Preparedness of Bicol College in the

Accreditation of Bachelor of Science

in Hospitality Management (BSHM)

Program by the Philippine Association

of Colleges and Universities

Commission on Accreditation

(PACUCOA)

OBJECTIVEThis study was conceptualized in order to:

1. Determine how the program respond with

quality education as the main goal of every

educational institution and likewise in order

to be at par with the ASEAN 2015 and the

K-12 implementation.

2. Analyze and assess how the different

educational component adheres with the

requirements of the PACUCOA.

INTRODUCTION

The hospitality industry covers a wide range of

organizations offering food service and accommodation.

The industry is divided into sectors according to the skill-

sets required for the work involved. Sectors include

accommodation, food and beverage, meeting and events,

gaming, entertainment and recreation, tourism services,

and visitor information.

This notion on hospitality services encourage

the Bicol College to offer the Hotel and Restaurant

Management program under the umbrella of the

College of Business Administration, which will cater

to the needs of the industry, a program with a

curriculum that provides a synthesis of different

skills, concepts and principles specializing in

hospitality training.

It involves the study and application of

practical and managerial knowledge and functions

such as hotel and restaurant operations, culinary

arts, food service, hospitality education and

research that are essential in preparing the

students to become adept future restaurateurs and

hoteliers.

Statement of the ProblemThis study assessed the preparedness of

the Bachelor of Science in HospitalityManagement (BSHM) program in Bicol Collegefor accreditation purposes, the followingproblems were stated to serve as guide ingathering the basic data. Specifically, it soughtto answer the following problems:

1. What is the profile of the respondents interms of gender and age?

2. To what extent is the preparedness of theBSHM program educational components forPACUCOA accreditation along:

a.Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives;b.Students services;

c.Faculty;

d.Curriculum;

e.Research and evaluation;

f. Physical Plant and facilities;

g.Financial Management;

h.Community Extension Services; and

i. Administration.

3. How significant is the agreement on therank order on the extent of preparedness bythe program for accreditation?

4. What pointers can be formulated basefrom the findings of the study conducted?

The study were significant to the

CHED, School Administrators, Hotel and

Restaurant Industry, Community, Faculty

members, Students, Parents, Researcher,

and future researchers.

Significance of the Study

METHODS

This study used the descriptive-

inferential method of research. The

inferential method were utilized to

determine the significance of agreement on

the assessment of the preparedness of the

BSHM program for accreditation by the

respondents.

• The researcher employs purposive

sampling technique in the choice of theBachelor of Science in HospitalityManagement of Bicol College, Daraga,Albay. With 140 respondents out of 158using slovins formula. The researcher usedthe structured questionnaire lifted from theself-survey instrument for PACUCOAaccreditation paper, for the researcher to beable to clearly assess how prepared was theBSHM program.

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF

THE STUDYOn the educational component:

1. MVG – the average WM was 3.72

interpreted as very prepared by the

respondents.

2. Students Development – WM of 3.52

interpreted as very prepared.

3. Faculty Development – WM of 3.53

interpreted as very prepared.

4. On Curriculum development – WM of 3.56, very

prepared.

5. On Research and Evaluation - WM of 3.51,

very prepared.

6. On Physical Plant and Facilities – WM of 3.52 ,

very prepared.

7. On Financial Administration – WM of 3.49,

interpreted as prepared by the respondents.

8. Community and Extension – WM of 3.57, very

prepared.

9. Administration and Supervision – WM of 3.53,

very prepared.

INDICATOR

YEAR LEVEL AVERAGE

1st yr. 2nd yr. 3rd yr. 4th yr.

