# 1

CHAPTER III ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION OF DATA, AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

This chapter presents the data gathered through the research instrument. These data are analyzed and statistically treated in order to derive interpretations and inferences. The data are presented in accordance with the statement of the specific problem. Problem 1. What is the profile of the student respondents in terms o f gender, age, parent’s occupation, educational

attainment of parents, parent’s monthly income, ownership of and access to computer and number of hours of computer use? Table 3 Distribution of Respondents in Terms of Gender
Gender Male Female Total First Year 50 88 138 Second Year 34 30 64 Third Year 6 19 25 Total 90 137 227 % 40% 60% 100 % Ran k 2 1

2

Figure 2 Distribution of Respondents in Terms of Gender

Figure 2 shows the distribution of student respondents in terms of gender. It can be seen from this figure that 60% of the respondents are female with a frequency of 137. On the other hand, 40% of the respondents are male with a frequency of 90. It appears therefore that there are more female respondents than the male respondents. Table 4 Distribution of Respondents in Terms of Age
Age 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 First Year 28 63 29 9 5 5 1 0 0 Second Year 0 9 37 9 3 0 1 1 0 Third Year 0 0 4 16 2 1 1 0 0 Total 28 72 70 34 10 6 3 1 0 % 12% 32% 31% 15% 4% 3% 1% 0% 0% Ran k 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10

3
25 26 and above Total 1 0 141 0 0 60 1 0 25 2 0 226 1% 0 100 % 8 10

Figure 3 Distribution of Respondents in Terms of Age

Figure 3 presents the frequency of the respondents’ profile in terms of age. The figure shows that 32% of the respondents are aged 17 years old with a frequency of 72. Next in rank with a percentage of 31% were respondents whose ages were 18 years old. Students ages 22 and 25 years old both have a percentage of 1%. The data reveals that majority of the students are between ages 17 and 18 years old and no students are ages 24 and 26 years old among the student respondents.

4

Table 5 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Parent’s Educational Attainment
Education Year Level Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father First Year 5 5 40 37 11 9 35 36 43 47 6 3 0 3 Second Year 6 2 15 11 5 10 13 10 18 19 3 2 1 4 Third Year 1 0 7 4 1 1 4 7 10 11 0 0 2 2 Total 12 7 62 52 17 20 52 53 71 77 9 5 3 9 % 5% 3% 27% 23% 7% 9% 23% 23% 31% 34% 4% 2% 1% 4% Rank 9 12 3 5 8 7 5 4 2 1 10 13 14 10

High School

Vocational / Tech

College Level

5

Figure 4 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Parent’s Educational Attainment

From table Figure 4, it can be seen that the educational attainment of the student respondents’ parents are college graduate with a mean percentage of 31% (mother) and 34% (father), respectively. Next in rank were students whose mothers were high school graduate (27%). Students whom both parents were college level and whose father is a high school graduate have similar percentage of 23% and ranked third. The data shows that majority of the students’ parents are college graduate.

6

Table 6 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Parent’s Occupation
Year Level Mother Skilled/Factory Worker Father Mother Self-Employed Father Mother Office Employee Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother OFW Father Mother Not presently Employed Father 21 12 3 36 21 26 21 4 3 10 29 61 15 6 5 6 4 3 7 21 2 6 7 4 2 3 3 6 38 38 33 14 9 16 39 88 29 14 10 12 5 4 44 30 First Year 4 13 22 Second Year 3 6 10 Third Year 0 3 2 Ran k 15 11 8 2 10 4 4 9 13 14 12 3 1 7

Occupation

Total 7 22 34

% 3% 10 % 15 % 19 % 13 % 17 % 17 % 15 % 6% 4% 7% 17 % 39 % 16 %

Professional

7

Figure 5 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Parent’s Occupation

Figure 5 shows that 39% of student respondents’ mothers are not presently employed and 19% of their fathers are self-employed. Next in rank were students whose father is an office employee and an Overseas Filipino Worker and whose mother is a businesswoman and represents 17% of the respondents. Students whose mothers are skilled worker ranked last and have a percentage of 3%. The data shows that majority of

8

the students’ mother are not presently employed and their father is selfemployed.

Table 7 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Family’s Monthly Income
Income 5,001 – 10,000 10,001 – 15,000 15,001 – 20,000 20,001 – 25,000 25,001 – 30,000 Above 30,000 Total First Year 32 25 28 24 12 20 141 Second Year 17 10 11 8 4 11 61 Third Year 2 6 2 6 5 4 25 Total 51 41 41 38 21 35 227 % 22% 18% 18% 17% 9% 15% 100 % Ran k 1 2 2 4 6 5

Figure 6 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Family’s Monthly Income

