DARREL M.

SUSAYA MEDM-MATH

Of a total of 32 respondents, only 31 responded to give the information or data that is being
asked. Twenty-eight (28) of them completed all the data and three (3) of them with missing data.
The respondents are all single as seen in table 5. All the data were used to interpret the results.

Table 1
Distribution of Respondents' Sex
Sex Frequency Percent
Female 21 67.7
Male 9 29.0
Total 30 96.8
Missing Value 1 3.2
31 100.0

As shown in the table sixty-eight (68) percent of the respondents are female and twenty-
nine (29) percent are male and remaining three (3) percent are the missing value.

Table 2
Distribution of Respondents' Age
Age Frequency Percent
18.00 7 22.6
19.00 12 38.7
20.00 6 19.4
21.00 4 12.9
22.00 1 3.2
30.00 1 3.2
Total 31 100.0

Table 2 shows the distribution of respondents’ age are as follows; thirty-nine (39) percent
are nineteen (19) years old, twenty-three (23) percent are eighteen (18) years old, nineteen (19)
percent are twenty (20) years old, thirteen (13) percent are twenty-one (21) year old and three (3)
percent are twenty-two (22) years old and thirty (30) years old respectively.
 DARREL M. SUSAYA MEDM-MATH

Table 3
Distribution of Respondents' Type of Senior High School
Type of Senior High School Frequency Percent
Public 23 74.2
Private 8 25.8
Total 31 100.0

As shown in the table seventy-four (74) percent of the math majors came from the public
school and twenty-six (26) percent came from the private school.

Table 4
Distribution of Respondents' Senior High School Track
Senior High School Track Frequency Percent
AMB 3 9.7
STEM 1 3.2
HUMSS 8 25.8
GAS 10 32.3
TVL 6 19.4
OLD CURRICULUM 3 9.7
Total 31 100.0

The figures and percentages in table 4 show the type of senior high school track of the
respondents. As can be seen from this table, thirty-two-point two (32.2) percent of them chose
GAS, twenty-five-point eight (25.8) of them chose HUMSS, while nineteen-point four (19.4)
percent of them chose TVL. For ABM and Old Curriculum there were 3 respondents who chose
this program. Only 1 respondent who chose STEM.

Table 5
Distribution of Respondents' Civil Status
Civil Status Frequency Percent
Single 31 100.0
 DARREL M. SUSAYA MEDM-MATH

Table 6
Distribution of Respondents' Work
Work Frequency Percent
Non-Working 27 87.1
Working Student 4 12.9
Total 31 100.0

This table shows the distribution of respondents’ work, were most them who went school
for pure studying with an eighty-seven (87) percent while the remaining thirteen (13) percent are
the students who are working while studying.

Table 7
Distribution of Respondents' Religion
Religion Frequency Percent
Catholic 27 87.1
Born Again Christian 1 3.2
INC 1 3.2
Elohist 2 6.5
Total 31 100.0

This table shows that only few students were non-Catholics with three-point two (3.2)
percent are Born Again Christian and INC while six-point five (6.5) percent are Elohist. The rest
are Catholics with eighty-seven-point one (87.1) percent.
 DARREL M. SUSAYA MEDM-MATH

Table 8
Distribution of Respondents' Scholarship
Scholarship Frequency Percent
No Scholarship 18 58.1
With Scholarship 13 41.9
Total 31 100.0

As shown in the table, fifty-eight-point one (58.1) percent of the respondents who are
studying with no scholarship while forty-one-point nine (41.9) percent of the respondents who are
studying with scholarship.

Table 9
Distribution of Respondents' History of Mathematics
History of Mathematics Frequency Percent
1.20 1 3.2
1.30 3 9.7
1.40 12 38.7
1.50 7 22.6
1.60 3 9.7
1.70 1 3.2
1.90 1 3.2
2.00 1 3.2
Total 29 93.5
Missing Value 2 6.5
31 100.0

This table shows the distribution of respondents’ grades in history of mathematics were
thirty-eight point seven (38.7) percent of the respondents got 1.4 as their grade, twenty-two point
six (22.6) percent got 1.5, six (6) of the respondents got 1.3 and 1.6 respectively, while four (4) of
them got 1.2, 1.7, 1.9, and 2.0 respectively and six-point five (6.5) percent were missing value.
 DARREL M. SUSAYA MEDM-MATH

Table 10
Distribution of Respondents' College and Advance Algebra
College and Advance Algebra Frequency Percent
1.80 1 3.2
2.10 2 6.5
2.50 1 3.2
2.60 2 6.5
2.70 6 19.4
2.80 1 3.2
3.00 8 25.8
4.00 7 22.6
Total 28 90.3
Missing Value 3 9.7
31 100.0

This table shows the distribution of respondents’ grades in college and advance algebra
were most of the respondents had difficulty with this subject. As can be seen from this table,
twenty-five-point 8 (25.8) percent and twenty-two-point six (22.6) percent of the respondents got
3.0 and 4.0 respectively (4.0 indicates that students will take remedial to pass the subject). Six (6)
of the respondents who a got a grade of 2.7, four (4) of the respondents got a grade of 2.1 and 2.6
respectively while two (2) of the respondents got a grade of 2.5 and 2.8 respectively and the
remaining nine-point seven (9.7) percent were missing value.
 DARREL M. SUSAYA MEDM-MATH

Table 11
Distribution of Respondents' Logic and Set Theory
Logic and Set Theory Frequency Percent
2.10 1 3.2
2.20 1 3.2
2.30 1 3.2
2.50 3 9.7
2.60 1 3.2
2.70 6 19.4
2.80 8 25.8
3.00 6 19.4
4.00 1 3.2
Total 28 90.3
Missing Value 3 9.7
31 100.0

This table shows the distribution of respondents’ grades in logic and set theory were quite
similar to college and advance algebra because the respondents had difficulty also with this subject.
As can be seen from this table, twenty-five-point 8 (25.8) percent got a grade of 2.8, nineteen
point four (19.4) percent of the respondents got a grade of 2.7 and 3.0 respectively, three (3) of the
students got a grade of 2.5, while five (5) of them a grade of 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, and 4.0 respectively,
and the remaining nine-point seven (9.7) percent were missing value.