Wx Int. R Wx Int. R Wx Int. R Wx Int. R Wx Int. R

1. Mission, Vision, Goals

and Objectives 4.08 VP 1 3.34 P 2 3.40 VP 1 4.05 VP 1 3.72 VP 1

2. Students

Development

3.85 VP 5.5 3.26 P 5.5 3.13 P 5.5 3.93 VP 4 3.54 VP 4

3. Faculty Development 3.87 VP 3 3.25 P 7 3.11 P 7 3.90 VP 5 3.53 VP 5.5

4. Curriculum

Development

3.93 VP 2 3.19 P 9 3.37 P 2 3.77 VP 8 3.56 VP 3

5. Research and

Evaluation

3.80 VP 8.5 3.20 P 8 3.28 P 3 3.76 VP 9 3.51 VP 8

6. Physical Plant and

Facilities

3.86 VP 4 3.28 P 4 2.98 P 8 3.97 VP 2 3.52 VP 7

7. Financial/Business

Administration 3.84 VP 7 3.26 P 5.5 2.97 VP 9 3.89 VP 6 3.49 VP

9

8. Community and

Extension

3.85 VP 5.5 3.30 P 3 3.15 VP 4 3.96 VP 3 3.57 VP 2

9. Administration 3.80 VP 8.5 3.35 P 1 3.13 P 5.5 3.85 VP 7 3.53 VP 5.5

Average 3.88 VP 3.27 P 3.17 P 3.89 VP 3.55 VP

On Hypothesis

Indicators VMGO Students

Developmen

t

Faculty

Developmen

t

Curriculum

Development

R/D Physical

Plant &

Facilities

Financial/

Business

Administration

Community &

Extension

Admin. &

Supervision

Summation of

squared

deviation

Total number

of groups

Number of

activities

Coefficient of

concordance

W

Computed X2

Degree of

Freedom

Tabular Value

@

0.05

0.025

0.01

0.005

Significance

Level

Decision on Ho

286

4

9

0.31

9.92

8

15.51

17.53

2-.09

21.96

NS

Rejecte

d

2,247

4

16

0.43

25.8

15

25.00

27.49

30.58

32.80

S

Accepted

126.5

4

6

0.47

9.4

5

11.07

12.83

15.09

16.75

NS

Rejected

336

4

10

0.27

9.72

9

16.92

19.02

21.67

23.59

NS

Rejected

425.5

4

11

0.25

10

10

18.31

20.48

23.21

25.19

NS

Rejected

152.10

4

9

0.17

5.44

8

15.51

17.53

2-.09

21.96

NS

Rejected

202.41

4

11

0.12

4.8

10

18.31

20.48

23.21

25.19

NS

Rejected

36

4

4

0.47

5.64

3

7.81

9.35

11.34

12.84

NS

Rejected

9.5

4

4

0.12

1.44

3

7.81

9.35

11.34

12.84

NS

Rejected

Test of Significance of Agreement on the Ranks of the

Extent of Preparedness by the Program Educational

Components for Accreditation

• Therefore, it is safe to accept the null

hypothesis on the eight (8) educational

components, which states that there is no

significant agreement on the rank order on

the extent of preparedness of these

components. Whereby, reject the null

hypothesis on student development andaccept the alternative hypothesis.

• It can be gleaned that there is a need for

these components to be prepared for

accreditation purposes. These could be

considered as material factors which lead to

the preparedness for the educational

components to be granted a status to beaccredited.

POINTERS GENERATED FROM THE

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

1.The BSHM program must have its own

mission, vision, goals and objectives that

is anchored on the college MVGO.

2.The BSHM program must be a separate

department not a program, due to its

increasing enrolees.3.The Students Personnel Services Program must

be clearly stated and must be known to studentsto make them aware of these services.

4. There must be a qualified staff, physical

facilities, equipment, materials, and afunctional organizational structure for SPS.

5. The guidance program and services mustbe functional to cater the students’ needs.

6. Assign/appoint /organize a research

committee duly represented by the different

department/program to identify a researchagenda from this department/program.

7. The faculty member must adhere with the

college policy to develop an institutional

research that addresses the needs of thecollege for educational development.

8. Review the college/program curricularoffering.

9. Improve the physical plant and facilities,

specifically the laboratory facilities and

equipment, food laboratory and in-campus

hotel that must be anchored with the presenttrend in hospitality industry.

10. Enhance students’ awareness of thecommunity extension services.

11. Create and assign a committee to review

the educational components of the

college/program anchored with the self-

survey instrument in preparation foraccreditation.

As a whole, the interpretation as stated

in the different educational component as

very prepared does not signifies that all

indicators from the questionnaire provided to

the respondents were an assurance that the

different educational components of Bicol

college were that prepared to pass the

accreditation. But for purposes of

assessment in order for the BC admin to be

made aware of what is needed to be

enhance from among this components.

Thank you