Table 1. Frequency and percentages of the Respondents in terms of gender.

Gender Frequency Percent

Female 19 47.5
Male 16 40

Prefer not to
5 12.5
say

Total 40 100

The frequency table shows that out of 40 respondents, 19 were males, and that is 47.5%.
There are 16 females comprising 40%, and 5 prefer not to say which is 12.5%. Table shows
that the respondents have gathered randomly but giving equal opportunity for both and
other genders to participate the studies which addressed the potential biases, this ensures
that the results accurately represent the diverse perspectives within the target population.

Table 2. Frequency and percentages of the Respondents in terms of field of study.

Frequencies for Program

Program Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
BS
13 32.5 32.5 32.5
Accountancy
BS
Entrepreneurs 21 52.5 52.5 85
hip

BS Industrial
3 7.5 7.5 92.5
Engineering

BS in
Information 1 2.5 2.5 95
Technology

BS Electronics
2 5 5 100
Engineering

Missing 0 0
Total 40 100
 The Table shows that 13 respondents are from BS Accountancy which accumulates 32.5%
of the total respondents. 21 respondents are from BS Entrepreneurship which accumulates
the highest percentage of 52.5% of total respondents. The remaining respondents [Link] and
2 are from BS Industrial Engineering: BS IT: and BS Electronics Engineering, which
accumulates 7.5%:2.5%:5% respectively. This broad participation across numerous fields
of study will likely to indicate a shared or widespread perspective among their experience
and perception in engaging in educational activities. This can enhance the generalization
and enhance the objectivity and relevance because the participants represent various fields
of study.

Table 3. Frequency and percentages of the Respondents in terms of grade level.

Frequencies for Year Level

Cumulative
Year Level Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent

1 11 27.5 27.5 27.5

2 8 20 20 47.5
3 20 50 50 97.5

4 1 2.5 2.5 100

Missing 0 0
Total 40 100

The frequency table shows that the output of 40 respondents, 1 were Senior, and that is
2.5%. While there were 20 responses from junior or equivalent to 50%. Whereas, there
were 8 sophomore comprising of 20%. And lastly 11 freshmen which comprise of 27.5%
This table shows that each year level has been part of the survey to ensure that the
perspective about the student’s engagement in educational activities are not isolated to
only one or two grade levels, this diversity in grade levels allows a more comprehensive
understanding of how perceptions or experiences may vary throughout the course of a
student’s academic journey. It also adds depths to the significant matter by considering
the perspectives of students at different points in their grade level progression
Table 4. Frequency and percentages of the Respondents in terms of hours spent on studying.

Frequencies for How many hours per week do you spend on your studies (including attending classes,
homework, and studying)
How many hours
per week do you
spend on your
Cumulative
studies (including Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
attending classes,
homework, and
studying)
10--19 2 5 5 5
20-29 27 67.5 67.5 72.5
30-39 8 20 20 92.5
Less
than 10 3 7.5 7.5 100
hours
Missing 0 0
Total 40 100

The table shows the frequency of hours spend on studying of a student. The hours spent
on studying has been divided into five groups as mentioned in the above table, which
shows that almost 27 or equivalent to 67.5% of the participants spent 20-29 hours of study
followed by 8 or 20% who spent 30-39 hours on studying. On the other hand, there are
only 3 respondents or equivalent to 7.5% of the total participants who spent less than 10
hours on studying. And lastly is only 2 which equivalent to 5% spent 10-19 hours on
studying. This provides that majority of the students gets the quality of their study session
on 20-29 hours of study per week, which likely denotes that students perceive the quality
of their study time as efficient for them. It may also indicate effective and focused habits
or that the home works or activities are designed in a way that facilitates understanding
with a relatively lower time commitment. It also constitutes many indicatives such ash,
individual learning style, professors allotted time on discussion per week and the number
of units.
Table 5. Skewness, std. error of skewness, kurtosis, std. error of kurtosis, Shapiro-wilk and P-
value of Shapiro- wilk of the respondent’s engagement.
Descriptive Statistics
Age Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Average(Q1-Q5)
Skewness -0.018 0.306 0.112 0.205 0 0.654 0.213
Std. Error of Skewness 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374
z-score skewness -0.04813 0.81818182 0.29946524 0.54812834 0 1.7486631 0.569518717 +-1.96
Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
Kurtosis -0.751 -0.643 -0.897 -0.02 -2.108 -1.658 -0.269
Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
z-score kurtosis -1.02877 -0.8808219 -1.2287671 -0.0273973 -2.88767123 -2.27123288 -0.368493151
Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
Shapiro-Wilk 0.857 0.678 0.695 0.7 0.637 0.604 0.912
P-value of Shapiro-Wilk 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004
Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal

