Approval Sheet

The research paper entitled “Acceptability of Taro

(Colocasia esculenta) Candy” prepared and submitted by

DENNIS M. GAYLAN, MARK ANTHONY G. TORRES, FREDA MARIE T.

OPLAS, ALDEN FRENZY S. LABRODA, KLIE ANNE T. RAVENA, MA.

CONNIE E. TUANTE, RENELYN D. CALUMBA, in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor

of Science in Hotel and Restaurant Technology, is hereby

approved.

MARNIE A. NUALAN, MSHE

Adviser
__________________________________________________
Approved by the Panel of Examiners as PASSED on March

2017

MA. ROCELYN M. CARDINAL, MSBA

Chairman

ANNIE M. ESTIMO, MSHE Engr. JOEL M.FEROLINO, MA

Member Member

__________________________________________________________

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Hotel

and Restaurant Technology.

SANDRA T. EXAMEN, MA
Officer-in-Charge
Office of the Campus Administrator
March 2017

ii
 Acknowledgement

The researchers wish to express their sincere thanks

and deep gratitude to the following persons for the help,

support and encouragement extended, for their efforts and

assistance in the realization of this research paper:

Prof. Sandra T. Examen, Officer-in-Charge, Office of

the Campus Administrator of Iloilo Science and Technology

University, Miagao Campus for allowing the researchers to

conduct the study and for the guidance and inspiration for

the completion of this endeavor;

Prof. Ma. Rocelyn N. Cardinal, research instructor

for her guidance, support and encouragement in the

realization of this research undertaking;

Ms. Marnie A. Nualan, the research adviser, for her

valuable suggestions, corrections, and constructive

criticism for the improvement of the study;

Prof. Annie M. Estimo, Prof. Ma. Rocelyn N. Cardinal,

the panel of examiners for providing useful comments and

suggestions to improve this study;

Prof. Joel M.Ferolino, for his valuable assistance

and expertise in the statistical analysis of this research

paper;

Prof. Ma. Maja Jade N.Perez, for the time and effort

in reading and editing this manuscript;

iii
 Prof. Susan N. Rumorus, HRT instructor for providing

her knowledge and expertise to obtain precise data and

information needed for the study;

Mrs. Sheryl N. Buño, school librarian for allowing

the researchers to have an access to other research books

as references for the study;

To their parents, for their unending moral and

financial support as well as for being their source of

inspiration in the realization of this research paper;

To the respondents, for their honest cooperation in

making this research studies a success;

To all whose names the researchers failed to mention,

who in the way or another provided their help to make this

research possible;

Finally, thanks to the Almighty God for giving the

researchers the knowledge, skills, and strength to pursue

the study and for the blessings and guidance in order that

this research paper be realized.

Thank you very much.

Dennis M. Gaylan
Mark Anthony G. Torres
Alden Frenzy S. Labroda
Klie Anne T. Ravena
Freda Marie T. Oplas
Ma.Connie E. Tuante
Renelyn D. Calumba

iv
 Abstract

This experimental study determined the acceptability

of taro candy. The evaluators were the 15 culinary

students and 15 culinary instructors/professor from Iloilo

Science and Technology University Miagao Campus who were

selected using random sampling technique. The mean,

standard deviation and t-test at .05% level of

significance were used to determine the difference between

two formulations of the study. The Five Point Likert Scale

to determine the characteristics of the product and the

Nine Point Hedonic Scale for the general acceptability

were used. The result revealed that there was a

significant difference in perception of the evaluators as

to appearance and texture of the taro candy using the two

formulations. However, there was no significant difference

in the perception of the evaluators as to aroma, taste and

general acceptability in using the two formulations. The

sensory evaluation showed that as to appearance, the

product was perceived as “moderately brown” for

formulation A and “slightly brown” for formulation B; as

to aroma, the product was perceived as “moderately taro

aroma” for both formulations; as to taste, the product was

perceived “sweet taro flavor” for formulation A and

“moderately taro flavor” for formulation B; as to texture,

v
it was perceived as “moderately smooth” for formulation A

and “slightly smooth” for formulation B; and as to its

general acceptability both formulations were “liked very

much” by the evaluators. It is recommended that taro be

selected as one of the indigenous material in making

delicacies. Therefore, bakers and food handlers are

encourage to try newly invented taro candy and to discover

more pastries and candies using taro as a main ingredient.

vi
 Table of Contents

Pages

TITLE PAGE i

APPROVAL SHEET ii

ACKNOWLEGDEMENT iii

ABSTRACT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURE xi

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTON 1

Background of the Study 1

Theoretical Framework of the Study 2

Conceptual Framework of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 4

Hypothesis 5

Scope and Delimitation of the Study 5

Significance of the Study 6

Definition of Terms 7

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND

RELATED STUDIES

Related Literature 11

Origin of Taro Plant 11

vii
 Uses of Taro 13

Nutritive Value 14

Health Benefits of Taro Root 15

Recipes for Taro Candy taken from

Ube Pastillas 16

Related Studies 18

3 METHODOLOGY

Research Method 20

Evaluators 20

Materials and Instrumentation 21

Data Gathering Procedures 22

Data Processing Technique 24

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Descriptive Data Analysis 25

Inferential Data Analysis 29

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of the Problem, Methods and 33

Findings 34

Conclusions 35

Recommendations 36

viii
REFERENCES 37

APPENDICES 41

Appendix A Permit to Conduct 42

Appendix B Letter to the Evaluators 43

Appendix C Sensory Evaluation Score Sheet 44

Appendix D Range of Means for

Level of Attitude 47

Appendix E Statistical Output 48

Appendix F Documentation 49

ix
 List of Tables

Table Pages

1 Profile of the Evaluators 21

2 Making of Taro Candy 22

3 Perception of the Evaluators on the

Appearance, Aroma, Taste, Texture, and

General Acceptability 26

4 The t-test result of Evaluators

Perception Sensory Evaluation of

Taro Candy in two formulation in

terms of Appearance, Aroma,

Taste, Texture, and

General Acceptability 29

x
 List of Figures

Figure Page

1 The Schematic Diagram of the Study 3

xi