Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter provides an overview of the data collection, analysis, and findings of the

study titled "Quantifying the Relationship: Assessing Class Size's Effect on Grade 12 Students'

Academic Performance in Cabiao Senior High School" conducted in Palasinan, Cabiao, Nueva

Ecija. The study findings are presented in the following tables, which highlight the order and

details of the study subjects.

Table 1: Demographic Profile

The respondents' ages are displayed in the table.
Age Frequency Percentage
16 Years Old 1 0.3 %
17 Years Old 128 43 %
18 Years Old 127 42 %
19 Years Old 28 9%
20 Years Old 3 1%
21 Years Old 1 0.3 %
Total 288 96 %

Table 1.1

The demographic overview of the participants was categorized by their academic strand.

Strand Frequency Percentage

ABM 24 8%
AUTOMOTIVE 12 4%
BEAUTY CARE 12 4%
GAS 24 8%
HE 36 12%
HUMSS 96 32%
ICT 24 8%
SMAW 24 8%
STEM 36 12%
Total 288 96%
 In Table 1.1, the strands of the respondents are indicated. 24 out of 300 respondents

which are 8% of the population are ABM, 12 out of 300 respondents which are 4% of the

population are AUTOMOTIVE, 12 out of 300 respondents which are 4% of the population are

BEAUTY CARE, 24 out of 300 respondents which are 8% of the population are GAS, 36 out of

300 respondents which are 12% of the population are HE, 96 out of 300 respondents which are

32% of the population are HUMSS, 24 out of 300 respondents which are 8% of the population

are ICT, 24 out of 300 respondents which are 8% of the population are SMAW, and 36 out of 300

respondents which are 12% of the population are STEM. 96% percentage out of 100% of the

total population there’s a margin of error (4%). The table suggests that many of the respondents

are HUMSS.

Table 1.2

The overview of the respondents is categorized by their respective sections...

Section Frequency Percentage

ABM Schumpeter 12 4%
ABM Pacioli 12 4%
AUTOMOTIVE Volkswagen 12 4%
BEAUTY CARE Calayan 12 4%
GAS Faith 12 4%
GAS Hope 12 4%
HE Cayene 12 4%
HE Cumin 12 4%
HE Chives 12 4%
 HUMSS Abueva 12 4%
HUMSS Aquinas 12 4%
HUMSS Mandela 12 4%
HUMSS Agoncillo 12 4%
HUMSS Coelho 12 4%
HUMSS Atalia 12 4%
HUMSS Harris 12 4%
HUMSS Gandhi 12 4%
ICT Mark Zuckerberg 12 4%
ICT Steve Jobs 12 4%
STEM Einstein 12 4%
STEM Galileo 12 4%
STEM Newton 12 4%
SMAW Nickel 12 4%
SMAW Copper 12 4%
Total 288 96%

The table displays the distribution of respondents across different sections within each academic

strand, with each section consisting of 12 respondents out of a total of 300. Each section

represents 4% of the total population surveyed. Considering a margin of error of 4%, this

breakdown provides insight into the composition of each academic strand and its respective

sections within the surveyed population.

Table 1.3

The demographic distribution of the respondents is based on their sex.

Sex Frequency Percentage

Female 149 50%
Male 139 46%
Total 288 96 %
Table 1.3 presents the sex distribution of the respondents surveyed. Among the 300 respondents,

50% are female, totaling 149 individuals, while 46% are male, totaling 139 individuals. With a

margin of error of 4%, it is evident that a majority of the respondents identify as female. This

breakdown highlights the gender diversity within the surveyed population and underscores the

importance of considering gender representation in research analyses.

Table 1.4

The overview of the respondents was categorized by their previous class sizes.

Previous Class Size Frequency Percentage

25 below 14 4.7%
26-30 31 10.3%
31-35 28 9.3%
36-40 50 16.7%
41-45 52 17.3%
46-50 34 11.3%
51 above 79 26.3%
Total 288 96 %

Table 1.4 provides data on the previous class sizes of the respondents. Among the 300 surveyed

individuals, 4.7% had class sizes of 25 students or fewer, 10.3% had class sizes ranging from 26

to 30 students, 9.3% had class sizes between 31 and 35 students, 16.7% had class sizes ranging

from 36 to 40 students, 17.3% had class sizes between 41 and 45 students, 11.3% had class sizes

ranging from 46 to 50 students, and 26.3% had class sizes of 51 students or more. With a margin

of error of 4%, it is evident that a majority of the respondents experienced larger class sizes in

their previous educational settings.

 Table 1.5

The overview of the respondents categorized by their current class size.

Current Class Size Frequency Percentage

25 below 12 4%
26-30 84 28%
31-35 12 4%
36-40 84 28%
41-45 60 20%
46-50 0 0
51 above 36 12%
Total 288 96 %

Table 1.5 presents data on the current class sizes of the respondents. Among the 300 individuals

surveyed, 4% have class sizes of 25 students or fewer, 28% have class sizes ranging from 26 to

30 students, 4% have class sizes between 31 and 35 students, 28% have class sizes ranging from

36 to 40 students, 20% have class sizes between 41 and 45 students, and 12% have class sizes of

51 students or more. With a margin of error of 4%, it indicates that a majority of the respondents

experience both small and large class sizes in their current educational environments.

Table 1.6

The overview of the respondents was categorized by their previous academic performance.

Previous Academic Frequency Percentage

Performance
75-79 5 2%
80-84 40 13%
85-89 109 36%
90-94 114 38%
 95-99 20 7%
Total 288 96 %

Table 1.6 displays the previous academic performance of the respondents. Among the 300

individuals surveyed, 2% scored between 75-79, 13% scored between 80-84, 36% scored

between 85-89, 36% scored between 90-94, and 7% scored between 95-99. With a margin of

error of 4%, it suggests that the majority of the respondents achieved academic success or

received honors in their previous academic performance.

