CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This Chapter contains the data gathered by the Researchers which contains the profile of the
respondents in terms of Grade level and Sex.
The data gathered was presented in a tabular form.

Table 1. a Frequency table of respondents in terms of Grade level.

Grade level Frequency Percent

Junior high 40 57.1

Senior high 30 42.9
Total 70 100.0

Table 1. a Shows that 40 or 57.1% of the respondents are Junior high School, and 30 or 42.9% are
Senior high School to total 70 or 100%. This implies that there are more respondents from junior High
School.

Table 1.b Frequency table of respondents in terms of sex.

Sex Frequency Percent

Female 36 51.4
Male 34 48.6
Total 70 100

Table 1.b Shows that 36 or 51.4% of the respondents are female while 43 or 48.6% are male
respondents to total 70 or 100%. This implies that there are more female respondents.
Table 2. a Computed means of AI usage in terms of Grade level

Ave.
Mean
AI Usage Grade Level N mean
I use AI tools (e.g., Chat GPT, JHS 40 2.8500
Perplexity, Cici, and etc….) for
academic performance. SHS 30 3.0667
2.85
I always use AI for academic JHS 40 2.5000
performance.
SHS 30 2.5667
2.50
I am satisfied with the assistance JHS 40 2.7000
provided by AI tools for academic
performance. SHS 30 2.7333
2.70
AI tools improved my academic JHS 40 2.6250
performance.
SHS 30 2.8333
2.63

The table presents the computed means of AI usage for academic performance among Junior High
School (JHS) and Senior High School (SHS) students. The average mean across all AI usage statements
is relatively close between the two groups, with SHS students generally reporting slightly higher values.
For instance, the mean for "using AI tools for academic performance" is 2.85, with JHS students at 2.85
and SHS students at 3.07. Similarly, satisfaction with AI assistance is nearly equal, with JHS at 2.70 and
SHS at 2.73. Overall, the data suggests that both groups have similar AI usage patterns, with no drastic
differences in their perceptions of AI's impact on academic performance.

Table 2. a Computed means of Perceptions and Attitudes in terms of Grade level

Perceptions and Attitudes Ave.

Mean
Grade Level N mean
I feel positivity about using JHS 40 2.6500
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in SHS 30 2.7333
my studies. 2.65
I believe AI tools can enhance my JHS 40 2.6500
learning experience. SHS 30 2.7000 2.65
I am comfortable using AI tools JHS 40 2.6000
for academic performance. SHS 30 2.7000 2.60
AI plays a significant role in my JHS 40 2.4250
education in the future. SHS 30 2.5667 2.43
I recommend the use of AI tools JHS 40 2.5500
to my peers. SHS 30 2.9000 2.55
The table presents the computed means of perceptions and attitudes toward AI usage in academics across
Junior High School (JHS) and Senior High School (SHS) students. The results indicate that SHS students
generally have slightly higher mean scores across all perception and attitude statements, with the highest
mean (2.90) observed for SHS students recommending AI to their peers. Overall, both groups show
relatively similar attitudes toward AI, suggesting a moderate level of acceptance and perceived usefulness
of AI tools in education.

Table 2. a Computed means of Enhanced learning in terms of Grade level

Enhanced learning Mean Ave. mean

Grade Level N
I often use AI tools to help me JHS 40 2.7000
learn new topics. SHS 30 2.9333 2.70
AI tools help me understand JHS 40 2.7500
difficult concepts better. SHS 30 3.1333 2.75
I noticed improvement in my JHS 40 2.4500
grades since using AI for learning. SHS 30 2.8000 2.45
I feel more engaged in my studies JHS 40 2.3500
when using AI tools. SHS 30 2.7333 2.35

Table 2 presents the computed means of enhanced learning based on student responses, categorized by
grade level (Junior High School and Senior High School). The average mean scores for each statement
(C1-C4) indicate varying levels of agreement regarding the helpfulness and engagement provided by AI
tools in learning. These findings suggest a quantitative assessment of the impact of AI tools on student
learning experiences across different grade levels.

