CHAPTER IV

This chapter shows the data obtained from the survey conducted by the researchers. The

results will be presented using tables. Interpretation shall likewise be given below each table.

The first part of this chapter presents the demographic profile of the respondents. The next

section focuses on the 4 factors, namely; academic, economic, environmental, and social factors.

This chapter culminates with the hypothesis testing using ANOVA.

I. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Table 1.
Age of the Respondents
Age (in years) FREQUENCY PERCENTAG RANK
E (%)
17-19 21 13.73 2
20-22 126 82.35 1
23 and above 6 3.92 3
TOTAL 108 100.00

Table 1 shows the profile of respondents in terms of age. It was found that majority of the

respondents have ages from 20-22 years old. The table further shows that 13.73% of the

respondents are aging 17-19 while the least number of respondents have ages 23 and above.

Clearly, the respondents of the study are young-adults.

The data shown seem consistent with the demographics provided by the Commission on

Higher Education (2019) indicating that students in the tertiary level mostly belong to the 20-22

age bracket, following the introduction of the K-12 program under the Basic Education

Department.
Table 2.
Sex of the Respondents
Sex FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE RANK
(%)
Male 39 25.49 2
Female 114 74.51 1
TOTAL 153 100.00

Based on the data gathered by the researchers on the profile of 153 respondents, the

findings revealed that more than half of the student-participants are females. The minority, which

comprises 25.49% of the distribution are males. The results seem to coincide with the findings of

Erudera (2021) that the number of female students tend to dominate in college than males.

Table 3.
Year Level of the Respondents
College Program FREQUENCY PERCENTAG RANK
E (%)
1st Year 37 24.18 3
2nd Year 18 11.77 4
3rd Year 47 30.72 2
4th Year 51 33.33 1
TOTAL 100 100.00

The table above presents the distribution of the respondents in terms of year level. It can

be noted that the greatest number of students who participated in the study are in their 4 th year.

Ranked second and third are the 3rd year and 1st year students, respectively. The 2nd year students

account the least number in the distribution. The results above seem contradictory to the findings

of Jones, et al. (2021) wherein students in the senior year are said to be less engaged and de-

motivated in school activities as compared to their freshmen and sophomore counterparts.

II. FACTORS

Table 4.
Academic Factors
Indicators Weighted Verbal Description
Mean
1. Modules given by professors are aligned with the 3.45 Strongly Agree
subject course.
2. Modules given by professors are easy to understand. 2.92 Agree
3. Online classes provide greater opportunities for 2.54 Agree
students learning experience.
4. Completing tasks or activities during rush hour on the 2.73 Agree
deadline day.
5. Ability to meet the deadlines in due time. 3.31 Strongly Agree
6. Professors’ style of teaching makes the subject easier 2.81 Agree
to understand.
7. The lesson is appropriate to my current year level. 3.33 Strongly Agree
8. Gaining sufficient knowledge to develop skills in the 3.01 Agree
course requirements.
9. Ability to carry out tasks in the face of difficulties and 3.00 Agree
adverse experiences.
10. The new education system affect you mentally and 3.47 Strongly Agree
your motivation to study.
GRAND WEIGHTED MEAN 3.06 AGREE
Range of Values Interpretation
1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.76-2.50 Disagree
2.51-3.25 Agree
3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 4 shows the extent to which the academic factors affect the academic performance

of the students. As shown above, the respondents have expressed agreement on 6 out of 10 items,

while the rest were marked “strongly agree”. The highest mean can be noted on the item

pertaining to the effect of the new education system to one’s mentally and motivation to study.

The lowest mean, on the other hand, can be noted on the statement regarding the greater

opportunities offered by online classes. In general, academic factor yielded a rating of 3.06

which can be interpreted as “agree”. Thus, the students have expressed agreement that the above-

mentioned factors affect their academic performance.

 For Farooq (2021), the new modality of learning should take into account the academic

factors for these can either be the primary facilitators or hindrances in student performance.

These academic factors should support students as they embrace the change in the educational

landscape.

Table 5.
Economic Factors
Indicators Weighted Verbal Description
Mean
1. All of the materials needed for the activities are all 2.93 Agree
provided.
2. Lack of resources affects the performance of the 3.49 Strongly Agree
students in school.
3. The pandemic makes a big impact on students’ 3.75 Strongly Agree
financial status.
4. High cost of school materials affects my academic 3.25 Agree
performance.
5. Student’s academic performance suffered as a result 3.20 Agree
of the increase in school fees.
6. School policies are still enforced in online classes, 3.20 Agree
and they are monitored
7. Have a good internet/data connection. 2.92 Agree
8. I have the capacity to buy a quality learning material. 2.86 Agree
9. The students are well informed about the grading 3.31 Strongly Agree
system.
10. Self-management helps student’s to be effectively 3.34 Strongly Agree
productive.
GRAND WEIGHTED MEAN 3.22 AGREE
Range of Values Interpretation
1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.76-2.50 Disagree
2.51-3.25 Agree
3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree

The perception of the respondents on the effect of economic factors on their academic

performance is shown in table 6. As presented in the table, the respondents have claimed

agreement in most items included in this section. Focusing on the individual items, it can be

noted that the capacity to buy quality learning materials yielded the lowest rating.
 For most students, the pandemic has made big impact on students’ financial status. In a

similar study, being deprived of financial resources has posed a strong impact on students' ability

to secure school-related materials, most especially the gadgets needed for distance learning

(Girard, Vanston & Faid, 2021).

