000			13254nam a2200313 a 4500
003			OSt
005			20240321095857.0
008			070516s19uu xx 00 eng d
040			_cCvSU Main Campus Library
041	0		_aeng
082	0	4	_a658.3124 _bD36 2005
100		0	_aDifiesta, Eva Ramos _910694 _eauthor
245	1	0	_aSemiconductor manufacturing specialist (MS) training program of TESDA-INTEL training center : _ban evaluation / _cby Eva Ramos Defiesta.
260	0		_aIndang, Cavite : _c2005. _bCavite State University- Main Campus,
300			_axvii, 212 pages : _billustrations ; _c28 cm.
336			_2rdacontent _atext
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume
500			_aThesis (Ph.D.--Education) Cavite State University
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references.
508			_aGraduate Studies Open Learning College (GSOLC)
520	3		_aDEFIESTA, EVA RAMOS Semiconductor Manufacturing Specialist (MS) Training Program of TESDA-Intel Training Center, Trece Martires City: An Evaluation. Doctoral Dissertation/ Doctor of Philosophy in Education. Cavite State University, Indang, Cavite, April, 2005. Adviser: Dr. Cecilia B. Banaag The research study was conducted to evaluate the three-year implementation of Semiconductor Manufacturing Specialist (MS)Training Program of the TESDA-Intel Training Center, Trece Martires City. Specifically, the study sought to: (a) determine the profile of training personnel to include training administrator, training coordinators, trainers, and graduates: (b) determine how training administrator and training coordinators perceived Semiconductor MS Training Program in terms of nature of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between TESDA and Intel-Philippines, degree of satisfaction with the nature of MOA between TESDA and Intel-Philippines and the level of training coordinators’ performance of roles and responsibilities; (c) determine how the trainers perceived SMS training program in terms of attainment of objectives, nature of MOA between TESDA and Intel-Philippines, degree of satisfaction with the nature of MOA between TESDA and Intel-Philippines, adequacy of training supplies and materials, equipment and tools, adequacy of support institutional materials and teaching devices and references, adequacy of facilities, extent of use of teaching strategies, extent of use of evaluative techniques, and level of administrative support and supervision by the training administrator: (d) determine the level of training coordinators’ performance of roles and responsibilities as perceived by training administrator, trainers and graduates; (e) determine the level of training coordinators and trainers’ performance of roles and responsibilities as perceived by graduates; (f) determine the level of proficiency of graduates in the technical fundamental courses before and after the SMS training program; (g) determine the significant difference in graduates’ proficiency level before and after their participation in the SMS training program; (h) determine the problems encountered by graduates’ during their participation in the SMS training program; (i) determine the problems encountered by training coordinators, and trainers in the implementation of SMS training program; (j) identify possible solution/alternatives to solve problems for the improvement and sustainability of SMS training program for semiconductor industry in the country; (k) determine the features of the SMS training program that need to be modified, changed and need improvement to ensure sustainability of the program, (1) determine the relationship between graduates’ proficiency level after the training program and years in the service, years in the position, roles and responsibilities of training coordinators as perceived by graduates, roles and responsibilities of trainers as perceived by graduates, benefits derived by graduates, adequacy of training supplies and materials, tools and equipment, adequacy of training facilities, extent of use of teaching strategies, extent of use of evaluative techniques, adequacy of support instructional materials, teaching devices and references, administrative support and supervision; and (m) determine the predictors of proficiency level of graduates. The study used the descriptive evaluative method of research. The subjects included one training administrator, two training coordinators of Intel-Philippines, five TESDA trainers, and 100 graduates who were regular employees and manufacturing specialists involved in the production of Intel-Philippines. A questionnaire, that included the personal profile sheet and rating scales, was used as the data gathering instrument in the study. Frequency distributions, percentages, means, standard deviations, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, Spearman rank correlation coefficient and the Stepwise multiple regressions analysis, were the statistical measures employed in the study. The male Training Administrator was considered “old”, the female Training Coordinators were “young”, while the majority of trainers were dominated by male trainers and were middle-aged. The Training Administrator, Training Coordinators and Trainers were all married. The training administrator had obtained MA units and has been practising his profession for 6-15 years, while the training coordinators were BS degree holders and were 5 years and below in the profession. Some trainers were BS degree holders, while others were MA/MBA/MS degree graduates. The training coordinators were rated “outstanding” in their job performance at Intel-Philippines, while the training administrator and trainers were all rated “very satisfactory” in their job performance for three consecutive years and have attended seminars/training related to their field. The Training Administrator and Training Coordinators were satisfied with the nature of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between TESDA and Intel-Philippines, The Training Administrator perceived the performance of the Training Coordinators’ roles and responsibilities as “fairly well”. The trainer-respondents perceived that the objectives of the SMS training program were “much attained” while majority of them perceived that providing assistance for curriculum development and facilities for the SMS training program were included in the provision of the MOA between TESDA and Intel-Philippines, they were dissatisfied with the nature of MOA. The Trainer of the Motor Controls course perceived that the course had “adequate” training supplies and