Table 2. a Computed means of Immediate feedback in terms of Grade level

Immediate Feedback
Mean Ave. mean
Grade Level N
AI tools quickly provide feedback JHS 40 2.77500
on my assignments. SHS 30 2.80000 2.78
Feedback from AI is very useful for JHS 40 2.6250
my learning. SHS 30 2.9667 2.63
I use the feedback from AI to JHS 40 2.5000
improve my work. SHS 30 3.1000 2.50
I feel confident about my work after JHS 40 2.3500
receiving AI feedback. SHS 30 2.8333 2.35
 Table 2. a Computed means of Access to resources in terms of Grade level

Access to resources Mean Ave. mean

Grade Level N
AI tools make it easier to find study JHS 40 2.9250
materials. SHS 30 2.7000 2.9250
I am satisfied with the quality of JHS 40 2.6250
resources provided by AI tools. SHS 30 2.6333 2.6250
I would recommend using AI tools JHS 40 2.6250
for educational resources to others. SHS 30 2.8333 2.6250

Table 2a presents the computed means of student responses regarding access to resources using AI tools,
separated by grade level (JHS and SHS). The average mean scores for statements E1-E3 indicate the
perceived ease of finding study materials, satisfaction with resource quality, and willingness to
recommend AI tools. These quantitative data provide insights into students' experiences and opinions on
using AI for accessing educational resources.

Table 2. b Computed means of AI usage in terms of Grade level

Levene's t-test
Test for for
Equality Equality Sig.
of of (2-
AI usage Variances Means df tailed)
I use AI tools (e.g., Chat Equal variances 4.232 0.044 -1.480 68 0.143
GPT, Perplexity, Cici, and assumed
etc….) for academic Equal variances not -1.532 67.81 0.130
performance. assumed 9
I always use AI for academic Equal variances 0.004 0.952 -0.406 68 0.686
performance assumed
Equal variances not -0.406 62.64 0.686
assumed 3
I am satisfied with the Equal variances 0.444 0.507 -0.231 68 0.818
assistance provided by AI assumed
tools for academic Equal variances not -0.227 58.00 0.821
performance. assumed 2
AI tools improved my Equal variances 1.128 0.292 -1.355 68 0.180
academic performance. assumed
Equal variances not -1.349 61.54 0.182
assumed 8
 The significance values (Sig. 2-tailed) for all AI usage variables are greater than 0.05, indicating no
statistically significant differences in AI usage across grade levels. Specifically, there are no significant
differences in AI usage frequency (A1: p = 0.143, A2: p = 0.686), satisfaction with AI assistance (A3: p
= 0.818), or perceived academic improvement (A4: p = 0.180). Since all p-values exceed the 0.05
threshold, this suggests that students from different grade levels use AI tools in similar ways and
perceive their benefits similarly. Therefore, grade level does not appear to significantly influence
students' AI usage patterns or perceived effectiveness.

Table 2. b Computed means of Perceptions and Attitudes in terms of Grade level

Perceptions and Attitudes Levene's t-test

Test for for df
Equality Equality Sig.
of of (2-
Variances Means tailed)
I feel positivity about using Equal variances 0.770 0.383 -0.594 68 0.555
Artificial Intelligence (AI) assumed
tools in my studies. Equal variances not -0.593 62.40 0.555
assumed 4
I believe AI tools can enhance Equal variances 0.457 0.501 -0.353 68 0.725
my learning experience. assumed
Equal variances not -0.343 55.14 0.733
assumed 9
I am comfortable using AI Equal variances 1.663 0.202 -0.671 68 0.505
tools for academic assumed
performance. Equal variances not -0.677 64.47 0.501
assumed 5
AI plays a significant role in Equal variances 3.824 0.055 -0.896 68 0.373
my education in the future. assumed
Equal variances not -0.854 49.78 0.397
assumed 5
I recommend the use of AI Equal variances 23.542 0.000 -2.933 68 0.005
tools to my peers. assumed
Equal variances not -3.066 67.96 0.003
assumed 1

The significance values (Sig. 2-tailed) for most perception and attitude variables are greater than 0.05,
indicating no statistically significant differences across grade levels. Specifically, there are no significant
differences in positivity toward AI (B1: p = 0.555), belief in AI’s learning benefits (B2: p = 0.725),
comfort in using AI (B3: p = 0.505), or AI’s future role in education (B4: p = 0.373). However, a
significant difference is observed in recommending AI tools to peers (B5: p = 0.005), suggesting that
students from different grade levels vary in their willingness to promote AI tools. This finding implies
that while students generally share similar attitudes toward AI, their likelihood of recommending it differs
based on grade level.
Table 2. b Computed means of Enhanced Learning in terms of Grade level

