The Impact of Classroom Technology Towards Academic Performance on

Selected Senior High School Students of Malayan Colleges Laguna S.Y. 2017-

2018

Amson, Jared
Dave, Kyle
Librea, Gabriel
Marticio, Jeremias

Submitted to: Cristina Abanilla

Date submitted: August 7, 2017

In partial fulfillment of the requirements required in MATH02

 Chapter 3

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

This chapter illustrates the assessment, analysis and interpretation of the data obtained

with regards to the impact of classroom technologies towards the academic

performance of the respondents. Survey questionnaires are used as a medium to

gather the necessary data and information from the chosen sample and the

questionnaires contains 5 questions specifically made to attain a better understanding

and determine the Impacts of Classroom Technology Towards Academic Performance

in SHS students of Malayan Colleges Laguna.

The following presentations are the summary of responses to the questions under

“Participant’s Profile” of the questionnaires.

Presentation 1.1 Participants Profile

Participants Profile

STEM Students morning class STEM Students afternoon class

28 52

Total Number of Participants = 80

*Table 1.1 presents the total number of participants

Presentation 1.2 Grades of participants

These presents the grades distribution of the chosen respondents with the computed
mean to identify the academic performance of the participants.

Classes Frequency Class Boundaries Cm(Xm) f(Xm)

82.61-82.95 2 82.5-83.5 82.78 165.56

83.95-84.29 16 83.5-84.5 84.12 1345.92
85.29-85.63 22 84.5-86.5 85.46 1880.12
86.63-86.97 10 86.5-87.5 86.8 868
87.97-88.31 10 87.5-88.5 88.14 881.4
89.31-89.65 3 88.5-90.5 89.48 268.44
90.65-90.99 9 90.5-91.5 90.82 817.35
91.99-92.33 0 91.5-92.5 92.16 0
93.33-93.67 6 92.5-94.5 93.5 561
94.67-95.01 2 94.5-95.5 94.84 189.68

Range: R = HV (Highest Value) – LV (Lowest Value)

Number of Classes: K= √N
R
Class Size: C =
K

Mean:
∑ f ∗Cm( Xm¿ f∗Cm) ¿
N
Sol’n
Range= 94.70-82.61 =12.09
K= √80= 9
12.09
C= = 1.34
9

Mean =
∑ f ∗Cm( Xm¿ f∗Cm) ¿ = 6977.5 = 87.21875 or 87.22
N 80

Presentation 1.3 Histogram

This presentation helps the readers to visualize the data given by the School’s Prefect

Histogram
25
22

20

16
15
Frequency

10 10
10 9

6
5
3
2 2
0
0
82.5-83.5 83.5-84.5 84.5-86.5 86.5-87.5 87.5-88.5 88.5-90.5 90.5-91.5 91.5-92.5 92.5-94.5 94.5-95.5
Class Boundaries

Frequency2

Based on the histogram, the most frequent GWA of the STEM students (participants)

ranges 84.5-86.5 while two consecutive sequential intervals have the same frequency

86.5-87.5 & 87.5-88.5. In addition, the data can be describe as skewed to the right

because most of the GWAs of the respondents were located on the left region of the

Histogram. To analyze, skewed data represents abnormality in a certain graph. It

implies that most of the data are relatively below average. However, there are still

figures of good numbers on the right part of the graph that had a GWA 87.22 and

above.

Presentation 1.4 Classroom Technology Association in Academic Performance

 Does classroom technology improve your academic
performance?
No
4%

Yes
96%

*Table 1.2 presents the distribution of responses to the first survey question under

‘Participant’s Profile’ of the questionnaire.

The majority number of the respondents, both in the STEM students’ morning and

afternoon class believes that classroom technology improves their academic

performance. The first question under participant’s profile will inquire if the respondent

believes if classroom technology improves their academic performance or not. When

asked if the respondent believes that, out of 80 number of participants in the STEM

77 3
students’ morning and afternoon class, or 96% answered yes while or 4%
80 80

answered no.
Presentation 1.5 To what extent?