materials, while those in the Mechatronics, Basi Electronics and Technical Drawing courses rated that they were “moderately adequate”. Benchworking had “slightly adequate” training supplies and materials. The Basic Electronics and Benchworking courses were perceived “adequate” by the trainers in terms of training tools. The Technical Drawing course was perceived “moderately adequate”, while the Motor Controls course has “slightly adequate” training tools. The Mechatronics course was perceived “inadequate” by the trainer. Courses such as Basic Electronics, Benchworking, Motor Controls and Technical Drawing have “moderately adequate” training equipment as perceived by the trainers while the Mechatronics course had “slightly adequate” training equipment. The support instructional materials, teaching devices and references were perceived “moderately adequate” by the trainers. Training modules, mock-ups and training worksheets were being used. The trainers perceived the training facilities to be “adequate”. Teaching strategies, such as hands-on practice, lecture, demonstration method and practical work approach, were used “extensively” by the trainers and were perceived to be “very effective”. Evaluative techniques, such as observation, practical examinations, written examination and oral examinations, were “always used” and found “very extensive” as perceived by the trainers. In terms of the administrative support and supervision by the Training Administrator, the trainers perceived it as “slightly implemented”. The Training Coordinators performed their roles and responsibilities “fairly well” as perceived by graduates. The graduates also perceived that the trainers in Technical Drawing, Motor Controls and Benchmarking courses performed their roles and responsibilities “quite well”. The Trainer in Basic Electronics was perceived “fairly well” by the graduates, while trainer from the Mechatronics course was perceived “poorly”. The graduates’ level of proficiency was perceived to be “adequate” in all the technical fundamental courses before they participated in the training program. After the training, the graduates’ perceived their level of proficiency to be “very adequate”. In all the technical fundamental courses (Basic Electronics, Benchworking Mechatronics, Motor Controls, and Technical Drawing), it was found out that there was no significant difference in the proficiency level of the graduates before and after the training program. The training administrator, training coordinator and the graduates derived benefits from the program to a “great extent”, while the trainers believed that they derived benefits to a “moderate extent”. All the respondents derived benefits from the program to a “great extent” One training coordinator revealed that the delay in provision of training supplies and materials, the inaccurate performance evaluation system for trainees, inadequate facilities, and inadequate administrative support, were the problems encountered. Majority of the trainers revealed that the lack of incentives for SMS training work was the most pressing problem that they have encountered. The major problems encountered by graduates included the duration of training (too short) and the inaccurate performance evaluation system for trainees. The five most frequently mentioned solutions by the training coordinators, trainers and graduates to further improve and sustain the program included: (a) update the curriculum to meet the growing and changing needs of the industry, (b) there must be an On-Job-Training after the training for the application of the graduates’ learning and make sure that it is sustainable and well supported by the company; (c) provide and ensure the availability of adequate training supplies and materials, tools and equipment in the TESDA-Intel Training Center, before sending trainees to undergo training, and (d) provide more references, manuals and training guides to ensure more effective learning. The Training coordinators identified the following features that need to be changed, modified or improved: (a) leadership; (b) policies and procedures; (c) objectives of the program; (d) provision for supplies and materials; (e) provision for tools and equipment; (f) curriculum; (g) planning and coordination of the MS Training Program, and (h) systems of reward and incentives (if any). Trainers, on the other hand, identified the following features to be changed, modified or improved: (a) planning and coordination of the Manufacturing Specialist (MS) training program, (b) monitoring and evaluation of the program; (c) objectives of the program; (d) provision for supplies and materials; (e) provision for tools and equipment, (f) partners’ duties and responsibilities, (g) system of rewards and incentives (if any); (h) monitoring and evaluation of graduates; (i) resource management; (j) policies and procedures and (k) leadership. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient revealed that the graduates’ number of years in the position, number of years in service and the extent of use of evaluative techniques by trainers, have no significant relation in the proficiency level of the graduates after the training program. While the roles and responsibilities of training coordinators and trainers, the benefits they derived from the program, the adequacy of training supplies and materials, tools and equipment, adequacy of facilities an support instructional materials, teaching devices and references, the extent of use of teaching strategies and the level of administrative support and the supervision by Training Administrator, were found to have a significant relation to the proficiency level of the graduates after the training program. Stepwise multiple regression analysis showed the following predictors: (a) availability of the instructional materials, (b) teaching strategies of the trainers, (c) roles and responsibilities of the training coordinators; and the (d) adequacy of the training equipment affected the proficiency level of the graduates after the training program.
541			_cSubmitted to the University Library _d07/18/2007 _eT-3189
650		0	_aTraining programs _911
690			_91418 _aDoctor of Philosophy _xEducation
700			_aBanaag, Cecilia B. _92377
856			_yClick here to view thesis abstract and table of contents _uhttp://library.cvsu.edu.ph/cgi-bin/koha/opac-retrieve-file.pl?id=a2f26facad653d18ab4b3f5ac6a53373
942			_2ddc _cMAN
999			_c6655 _d6655