Enhanced Learning Levene's t-test

Test for for
Equality Equality Sig.
of of (2-
Variances Means df tailed)
I often use AI tools to help me Equal variances 3.666 0.060 -1.688 68 0.096
learn new topics. assumed
Equal variances not -1.680 61.45 0.098
assumed 1
AI tools help me understand Equal variances 6.139 0.016 -2.858 68 0.006
difficult concepts better. assumed
Equal variances not -3.010 67.57 0.024
assumed 8
I noticed improvement in my Equal variances 1.132 0.291 -2.313 68 0.024
grades since using AI for assumed *
learning. Equal variances not -2.277 58.74 0.026
assumed 2
I feel more engaged in my Equal variances 2.697 0.105 -2.432 68 0.018
studies when using AI tools. assumed *
Equal variances not -2.305 48.26 0.025
assumed 8

The significance values (Sig. 2-tailed) indicate that three variables show statistically significant
differences across grade levels, as their p-values are below 0.05. Specifically, students from different
grade levels have significantly different perceptions of AI helping them understand difficult concepts
(C2: p = 0.006), noticing grade improvement since using AI (C3: p = 0.024), and feeling more engaged
in studies when using AI tools (C4: p = 0.018). However, the frequency of using AI tools to learn new
topics (C1: p = 0.096) is not significantly different across grade levels. These results suggest that while
students across grade levels use AI similarly, their experiences with AI’s effectiveness in learning and
engagement vary.
 Table 2. b Computed means of Immediate Feedback in terms of Grade level

Immediate Feedback Levene's t-test

Test for for
Equality Equality Sig.
of of (2-
Variances Means df tailed)
AI tools quickly provide Equal variances 0.916 0.342 -0.175 68 0.862
feedback on my assignments. assumed
Equal variances not -0.178 65.97 0.859
assumed 7
Feedback from AI is very Equal variances 6.887 0.011 -2.273 68 0.026
useful for my learning. assumed *
Equal variances not -2.333 67.19 0.023
assumed 5
I use the feedback from AI to Equal variances 22.994 0.000 -4.737 68 0.000
improve my work. assumed
Equal variances not -5.004 67.29 0.000
assumed 3
I feel confident about my Equal variances 0.098 0.755 -2.951 68 0.004
work after receiving AI assumed
feedback. Equal variances not -2.875 55.81 0.006
assumed 9

The significance values (Sig. 2-tailed) indicate that three variables show statistically significant
differences across grade levels, as their p-values are below 0.05. Specifically, students from different
grade levels have significantly different perceptions of AI feedback being useful for learning (D2: p =
0.026), using AI feedback to improve their work (D3: p = 0.000), and feeling confident about their work
after receiving AI feedback (D4: p = 0.004). However, there is no significant difference in how quickly
students perceive AI feedback to be (D1: p = 0.862), suggesting that students across grade levels have a
similar experience regarding the speed of AI feedback. These findings suggest that while all students
recognize the promptness of AI feedback, its perceived usefulness and impact on confidence vary by
grade level.

Table 2. b Computed means of Access to Resources in terms of Grade level

Access to Resources Levene's t-test

Test for for
Equality Equality Sig.
of of (2-
Variances Means df tailed)
AI tools make it easier to find Equal variances 12.402 0.001 1.673 68 0.099
study materials. assumed
Equal variances not 1.561 44.06 0.126
assumed 2
I am satisfied with the quality Equal variances 0.023 0.879 -0.053 68 0.958
of resources provided by AI assumed
tools. Equal variances not -0.053 60.39 0.958
assumed 7
I would recommend using AI Equal variances 1.391 0.242 -1.407 68 0.164
tools for educational resources assumed
to others. Equal variances not -1.387 58.97 0.171
assumed 6