Table 6.
Environmental Factors
Indicators Weighted Verbal Description
Mean
1. Getting enough sleep to complete the task or activity 2.90 Agree
properly rather than studying.
2. Ability to balance my time between school works and 3.01 Agree
family responsibilities.
3. I get easily distracted by various activities at home. 3.44 Strongly Agree
4. I feel more comfortable studying at home 2.79 Agree
5. Adapting well to the learning and teaching approaches 2.83 Agree
in the new academic setting
6. Associating from the same ethnic background as me 2.93 Agree
inspired me to do well in school.
7. Managing stress while taking a break and then getting 3.16 Agree
back into the fight.
8. Prioritizing your school activities, assignments, and 3.23 Agree
further requirements over other things.
9. Performing tasks or activities during rush hour/day. 2.76 Agree
10. Ability to meet the deadlines in due time. 3.36 Strongly Agree
GRAND WEIGHTED MEAN 3.04 AGREE
Range of Values Interpretation
1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.76-2.50 Disagree
2.51-3.25 Agree
3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree

Table 6 presents the environmental factors affecting the academic performance of the

students. As shown above, the respondents have agreed that environmental factors affect their

studies. To be more specific, the lowest rating of 2.76 can be noted on the item pertaining to the

ability to perform task or activities during rush hour or day. Conversely, the highest mean was

found on the statement regarding the distractions at the students’ respective homes.
 The results seem to be agree with the claim of Ragpala (2021) that the physical

surroundings and environmental conditions may interfere with students learning at home.

Environmental management should be observed so as to produce better learning outcomes.

Table 7.
Social Factors
Indicators Weighted Verbal Description
Mean
1. I actively participate in every discussion. 2.63 Agree
2. I have the ability to communicate well with my 2.76 Agree
professors and classmates online.
3. Always present in a virtual class. 3.38 Agree
4. Professors and students can communicate effectively 2.59 Agree
in an online class set-up.
5. Social engagement in online classroom can help you 2.83 Agree
improve your academic performance.
6. I have enough privacy at home when taking online 2.80 Agree
classes.
7. I better study alone than with a group. 2.84 Agree
8. I am now more capable of contributing my own 2.71 Agree
thoughts and participating in this online class.
9. I have a good set of friends that motivates me to have 3.38 Strongly Agree
a healthy mental state.
10. Anxiety hinders me in participating in a class 3.20 Agree
discussion.
GRAND WEIGHTED MEAN 2.91 AGREE
Range of Values Interpretation
1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree
1.76-2.50 Disagree
2.51-3.25 Agree
3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree

The findings pertaining to the social factors are shown in the table above. It can be

observed that the respondents have claimed that agreement on 9 out of the 10 items in this

section. The item on having good set of friends, however, had the highest mean of 3.38 which

can be interpreted as “strongly agree”. The lowest mean can be noted on the item pertaining to

effective communication in online class setup. Taken together, the respondents believe that

social factors affect their academic performance.

 Similarly, it was found that learners may not perform well in academics under the new

learning modality due to weak ineffective communication tools and lesser interaction with peers.

Students, in the current educational setup have felt isolation from the social circles (Pham, Le &

Do, 2021).

III. HYPOTHESIS TESTING

Table 8.

Test of Significance using ANOVA

Variables Overall Interpretation p- value Decision*

Weighted Mean
Age
17-19 3.11 Agree
20-22 3.06 Agree 0.859 Accept H0
23 and above 2.98 Agree
Sex
Male 3.24 Agree
Female 3.33 Agree 0.440 Accept H0
Year Level
1st Year 3.17 Agree
2nd Year 3.20 Agree
3rd Year 3.29 Agree 0.632 Accept H0
4th Year 3.15 Agree
* Based on an Alpha value of 0.05

Table 8 shows the results of the hypothesis testing using Analysis of Variance. The said

statistical tool was utilized to test the study’s hypothesis. An alpha value of 0.05 was used in the

study as basis for the acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. As seen in the table, the p-values

for all variables involved were found to be higher than the alpha value, which is 0.05. This

indicates that there is no significant difference on the factors affecting academic performance
when the student are grouped based on their demographic profile. This has led the researchers to

accept the null hypothesis of the study.

For Tinto (1975; cited by Rafae, 2021) the demographics play a minor role in the

academic performances of learners. That being said, the demographic profile may or may not

affect how the students view their studies.