This shows how the classroom technology helps the 96% of the respondents towards

their academic performance in specific categories.

From 96% respondents who answered Yes

74
80
70 58
56
60
50
40 32

30
20
10 2

0
Search Engine Visual Interactive Alternative Others
Presentation Learning (Smart Dictionary (Entertainment)
TVs)

From 96% respondents who answered Yes

*Presentation 1.5 presents the distribution of responses to the first survey question

under ‘Participant’s Profile’ of the questionnaire

Regardless of being in either batch, there are more who answered visual presentation

than the rest. The respondents of this study are the 96% who answered yes in the first

survey question. When asked to what extent do the respondents use the classroom

technology, out of the 96% in the STEM students’ morning and afternoon class, 56

answered “search engine”, 74 answered “visual presentation”, 58 answered “interactive

learning (smart TVs)”, 32 answered (alternative dictionary), and 2 answered “others

(entertainment)”. Based on the results, visual presentation really helps the millennial

learners on their academic performance. Followed by interactive learning and search

engine with relative differences. The researchers found out that 2 of the respondents
answered “others” for entertainment which means some of the students enjoy learning

through classroom technology.

Presentation 1.7 Scatter plot

This shows and determine if the academic performance is correlated to classroom

technology.

Correlation between grades and rate of scale

96
94
92
90
88
Grades

86
84
82
80
78
76
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Rate of Scale

*Presentation 1.6 presents the correlation of responses to the second survey question.
The following legend denotes the rate of scale or the level of responses.

LEGEND:
0- WHO DID NOT ANSWER
5- WHO ANSWERED PROBABLY NOT
10- WHO ANSWERED POSSIBLY
15- WHO ANSWERED PROBABLY
20- WHO ANSWERED DEEFINITELY

The respondents determine if there are significant changes between classroom

technology and traditional education. This would identify if there are evident
improvement that makes them studies easier or vice versa. Furthermore, the level of

their responses was correlated to their grades. According to the graph, it somehow

shows a positive correlation because some of the dots can be connected by drawing a

line upward, diagonally. Therefore, the researchers conclude that in some instances, as

the rate of scale increases, the academic performance improves. Meaning, if a person

utilized the use or edge of technology, it somehow develops the academic performance

of a student.

Presentation 1.8 Taking notes inside the class

DO you still Take notes inside the class?

No
21%

Yes
79%

*Presentation 1.8 presents the distribution of responses to the third survey question.

This aims to figure out if the students still take notes in class despite of having Power

point presentation.
It implies that in the presence of the power point presentations, majority of the class is

not being too dependent on the classroom technology. With the third survey question,

we can analyze whether the respondents still take notes inside the class. Based on the

interpretation, 79% of the class still take notes in class while 21% of the total

respondents are being dependent on the power point presentations provided by the

professors.

Presentation 1.9

Correlation of Power Point Presentation towards Academic Performance

Correlation of Rate of Scale of Powerpoint Presentaions towards

Academic Performance
96
94
92
90
Grades (GWA)

88
86
84
82
80
78
76
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Rate of Scale

*The last graph presents the correlation of responses to the fourth survey question.

LEGEND:
0- WHO DID NOT ANSWER
5- WHO ANSWERED PROBABLY NOT
10- WHO ANSWERED POSSIBLY
15- WHO ANSWERED PROBABLY
 20- WHO ANSWERED DEEFINITELY

The respondents would like to ascertain if power point presentation is helpful and if it

affects the academic performance of the students. According to the data, Power point

presentation can either be positively or negatively correlated to one another. The

researchers saw vast numbers of answered “definitely” but had a grade of below

average. To analyze, most of the respondents find Power point presentations helpful.

However, some might also be being dependent on PPT and not taking notes during the

class (Based on table 1.8 21% of the class are not taking notes). This affects the graph

presented above that resulted in having a negative correlation. On the other hand, the

graph also implies a positive correlation between the two variables. Thus, the

researchers concluded that Power point presentation somehow improves the academic

performance of the student.