2) criteria
were interpreted as significant. These are: personality (t-

14. 67
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
value=2.13) and communication skills (t-value=3.00) while
technical skills (t-value=1.20) were interpreted as not
significant.
Generally, the overall computed t-value of 0.71 is
lower than the critical value of 1.645 at 0.05 percent level
of significance with 48 degrees of the freedom. It was
interpreted as not significant therefore, the hypothesis is
accepted.