Profile of the Respondents

Table 1
Sex

Sex Frequency Percent

Male 18 14.6
Female 105 85.4
Total 123 100.0

Table 1 exhibits the frequency and percent distribution of the respondents in terms of

sex. Based on the results, majority of the respondents were female (85.4%) while male

respondents accounts for 14.6% of the total number of respondents.

Table 2
Age

Age Frequency Percent

19-22 years old 102 82.9
23-26 years old 20 16.3
27 years old and above 1 .8
Total 123 100.0

Copy data interpretation on Table 1

Table 2 exhibits the frequency and percent distribution of the respondents in terms of

age. Based on the results, majority of the respondents were 19-22 years old (82.9%), 23-26

years old respondents accounts for 16.3% and 1(0.8%) respondent for ages 27 years old and

above of the total number of respondents.

Table 3
Year Level

Year Level Frequency Percent

3rd Year 85 69.1
4th Year 38 30.9
Total 123 100.0

Copy data interpretation on Table 1

 Table 3 exhibits the frequency and percent distribution of the respondents in terms of

year level. Based on the results, majority of the respondents came from 3 rd year student (69.1%)

while 30.9% respondents came from 4th year students of the total number of respondents.

1. Communication skills awareness of the respondents

Table 4
Clarity of Communication

Indicators Weighted Mean Interpretation

1. Confident enough to share ideas and
2.90 Often
strategy concisely and clearly
2. Communicate and speak accurately and
2.85 Often
clearly
3. Do you feel anxious or nervous when
talking to your professor and employees in 3.08 Often
high position?
4. Correct manner, appropriate grammar
2.88 Often
and style during class reporting.
5. Speaks calmly during conversation. 3.07 Often
6. Communicates concepts to
people and groups in a clear and 2.97 Often
straightforward manner.
7. Organizes ideas clearly 3.02 Often
8. Delivers information in a clear, succinct,
2.92 Often
and logical manner.
9. Expresses ideas clearly and
2.99 Often
effectively to people and groups
10. Confidently and succinctly
2.83 Often
communicates ideas.
Overall Weighted Mean 2.95 Often
Scale: Always - 3.26 to 4.00, Often – 2.51 to 3.25, Rarely –1.76 to 2.50, Never – 1.00-1.75
 Table 4 presents the respondents assessment on clarity of communication using

weighted mean. On the average, the respondents often demonstrate clarity of communications

as evidenced by the overall weighted mean of 2.95. Specifically, the indicator “Do you feel

anxious or nervous when talking to your professor and employees in high position” received the

highest assessment level among the respondents with a weighted mean 3.08. However, the

indicator “Confidently and succinctly communicates ideas” obtained the lowest assessment level

among the respondents with a weighted mean of 2.83.

Insert related literature and studies to support your results.

Table 5
Listening and Attentiveness

Indicators Weighted Mean Interpretation

1. Listen fully and give more attention when
3.46 Always
someone is talking.
2. Listen attentively without interrupting
3.33 Always
other listeners.
3. Conscious of my facial expression and
3.32 Always
voice tone when I am speaking
4. Actively pays attention while speaking up
3.32 Always
front and plainly.
5. Acknowledges comprehension of the
3.30 Always
person’s point of view.
6.Listening without distractions of others 3.28 Always
7. I understand immediately when someone
3.18 Often
is discussing/talking
8. Not ashamed to attend events and
2.89 Often
programs that will help in self-development
9. Active in attending meetings and
2.80 Often
webinars
10. Active and be quiet while listening 3.28 Often
Overall Weighted Mean 3.22 Often
Scale: Always - 3.26 to 4.00, Often – 2.51 to 3.25, Rarely –1.76 to 2.50, Never – 1.00-1.75

Copy data interpretation on Table 4

Table 5 presents the respondents assessment on Listening and attentiveness using

weighted mean. On the average, the respondents often demonstrate listening and attentiveness
as evidenced by the overall weighted mean of 3.22. Specifically, the indicator “Listen fully and

give more attention when someone is talking.” received the highest assessment level among the

respondents with a weighted mean 3.46. However, the indicator “Active in attending meetings

and webinars” obtained the lowest assessment level among the respondents with a weighted

mean of 2.80.