\Table 1.7

The overview of the respondents is categorized by their current academic performance.

Current Academic Frequency Percentage

Performance
75-79 4 1%
80-84 50 17%
85-89 113 38%
90-94 97 32%
95-99 24 8%
Total 288 96 %

Table 1.7 illustrates the current academic performance of the respondents. Among the 300

individuals surveyed, 1% scored between 75-79, 17% scored between 80-84, 38% scored

between 85-89, 32% scored between 90-94, and 7% scored between 95-99. With a margin of

error of 4%, it indicates that a significant portion of the respondents are classified as average

students in terms of their current academic performance.

Table 2. Impact of Smaller class size on students learning and social behaviors in terms of:

I. Attentiveness Mean Verbal

Ratin Interpretation
g
1. I am generally attentive during class. 3.22 Agree
2. I actively listen to the teacher and focus on the lesson. 3.28 Strongly Agree
3. I find it easy to stay engaged and avoid distractions during 2.97 Agree
class.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.15 Agree

Table 2 presents the mean rating and verbal interpretation of attentiveness for each scenario “I

actively listen to the teacher and focus on the lesson.” Had the highest mean rating of 3.28

interpreted as strongly agree followed by “I am generally attentive during class.” 3.22 interpreted

as agree last is “I find it easy to stay engaged and avoid distractions during class.” 2.97

interpreted as agree.

Table 2.1

II. Involvement Mean Verbal

Ratin Interpretation
g
1. I actively participate in class discussions. 3.05 Agree
2. I contribute my ideas and opinions during group activities. 3.21 Agree
3. I am willing to ask question and seek clarification during 3.07 Agree
class.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.11 Agree
Table 2.1 the mean rating and corresponding verbal interpretation regarding involvement for

different scenarios. The scenario “I contribute my ideas and opinions during group activities”

received the highest mean rating of 3.21, indicating agreement. Following this, “I am willing to

ask questions and seek clarification during class” received a mean rating of 3.07, also interpreted

as agreement. Lastly, “I actively participate in class discussions” garnered a mean rating of 3.05,

also interpreted as agreement. The overall mean rating for involvement across all scenarios is

3.11, indicating agreement.

Table 2.2
III. Class Participation Mean Verbal
Ratin Interpretation
g
1. I am comfortable presenting in front of the class when 2.88 Agree
required.
2. I actively engage in class presentations and showcase my 3.04 Agree
work.
3. I am confident in expressing my opinions and asking 2.97 Agree
questions during class.
Overall Weighted Mean 2.96 Agree

Table 2.2 outlines the average rating and corresponding verbal interpretation regarding class

participation across different scenarios. The scenario “I actively engage in class presentations

and showcase my work” received the highest mean rating of 3.04, interpreted as agreement.

Following this, “I am confident in expressing my opinions and asking questions during class”

received a mean rating of 2.97, also interpreted as agreement. Lastly, “I am comfortable

presenting in front of the class when required” obtained a mean rating of 2.88, also interpreted as

agreement.
 Table 2.3

IV. Interaction with classmates Mean Verbal

Ratin Interpretation
g
1. I collaborate well with my classmates during group 3.10 Agree
projects and activities.
2. I actively engage in discussions and conversations with 3.17 Agree
my classmates.
3. I enjoy working with my classmates and value their 2.99 Agree
input and contributions.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.08 Agree

The table 2.3 illustrated the mean rating and verbal interpretation of interaction with classmates

for each hypothetical “I actively engage in discussions and conversations with my classmates.”

Had the highest mean rating 3.17 interpreted as agree followed by “I collaborate well with my

classmates during group projects and activities.” 3.10 interpreted as agree and the last is “I enjoy

working with my classmates and value their input and contributions.” 2.99 interested as agree.

V. Perceived Teacher Encouragement Mean Verbal

Ratin Interpretation
g
1. I feel that my teachers provide me with sufficient 3.27 Strongly Agree
encouragement support.
2. The encouragement I received from my teachers motivates 3.25 Agree
me to perform better academically.
3. When I make mistakes, my teachers offer constructive 3.17 Agree
feedback and encouragement to help me improve.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.23 Agree
Table 2.4
Table 2.4 presents the mean rating and verbal interpretation regarding perceived teacher

encouragement for each statement. The statement “I believe that my teachers offer me enough

encouragement and support” received the highest mean rating of 3.27, interpreted as strongly

agree. Following closely is “The encouragement provided by my teachers motivates me to excel

academically,” with a mean rating of 3.25, interpreted as agree. Lastly, “When I make errors, my

teachers provide constructive feedback and encouragement to aid my improvement,” received a

mean rating of 3.17, also interpreted as agree.

Table 2.5
VI. Perceived Teacher Supportiveness Mean Verbal
Ratin Interpretation
g
1. I feel that my teacher is approachable and open to helping me 3.18 Agree
when needed.
2. I fell comfortable seeking assistance from my teacher when 3.04 Agree
facing challenges in the subject.
3. I believe my teacher genuinely cares about my academic 3.17 Agree
success.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.13 Agree

Table 2.5 provides the mean rating and verbal interpretation for each statement concerning

perceived teacher supportiveness. The statement “I perceive my teacher as approachable and

willing to assist me when required” attained the highest mean rating of 3.18, interpreted as agree.

Following this, “I am convinced that my teacher truly cares about my academic progress”

received the second-highest mean rating of 3.17, also interpreted as agree. Lastly, “I feel at ease

seeking help from my teacher when encountering challenges in the subject” garnered a mean

rating of 3.04, interpreted as agree. The overall weighted mean is 3.13, indicating agreement

among respondents regarding their perceptions of teacher supportiveness.