The table displays information on skewness, kurtosis, their relative standard error, z-
scores, Shapiro-Wilk statistic, and corresponding P-values. In terms of skewness, the
majority of the data falls within the range of -1 to +1, indicating an excellent distribution.
Additionally, the z-scores for both skewness and kurtosis, presented in the table, are
below 1.96, suggesting a normal distribution pattern in the responses (George & Mallery,
2019). This implies that the participants' responses are centered around the mean,
reflecting approximately symmetrical data.
Moreover, most of the P-values for Shapiro-Wilk are below the 0.05 significance level,
except for the average column. This implies that the data does not follow a normal
distribution, as the null hypothesis was rejected due to the P-value being less than the
significance level. Despite this, a significant portion of the data in the table indicates a
normal distribution, signifying that the data has been predominantly distributed in a
normal fashion.

Table 6. Means and standard deviations of the respondents’ engagement

Mean Std. Deviation

Question 1 3.3 0.516

Question 2 3.35 0.533
Question 3 3.225 0.53
Question 4 3.4 0.63
Question 5 3.5 0.506
Average 3.345 0.359
The table shows the means and standard deviations of the respondent’s engagement, this
shows that on the question number 1 “I feel actively involved in class”, the average
response are agree comprising of 3.3 mean average with a small standard deviation
equivalent to 0.516 indicating that the data are relatively close to the mean, which
denotes that the data points are consistent and stable. This figure indicates that students
mostly participate in class activities which corresponds to a more relevant experience
when studying, this denotes a level of interest and participation that can contribute to a
positive and enriching academic settings. This also signifies that student are likely to be
more invested in their learnings and may benefit from a heightened sense of motivation
and connection with the discussions and/or activities. On the question number 2 “I find
the content of my courses engaging and relevant”, the average response is agreed or
equivalent to 3.35 mean average having a 0.533 standard deviation which implies a more
clustered data around the mean. The figure above implies the fact that the courses they
are pursuing right now was helpful in their way to future success this perception provides
that the course was interesting to students and applicable to their learning goal. It may
also signify that the curriculum was well designed, capturing the student’s attention
resulting to their engagement and demonstrating a practical relevance to their studies.
With regards to question number 3 “I actively participate in classroom discussions and
activities which got an average agreed response or equivalent to 3.225 its related standard
deviation has a small values indicating a less spread or dispersion of data resulting to a
consistent and stable measurement in a certain level, this indicates willingness to engage
on the discussions and activities provided by their instructors, this positive behavior
demonstrates an eagerness to learn and collaborate with other fellow students in the
academic settings. Furthermore, in the question number 4 “I seek help or clarification
when I have questions or concerns about my homework”, got an average agreed response
or equivalent to 3.4 mean average and its related standard deviation falls on 0.63
indicating that the data points are clustered around the average. This indicates that
student is proactive and responsible in terms of dealing with their studies, it implies that
students are willing to ask for assistance when needed, asserting a commitment to
understand the discussions and/or activities to address the challenges that they
encounter or may encounter in their coursework. This positive response reflects a strong
learning mindset. And lastly for question number 5 “I am motivated to excel academically
and put in the effort required to succeed”. Which got an average agreed response or
equivalent to 3.5 mean average with a low value of standard deviation of 0.506 indicating
also a consistent and high level of precision on the data. The data provided indicates a
positive attitude towards academic achievements which helps the students create a
strong internal drive to perform well on their studies and a willingness to invest the
necessary effort to success. This also implies a proactive approach or motivation in
learning, setting goals and taking necessary steps to achieve academic excellence.
Table 7. Means and standard deviations of the respondents in terms of gender

Std.
Mean Deviation
Female 19.632 1.257

Male 20.063 1.34

Prefer not to
say 20.6 0.548
Total 60.295 3.145

The output shows the descriptive statistics of males and females in the
engagement scale. The mean age of the 16 males is 20.063 years old with a standard
deviation of 1.34 years old indicating that the data are consistent due to its data points
are clustered around the average. Similarly, the mean age of the 19 females is 19.632 years
old with a standard deviation of 0.257 years old indicating a consistent and precise data
distribution, On the other hand the mean age of those who prefer not to say their age was
20.6 years old, with a standard deviation of 0.548 because the participant in this category
is just 5 respondents.