The significance values (Sig. 2-tailed) for all three variables are above 0.05, indicating no statistically
significant differences across grade levels in terms of access to AI-provided resources. Specifically,
students do not significantly differ in their perception of AI making study materials easier to find (E1: p =
0.099), satisfaction with the quality of AI-provided resources (E2: p = 0.958), or willingness to
recommend AI tools for educational resources (E3: p = 0.164). These results suggest that students,
regardless of grade level, have similar experiences regarding AI tools' role in accessing and evaluating
study materials. This implies that AI tools provide a relatively consistent resource accessibility experience
across different grade levels.
Table 3. a Computed means of AI usage in terms of Sex

AI usage sex N Mean Ave. mean

I use AI tools (e.g., Chat GPT, M 36 2.9444 0.26753
Perplexity, Cici, and etc….) for F 34 2.9412
academic performance.
I always use AI for academic M 36 2.5000 0.22995
performance. F 34 2.5588

I am satisfied with the assistance M 36 2.6389 0.24695

provided by AI tools for academic F 34 2.7941
performance.
AI tools improved my academic M 36 2.7778 0.24658
 performance. F 34 2.6471

The computed means indicate that both male and female students use AI tools for academic
performance at similar levels (A1: M = 2.9444, F = 2.9412), with only slight variations in frequency
(A2: M = 2.5000, F = 2.5588). Female students report slightly higher satisfaction with AI assistance
(A3: F = 2.7941, M = 2.6389), while males perceive a slightly greater impact on their academic
performance (A4: M = 2.7778, F = 2.6471). These findings suggest that while AI usage is relatively
consistent across genders, female students tend to be more satisfied with AI support, whereas male
students perceive a stronger improvement in their academic performance.

Table 3. a Computed means of Perceptions and attitudes in terms of Sex

Perceptions and attitudes Sex N Mean Ave. mean

I feel positivity about using Artificial M 36 2.6944 2.69444
Intelligence (AI) tools in my studies. F 34 2.6765
I believe AI tools can enhance my M 36 2.7500 2.75000
learning experience. F 34 2.5882
I am comfortable using AI tools for M 36 2.6389 2.63889
academic performance. F 34 2.6471
AI plays a significant role in my M 36 2.5278 2.52778
education in the future. F 34 2.4412
I recommend the use of AI tools to my M 36 2.7500 2.75000
peers. F 34 2.6471

The computed means suggest that both male and female students have generally positive perceptions and
attitudes toward AI tools, with minimal differences between the two groups. Males reported slightly
higher agreement in believing that AI enhances their learning experience (B2: M = 2.7500, F = 2.5882)
and recommending AI tools to peers (B5: M = 2.7500, F = 2.6471). These results indicate that while both
sexes view AI favorably, males tend to perceive AI as more beneficial for learning and future educational
use.

Table 3. a Computed means of Enhanced Learning in terms of Sex

Enhanced learning Sex N Mean Ave. mean

I often use AI tools to help me learn new M 36 2.8889 2.79739
topics. F 34 2.7059
AI tools help me understand difficult M 36 3.0278 2.91095
concepts better. F 34 2.7941
I noticed improvement in my grades since M 36 2.7778 2.59477
using AI for learning. F 34 2.4118
I feel more engaged in my studies when M 36 2.6389 2.51062
using AI tools. F 34 2.3824
The computed means indicate that both male and female students perceive AI tools as beneficial for
enhanced learning, with males reporting slightly higher agreement in all categories. Males found AI more
helpful in understanding difficult concepts (C2: M = 3.0278, F = 2.7941) and reported greater
improvement in their grades (C3: M = 2.7778, F = 2.4118) compared to females. These findings suggest
that while both sexes acknowledge AI’s role in learning, male students tend to perceive a stronger impact
on their academic performance and engagement.

Table 3. a Computed means of Immediate Feedback in terms of Sex

Immediate Feedback Sex N Mean Ave. mean

AI tools quickly provide feedback on my M 36 2.77778 2.785948
assignments. F 34 2.79412

Feedback from AI is very useful for my M 36 2.8333 2.769608

learning. F 34 2.7059
I use the feedback from AI to improve my M 36 2.8611 2.754085
work. F 34 2.6471
I feel confident about my work after M 36 2.6944 2.553105
receiving AI feedback. F 34 2.4118

The computed means indicate that both male and female students perceive AI feedback as timely and
useful, with males reporting slightly higher agreement in all aspects of immediate feedback. Males found
AI feedback more useful for learning (D2: M = 2.8333, F = 2.7059) and were more likely to use it to
improve their work (D3: M = 2.8611, F = 2.6471). These results suggest that while both genders
acknowledge the benefits of AI feedback, male students tend to find it more impactful in enhancing their
academic performance and confidence.

