This study was conducted to design and develop a computer-based TOS that could fast track the preparation and construction of the TOS. The researchers conducted a documentary analysis in order to gather the needed data and interview to clarify information requirements. The study employed the descriptive developmental research. This is suitable whenever the output needs to be developed, validated, and tried out to determine if the proposed system is acceptable to the users. The development of the TOS underwent through the following four (4) stages: (1) Planning Stage, (2) Developmental Stage, (3) Evaluation Stage, and (4) Output Stage. Each stage had different process from others. The content validity and acceptability of the developed system were assessed by ten (10) chairpersons and faculty members respectively. After careful scrutiny of the evaluation results, the developed system got an average mean of 4.51 with a descriptive rating of Strongly Agree. As for the acceptability, it got an average mean of 4.07 which can be interpreted as Acceptable. Having found the level of acceptability of this system is high, the researchers strongly recommend that the system will be utilized by the faculty members of the campus. Further studies should also be conducted in line with this study.

1. Abadines, A. (2012). How to create a table of specifications in 5 easy steps. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/iLnGXh
2. Akem, J. A., & Agbe, N. N. (2003). Rudimens of measurement and evaluation in education. Makurdi, Nigeria: The Return press.
   
3. Alade, O. M., & Omoruyi, I. V. (2014). Table of specification and its relevance in educational development assessment. European Journal of Educational and Development Psychology, 2(1), 1-17.
   
4. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. New York, NY: Longman Publishing.
   
5. Artz, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-Metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175.
   
6. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   
7. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1, Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Company.
8. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals. New York, NY: David McKay.
   
9. Bridge, P. D., Musial, J., Frank, R., Roe, T., & Sawilowsky, S. (2003). Measurement practices: Methods for developing contentvalid student examinations. Medical Teacher, 25 (4), 414-421.
   
10. Brookhart, S. M. (1999). Teaching about communicating assessment results and grading. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 5-13.
    
11. Burke, R. (2010). Matching outcomes with assessments. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/qefHCr
    
12. Carey, L. M. (1988). Measuring and evaluation school learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Reason, Inc.
    
13. Dave, R. H. (1970). Psychomotor levels in developing and writing behavioral objectives. Tucson, Arizona: Educational Innovators Press.
    
14. Fives, H., & DiDonato-Barnes, N. (2013). Classroom test construction: The power of a table of specifications.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18 (3), 1-7.
    
15. Foster, C. (2003). Writing training objectives using SMART. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/hqt4xW
16. GIHE. (2016). Developing effective assessments. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/gVWIdY
    
17. Haris, S. S., & Omar, N. (2012). A rule-based approach in Bloom’s Taxonomy question classification through natural language processing. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Computing and Convergence Technology (ICCCT) (pp.410-414). Seoul, South Korea.
    
18. Harrow, A. J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York, NY: David McKay. . (2016). Writing intended learning outcomes. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/AMhnnb
    
19. Hwang, G. H., Chen, B., & Huang, C. W. (2016). Development and effectiveness analysis of a personalized ubiquitous multidevice certification tutoring system based on bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 223-236.
    
20. Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 81-91.
    
21. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: David McKay.
    
22. Kubiszyn, T. K., & Borich, G. (2003). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application & practice (7th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Son. Inc. 
    
23. Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57-78.
    
24. Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and bloom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 143-147.
    
25. Manaris, B., & McCauley, R. (2004). Incorporating HCI into the undergraduate curriculum: Bloom’s taxonomy meets the CC’01 curricular guidelines. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Piscataway, NJ.
    
26. Manaris, B., Wainer, M., Kirkpatrick, A. E., Stalvey, R. H., Shannon, C., Leventhal, L., Barnes, J., Wright, J., Schafer, J. B., & Sanders, D. (2007). Implementations of the CC 01 human-computer interaction guidelines using Bloom’s taxonomy. Computer Science Education, 17(1), 21-57.
    
27. Mee, L., Musah, M. B., Al-Hudawi, S. H. V., Tahir, L. M., & Kamil, M. (2015). Validity of teacher-made assessment: A table of specification approach. Asian Social Science, 11(5), 193-200.
    
28. Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. (1998). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. Chicago, IL: Holt, Rinehalt, and Wonston, Inc.
    
29. Mellon, C. (2017). Aligning assessments with objectives. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/JzN4ft
    
30. Modritscher, F., & Sindler, A. (2005). Quizzes are not enough to reach high-level learning objectives. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Washington, DC., WA.
    
31. Notar, C. E., Zuelke, D. C., Wilson, J. D., & Yunker, B. D. (2004). The table of specification: Insuring accountability in teacher made tests. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 115-129.
    
32. O’Farrell, C. (2016). Enhancing student learning through assessment. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/akjYgu
    
33. Oliver, D., Dobele, T., Greber, M., & Roberts, T. (2004). This course has a Bloom Rating of 3.9. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Computing Education, Australian Computer Society, Inc., Sydney, Australia.
    
34. Reeves, T. C. (2003). Storms clouds on the digital education horizon. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 3-26.
    
35. Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145-158.
    
36. Ryerson University. (2016). Matching assessments to learning outcomes. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/tLK4JA
    
37. Saul, C., Becker, M., Hofmann, P., & Pharow, P. (2011). Competency-based approach to support learning objectives in learning, education and training. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/uXe49d
    
38. Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s taxonomy applied to testing in computer science classes. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(1), 267-274.
    
39. Shen, Y. S., Hwang, G. H., Lin, H. Y., Chen, W. S., Ke, C. F., & Liao, W. J. (2005). Use Bloom classification theory developed online tests assessment system. Taipei, Taiwan: Taiwan E-Learning Forum.
    
40. Sperber, M. (2005). How undergraduate education became college lite-and a personal apology. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 131-143). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
    
41. Starr, C. W., Manaris, B., & Stalvey, R. H. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy revisited: Specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 261-265.
    
42. Tablatin, C. L. S., Patacsil, F. F., & Cenas, P. V. (2016). Design and development of an information technology fundamentals multimedia courseware for dynamic learning environment. Journal of Advances in Technology and Engineering Studies, 2(6), 202-210.
    
43. Wolming, S., & Wikstrom, C. (2010). The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 117-132.

Acosta, M. E., Patacsil, F. F., Ambat, C. L., & Tablatin, C. L. S. (2017). Design and development of an electronically generated Table of Specifications (TOS). International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 3(4), 171-183.