9

Figure 6 shows the distribution of the respondents’ profile in terms of family’s monthly income. Based on this figure, 22% of student respondents’ family income ranges from 5,001-10,000. Next in rank were third year students whose family income ranges from 10,001-15,000 (18%) and 15,001-20,000 (18%). It reveals that 3% of the respondents whom mothers are skilled worker ranked the last. Table 8 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Ownership of Computer
Ownership of Computer Device Desktop Laptop Doesnt Own and Doesnt Use Netbook iPad / Tablet PC Desktop Laptop Doesn't Own but is Using Netbook iPad / Tablet PC Desktop Own and Using Laptop Netbook iPad / Tablet PC First Year 4 23 80 88 39 70 52 43 98 48 9 10 Second Year 4 5 33 45 17 29 19 13 40 27 9 3 Third Year 2 3 15 20 4 11 7 3 19 11 3 2 Total 10 31 128 153 60 110 78 59 157 86 21 15 % 4% 14 % 56 % 67 % 26 % 48 % 34 % 26 % 69 % 38 % 9% 7% Rank 12 9 3 2 7 4 6 8 1 5 10 11

Figure 7 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Ownership of Computer

10

Figure 7 presents the distribution of the respondents’ profile in terms of ownership of computer. With regards to ownership of computer, the figure above reveals that 69% of student respondents’ owns and uses a desktop computer and 38% of the students owns and uses a laptop. It appears that only 9% and 7% of the respondents owns and uses a netbook and iPad/Tablet PC, respectively. On the other hand, the data above shows that 48% of students doesn’t own a laptop but uses it. It also reveals that 34% of the student respondents doesn’t own but uses a netbook. On the other hand, 26% of students doesn’t own a desktop and iPad/Tablet PC but still uses it. Furthermore, it shows that 67% of students don’t own and neither uses an iPad / Tablet PC and 56% of these students doesn’t own and doesn’t use a netbook. Laptop and desktop computer ranks third and fourth respectively with a mean percentage of 14% and 4% respectively. The data above shows that majority of the student respondents’ owns and uses a desktop computer. It shows that most of them doesn’t

11

own a laptop but still uses it. Of the four types of computer devices, it is the iPad / Tablet PC which is rarely owned and rarely used by the respondents.

Table 9 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Hours Spent Using a Computer
Hours Spent 1-3 hours 4-7 hours 8-12 hours 12-18 hours > 18 hours Total First Year 59 47 31 2 2 141 Second Year 14 33 8 3 3 61 Third Year 9 11 4 0 1 25 Total 82 91 43 5 6 227 % 36% 40% 19% 2% 3% 100 % Rank 2 1 3 5 4

Figure 8 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Hours Spent Using a Computer

12

From Figure 8, it can be seen that 40% of the student respondents uses computer for 4-7 hours everyday. There are 36% of students who uses computer for 1-3 hours. 19% of the student respondent uses computers for 8-12 hours. The figure reveals that there are 3% and 2% of students who uses computers for more than 18 hours and 12-18 hours every day, respectively. Based on the data from figure 8, majority of the students use computers everyday for 4 to 7 hours. This shows that students have a high level of exposure to computers everyday. This may include using computers at home, at school and at a public place like a computer shop or internet cafe. Problem 2. What is the level of student’s academic performance? Figure 9 Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of General Weighted Average for the

13

1st Semester of SY 2010-2011

A look at Figure 9 shows the distribution of the respondents’ in terms of their general weighted average during the first semester of the current school year. It can be seen from the data that 34.36% of the student respondents have an average of 2.25 - 2.49; 21.15% have an average of 2.00 - 2.24; and 15.42% have an average of 2.50 - 2.74. Furthermore, it shows that 5.29% of the students have a failing grade of 3.01 - 5.00 and majority of these are from the first year level. The academic performance of the students was measured by the general weighted average of students in all of their subjects during the first semester of SY 2010-2011. These are presented in the table and frequency distribution that follows: Table 10 Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of the Respondents

14

in Terms of General Weighted Average

GEN. AVG. 1.00-1.24 1.25-1.49 1.50-1.74 1.75-1.99 2.00-2.24 2.25-2.49 2.50-2.74 2.75-2.99 3.00 3.01-5.00 TOTAL

1st 0 1 1 12 31 46 24 14 1 11 141

2nd 1 1 6 6 13 25 5 3 0 1 61

3rd 0 0 0 2 4 7 6 6 0 0 25

TOTAL 1 2 7 20 48 78 35 23 1 12 227

% 0.4% 0.9% 3.1% 8.8% 21.1% 34.4% 15.4% 10.1% 0.4% 5.3% 100%

INTERPRETATIO N Excellent Very Good Very Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Fair Passed Failed

Table 10 reveals that most of the students (64.32%) have a grade of Satisfactory; 25.55% Fair; 3.96% Very Good; 0.44% Excellent; 0.44% Passed and 5.29% Failed. Among the three year levels, the first year level have the most number of students with a general weighted average of Failed. On the other hand, most of the students who have Excellent and Very Good grades are from the second year level. Figure 10 Frequency Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of General Weighted Average for the 1st Semester of SY 2010-2011

15

It is shown in Figure 10 that all data describing grades are at the normal curve. This means that in all year levels there was almost an equal number of students above and below the mean average grade of 2.25 – 2.49. The first year having the largest coefficient of 17.48% has the greatest spread of grades relative to the mean as compared to second year and third year whose coefficient of variation are 9.25% and 3.11% respectively. In the overall analysis, the grades of the students in all year level are within the average level range of 2.25 – 2.49 with means close to each other. The coefficient of variation 28.93 indicates how close or how far from the mean is the preponderance of grades.