Table 3. a Computed means of Access to Resources in terms of Sex

Access to Resources Sex N Mean Ave. mean
AI tools make it easier to find study M 36 2.8056 2.82925
materials. F 34 2.8529
I am satisfied with the quality of resources M 36 2.6389 2.62827
provided by AI tools. F 34 2.6176
I would recommend using AI tools for M 36 2.7500 2.71324
educational resources to others. F 34 2.6765

The computed means show that both male and female students perceive AI tools as helpful for accessing
study materials, with females reporting slightly higher agreement (E1: F = 2.8529, M = 2.8056).
Satisfaction with AI-provided resources is nearly equal between genders (E2: M = 2.6389, F = 2.6176),
while males are slightly more likely to recommend AI tools for educational resources (E3: M = 2.7500, F
= 2.6765). These findings suggest that both sexes view AI as beneficial for resource access, with females
finding it slightly more effective for locating study materials and males more inclined to promote its use.
Table 3. a Computed means of AI usage in terms of Sex

Levene's t-test
Test for for
Equality Equalit
of y of Sig. (2-
AI usage Variances Means df tailed)
I use AI tools (e.g., Chat Equal 0.119 0.731 0.022 68 0.982
GPT, Perplexity, Cici, and variances
etc….) for academic assumed
performance. Equal 0.022 66.539 0.982
variances not
assumed
I always use AI for Equal 0.227 0.635 -0.362 68 0.718
academic performance. variances
assumed
Equal -0.361 66.849 0.719
variances not
assumed
I am satisfied with the Equal 0.812 0.371 -1.096 68 0.277 *
assistance provided by AI variances
tools for academic assumed
performance. Equal -1.096 67.786 0.277
variances not
assumed
AI tools improved my Equal 0.032 0.859 0.852 68 0.397 *
academic performance. variances
assumed
Equal 0.855 67.641 0.395
variances not
assumed

The t-test results indicate no significant differences in AI usage for academic performance between
male and female students across all measured aspects, as all p-values exceed 0.05. Specifically, there is
no significant difference in the frequency of AI use (A1: p = 0.982, A2: p = 0.718), satisfaction with AI
assistance (A3: p = 0.277), or perceived improvement in academic performance (A4: p = 0.397). These
findings suggest that both male and female students utilize AI tools at similar levels and perceive
comparable benefits in their academic performance.
 Table 3. a Computed means of Perceptions and attitudes in terms of Sex

Perceptions and attitudes Levene's t-test df Sig. (2-

Test for for tailed)
Equality Equalit
of y of
Variances Means
I feel positivity about using Equal 3.142 0.081 0.129 68 0.898
Artificial Intelligence (AI) variances
tools in my studies. assumed
Equal 0.130 63.245 0.897
variances not
assumed
I believe AI tools can Equal 0.188 0.666 1.163 68 0.249 *
enhance my learning variances
experience. assumed
Equal 1.172 65.386 0.245
variances not
assumed
I am comfortable using AI Equal 3.464 0.067 -0.055 68 0.956
tools for academic variances
performance. assumed
Equal -0.056 61.488 0.956
variances not
assumed
AI plays a significant role Equal 2.659 0.108 0.551 68 0.583
in my education in the variances
future. assumed
Equal 0.555 65.143 0.581
variances not
assumed
I recommend the use of AI Equal 0.001 0.978 0.825 68 0.412 *
tools to my peers. variances
assumed
Equal 0.828 67.621 0.411
variances not
assumed

The t-test results indicate no significant differences in perceptions and attitudes toward AI tools between
male and female students, as all p-values are above 0.05. Specifically, there are no significant differences
in positivity toward AI (B1: p = 0.898), belief in AI’s role in learning (B2: p = 0.249), comfort in using
AI (B3: p = 0.956), AI’s future role in education (B4: p = 0.583), and recommending AI tools to peers
(B5: p = 0.412). These findings suggest that both male and female students share similar attitudes and
perceptions regarding the usefulness and impact of AI in education.