Table 6
Non-verbal Communication

Indicators Weighted Mean Interpretation

1. When you talk to a professor or
student like you, do you do eye 3.13 Often
contact?
2. Conscious of my facial expression and
3.24 Often
voice tone when I am speaking
3. Using hand gesture when talking to
2.92 Often
someone
4. Maintain eye contact during
3.05 Often
conversation.
5. Using of body language
2.97 Often
along with words make oral effective.
6. Confident enough to show face
2.88 Often
and body action when talking
7. I use nonverbal communication along
2.76 Often
with words to make my point effective
8. Using nonverbal communication
2.64 Often
when responding someone's opinion
9. I make sure that my voice and action is
3.15 Often
clear when communicating in crowd
10.I can understand a person’s
mood through his/her facial 3.37 Always
expression
Overall Weighted Mean 3.01 Often
Scale: Always - 3.26 to 4.00, Often – 2.51 to 3.25, Rarely –1.76 to 2.50, Never – 1.00-1.75

Copy data interpretation on Table 4

Table 6 presents the respondents assessment on Non-verbal communication using

weighted mean. On the average, the respondents often demonstrate non-verbal communication
as evidenced by the overall weighted mean of 3.01. Specifically, the indicator “I can understand

a person’s mood through his/her facial expression.” received the highest assessment level

among the respondents with a weighted mean 3.37. However, the indicator “Using nonverbal

communication when responding someone's opinion” obtained the lowest assessment level

among the respondents with a weighted mean of 2.64.

2. Significant difference in the communication skills awareness of the respondent

students when grouped according to profile

Table 7
Mann-Whitney U-Test: Significant difference in the communication skills awareness of
the respondent when grouped according to profile when they are grouped according to
Sex

Communication Demographic
U-value p-value Decision Relationship
Skills Awareness Variable
Clarity of
742.00 0.15 Accept Ho Not Significant
Communication
Listening and
Sex 727.00 0.12 Accept Ho Not Significant
Attentiveness
Non-verbal
854.00 0.51 Accept Ho Not Significant
Communication
*Difference is computed at 5% level of significance.

Copy Data interpretation on Table 8

Table 7 shows there were no significant differences in the communication skills
awareness of the respondents when they are grouped according to sex using Mann-Whitney U-
Test for nonparametric comparative analysis. This study found out that there were no significant
differences between sex and clarity of communication (H=742.00, p=0.15), listening and
attentiveness (H=727.00, p=0.12), and non-verbal communication (H=854.00, p=0.51). This
indicates that respondents’ communication skills awareness varies across all sex groups.
 Table 8
Kruskal-Wallis H-Test: Significant difference in the communication skills awareness of
the respondent when grouped according to profile when they are grouped according to
Age

Demographic
Employability Skills H-value p-value Decision Relationship
Variable
Clarity of
13.70 0.00 Reject Ho Significant
Communication
Listening and
Age 2.80 0.25 Accept Ho Not Significant
Attentiveness
Non-verbal
3.68 0.16 Accept Ho Not Significant
Communication
*Difference is computed at 5% level of significance.

Table 8 shows the significant differences in the communication skills awareness of the
respondents when they are grouped according to age using Kruskal-Wallis H-test for
nonparametric comparative analysis. This study found out that there were significant differences
between age and clarity of communication (H=13.70, p=0.00). This indicates that respondents’
communication skills awareness varies across all age groups.
Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between age and listening and
attentiveness and non-verbal communication.
Insert related lit and studies

Table 9
Mann-Whitney U-Test: Significant difference in the communication skills awareness of
the respondent when grouped according to profile when they are grouped according to
Year Level

Communication Demographic
U-value p-value Decision Relationship
Skills Awareness Variable
Clarity of
1219.00 0.03 Reject Ho Significant
Communication
Listening and
Year Level 980.00 0.00 Reject Ho Significant
Attentiveness
Non-verbal
1386.00 0.21 Accept Ho Not Significant
Communication
*Difference is computed at 5% level of significance.
Copy Data interpretation on Table 8
Table 9 shows the significant differences in the communication skills awareness of the
respondents when they are grouped according to age using Mann-Whitney U-Test for
nonparametric comparative analysis. This study found out that there were significant differences
between year level and clarity of communication (H=1219.00, p=0.03), and listening and
attentiveness (H=980.00, p=0.00. This indicates that respondents’ communication skills
awareness varies across all year groups.
Meanwhile, there is no significant difference in non-verbal communication.