Problem 3. What is the level of exposure of the student respondents to computer and its applications?

16

The level of exposure of students was ascertained through the survey of their level of computer use according to purpose and according to software use, the results of which are shown in Figures 11 and 12 (see next page).

Table 11 Mean Percentage and Rank Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Computer Use According to Purpose
Computer Use According To Purpose a. Classroom activities and studying using a computer. b. Using a library resource to complete an assignment. c. Surfing the Internet for information to support your lessons. d. Writing documents and reports for your subject. e. Creating, reading, sending e-mail. f. Creating, reading, sending instant messages through chats. g. Surfing the Internet for pleasure such as using social networking. h. Downloading or listening to music or videos / DVDs. i. j. k. Writing documents or blogs for pleasure. Playing computer games. Computer maintenance and troubleshooting. % 37.00% 48.02% 48.02% 33.92% 33.48% 47.14% 59.03% 54.19% 37.00% 40.09% 33.04% Mean 3.88 3.08 4.22 3.93 3.88 4.11 4.29 4.22 2.80 3.84 2.82 3.73 0.54 Interpretati on Often Sometimes Always Always Always Always Always Always Sometimes Always Sometimes Often Ran k 7 3 3 9 10 5 1 2 7 6 11

Mean Standard Deviation

Table 12 Mean Percentage and Rank Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Computer Use According to Software

17

Computer Use According To Software a. c. Creating spreadsheets or charts using Excel. Creating graphics using Photoshop or Flash.

% 44.93% 40.97% 32.60% 31.72% 38.33% 35.68% 48.46%

Mean 3.00 3.22 3.00 2.93 2.79 3.59 3.93 3.21 0.38

Interpretati on Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Often Often Sometimes

Ran k 2 3 6 7 4 5 1

b. Creating presentations using PowerPoint. d. Creating and editing video / audio using MovieMaker. e. Creating Web pages using HTML or Dreamweaver. f. Computer operating systems (Windows XP or Windows Vista) g. Securing your electronic device (firewalls or antivirus software) Mean Standard Deviation

The mean percentages in Tables 11 and 12 were transmuted from scale ranging from 5 to 1. The highest score is 5 and the lowest score is 1. Based on the level of exposure of students according to purpose, the greatest frequency of 134 is in the use of computer for Social Networking. This group comprises 59.03% of the population of the respondents. The distribution yielded a mean of 3.73, with a standard deviation of 0.54. Based on the level of exposure of students according to software use, the greatest frequency of 110 is in the use of Antivirus applications on computers. This group comprises 48.46% of the population of the respondents. The distribution yielded a mean of 3.21, with a standard deviation of 0.38. To go deeper into the analysis of their exposure, the transmuted data were tabulated and were shown in the figure below. Figure 13 Mean Distribution of the Respondents Level of Exposure to Computer According to Purpose

18

Based on the frequency polygon above, the mean distribution of student response on the frequency of use of computers according to purpose is negatively skewed which means that the central tendency of the response is at left. So the value of the mean 3.73 is lower than the median 3.94 because extreme cases are found at the left end of the distribution.

Figure 14 Mean Distribution of the Respondents

19

Level of Exposure to Computer According to Software Use

Based on the frequency polygon in Figure 14, the mean distribution of student response on the frequency of use of computers according to software is positively skewed which means that the central tendency of the response is at right. So the value of the mean 3.21 is higher than the median 3.20 because extreme cases are found at the right end of the distribution. It may be concluded from these results that the students easily learn from online applications of computers but not much on skills that requires constant use of skills like PC troubleshooting that requires more advanced technical skills. In general, students have more inclination to computer which have the applications of the Internet, the multimedia and which involves information exchange as shown in the data from Table 4. Furthermore,

20

they are concerned in securing their digital files through the use of softwares that detects and blocks viruses and other types of spywares.

Problem 4. Is there a significant relationship between the student’s level of exposure to computers and their academic performance? In correlation analysis, the independent variable was the level of exposure to computer technology. The dependent variables were the grades of the students. By using Pearson’s product-moment method, the coefficient of correlation was obtained. Comparing the level of exposure to computers according to purpose and according to software use, the result of Pearson r is 0.998; which shows that there is a very high positive correlation between the level of exposure of student respondents in the use of computer for a specific purpose and the use of computer on particular software. Between the level of exposure and their academic performance, the result of Pearson r is 0.902; which shows that there is a very high positive correlation between the level of exposure of student in the use of computer and their academic performance.

21

Figure 15 Scatter Diagram of Students Level of Computer Use and their Academic Performance

The computed values of r which is 0.902 in the level of exposure of students and their academic performance are greater than the critical value of r at 5% level of significance. On this account, the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between the level of computer technology exposure and the academic performance of students is rejected. This implies significant correlation between the variables under consideration. The results suggest that in substantial degree, those who have relatively high exposure to computer technology have high academic performance. In the same vein, those who have lower exposure to computer technology have low academic performance.

22