Table 3. a Computed means of Enhanced Learning in terms of Sex

Enhanced Learning Levene's t-test df Sig. (2-

Test for for tailed)
Equality Equality
of of
Variances Means
I often use AI tools to help me Equal 0.377 0.541 1.327 68 0.189
learn new topics. variances
assumed
Equal 1.334 67.140 0.187
variances not
assumed
AI tools help me understand Equal 0.866 0.355 1.697 68 0.094
difficult concepts better. variances
assumed
Equal 1.703 67.714 0.093
variances not
assumed
I noticed improvement in my Equal 2.648 0.108 2.454 68 0.017 *
grades since using AI for variances
learning. assumed
Equal 2.446 66.242 0.017
variances not
assumed
I feel more engaged in my Equal 1.173 0.283 1.606 68 0.113
studies when using AI tools. variances
assumed
Equal 1.614 67.012 0.111
variances not
assumed

The t-test results show a significant difference between male and female students in the improvement
of grades since using AI for learning (C3: p = 0.017), with males reporting a greater improvement.
However, there were no significant differences in the frequency of using AI tools to learn new topics
(C1: p = 0.189), understanding difficult concepts (C2: p = 0.094), or feeling more engaged in studies
(C4: p = 0.113). These findings suggest that while both genders use AI tools similarly for learning,
males tend to perceive a greater impact on their academic performance.
 Table 3. a Computed means of Immediate Feedback in terms of Sex

Immediate Feedback Levene's t-test df Sig. (2-

Test for for tailed)
Equality Equality
of of
Variances Means
AI tools quickly provide Equal 0.153 0.697 -0.116 68 0.908
feedback on my assignments. variances
assumed
Equal -0.116 67.181 0.908
variances not
assumed
Feedback from AI is very Equal 0.219 0.641 0.830 68 0.410
useful for my learning. variances
assumed
Equal 0.834 66.931 0.407
variances not
assumed
I use the feedback from AI to Equal 1.951 0.167 1.504 68 0.137
improve my work. variances
assumed
Equal 1.504 67.714 0.137
variances not
assumed
I feel confident about my Equal 1.617 0.208 1.675 68 0.099
work after receiving AI variances
feedback. assumed
Equal 1.687 65.535 0.096
variances not
assumed

The significance values (Sig. 2-tailed) for all four statements related to immediate feedback are above
0.05, indicating that there is no statistically significant difference between males and females in their
perceptions of AI feedback. Specifically, AI tools providing quick feedback (D1: p = 0.908), the
usefulness of AI feedback for learning (D2: p = 0.410), using AI feedback for improvement (D3: p =
0.137), and feeling confident after receiving AI feedback (D4: p = 0.099) all show no significant variation
between sexes. This suggests that both male and female students have similar experiences and perceptions
regarding the immediate feedback provided by AI tools. The results imply that gender does not influence
how students perceive and utilize AI-generated feedback in their academic work.
 Table 3. a Computed means of Access to Resources in terms of Sex

Access to Resources Levene's t-test df Sig. (2-

Test for for tailed)
Equality Equality
of of
Variances Means
AI tools make it easier to Equal variances 2.371 0.128 -0.349 68 0.728
find study materials. assumed
Equal variances -0.351 66.286 0.726
not assumed
I am satisfied with the Equal variances 0.379 0.540 0.138 68 0.891
quality of resources provided assumed
by AI tools. Equal variances 0.138 67.719 0.891
not assumed
I would recommend using AI Equal variances 1.410 0.239 0.495 68 0.622
tools for educational assumed
resources to others. Equal variances 0.501 60.421 0.618
not assumed

The significance values (Sig. 2-tailed) for all three statements related to access to resources are above
0.05, indicating no statistically significant difference between male and female students in their
perceptions of AI tools for accessing study materials. Specifically, AI tools making it easier to find study
materials (E1: p = 0.728), satisfaction with AI-provided resources (E2: p = 0.891), and recommending AI
tools for educational resources (E3: p = 0.622) all show no significant variation between sexes. These
results suggest that both male and female students have similar views on the effectiveness and quality of
AI tools for accessing learning materials. Therefore, gender does not appear to be a determining factor in
students’ perceptions of AI tools as a resource for academic support.