Respondents Teachers' Performance Learners Performance

1 4.12 84 Descriptive Statistics

2 4.08 86
3 4.24 82 Respondents
4 4.18 87 Mean 8
5 4.05 81 Standard Error 1.1547005383793
6 4.08 83 Median 8
7 4.28 84 Mode #VALUE!
8 4.32 87 Standard Deviation 4.4721359549996
9 4.48 85 Sample Variance 20
10 4.21 86 Kurtosis -1.2
11 4.09 83 Skewness -3.660075905E-17
12 4.16 84 Range 14
13 4.02 89 Maximum 15
14 4 83 Minimum 1
15 4.22 85 Sum 120
Count 15
Geometric Mean 6.4234247497798
Harmonic Mean 4.5204836768675
AAD 3.7333333333333
MAD #NAME?
IQR #NAME?

Correlation Coefficients

Pearson 0.146694876615226
Spearman #NAME?
Kendall #NAME?

Pearson's coeff (t test)

Alpha 0.05
Tails 2

corr 0.146694876615226
std err #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
ANALYSIS: There is no significant relationship between the teache
r(13)=0.1467 and p=0.6019, thus, we failed to reject t
This implies that teacher's performance has no bearin
 Shapiro-Wilk Test

Teachers' Performance
Learners Performance Respondents
Teachers' Performance
Learners Performance
4.1686666667 84.6 W-stat #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?
0.0331499719 0.550324579550235 p-value #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?
4.16 84 alpha 0.05 0.05 0.05
4.08 83 normal #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?
0.128389289 2.13139793160666
0.0164838095 4.54285714285714 d'Agostino-Pearson
0.9919832584 -0.134503564549838
0.9284538159 0.351371020299379 DA-stat #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?
0.48 8 p-value #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?
4.48 89 alpha 0.05 0.05 0.05
4 81 normal #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?
62.53 1269
15 15
4.1668496553 84.575054209118
4.1650603807 84.550221688479
0.0999111111 1.70666666666667
#NAME? #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?

Pearson's coeff (Fisher)

Rho 0
Alpha 0.05
Tails 2

corr 0.146694876615226
std err #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
#NAME? #NAME?
 nship between the teacher's performance and the student's academic performance,
thus, we failed to reject the null hypothesis.
erformance has no bearing with the student's academic performance.