Review of Related Literatures and Studies Essay

The proponents reviewed several related studies and literature. This was done to clarify different ideas from other studies and literature. Relevant ideas of some students who developed some software were also reviewed. Related Literature The proponents understand that the program to be made without intellectual development could crash and might not be attracted to the uses and beneficiaries. The communication between the target user and the programmer should be clear, and sharp. According to George Gerard G. Mendoza (2005), two reasons why people use computers regardless of their profession. First, they are fast. Second, they are accurate. To improve the current grading system, manual and duplicative tasks need to be computerized. Computerization of tasks will also pave the way for the unification of the grading system with the enrollment system and student information system. Josefina Estolas in the book Fundamentals of Research (1995). A major purpose of a database system is to provide users with an abstract view of data. That is the system hides certain details of how the data are stored and maintained as stated by Abraham Silberschatz, Database System Concepts (1999). A database is an organized collection of facts and information. An organizations database can contain facts and information on customers, employees, inventory, competitors, sales information and much more. Most Managers and executive believe a database is one of the most valuable and important parts of a computer-based Related Literature Foreign Study According to Ms. Barbara Riggs and Mr. Jacob I. Lee (1994) of the University of Maryland as they perceived from their study as regards with the old grading system of their university and the problems encountered. It is a daunting task to process 130,000 grades in a timely — let alone painless — manner every semester. Add to this the collection of Early Warning grades and there is a tremendous amount of work for both†©our administrative staff and the faculty. Therefore, it was no surprise when several faculties voiced concern over the traditional time-consuming grade collection process. Our established method of grade collection was similar to other universities during the mid 80’s. Scannable grade sheets were produced for each course section and distributed to the faculty. Over 8,000 grade sheets were created every semester and then hand carried to academic departments by R & R support staff. The departments were then responsible for delivering grade sheets to the appropriate instructor. After all this routing, it was not unusual for a faculty member to request a new grade sheet because the original had been lost or damaged. Once the grade sheet made it to the faculty member’s hands, they were required to write the grade and then fill in the corresponding bubble with a #2 pencil on the scanning form. If mistakes were made the faculty member had to be sure to erase the incorrect mark completely. Erasures often led to scanner misreads and recording of incorrect grades. Faculty were also required to return all grade sheets to the Records & Registrations office within 48 hours of their final exam. Grade sheets were not permitted to be returned by mail because they could not be folded, but, more importantly, because mailing created security issues. Obviously, the scale of organization and centralization of grade sheet distribution and collection was enormous. Because of security concerns, controls had to be foolproof. Grade correction was very tedious and time-consuming. So, as technological capabilities and services were successfully developed for students, both faculty and administrators saw the potential to automate the existing grade collection process.