The Relationship of the Weight of Bags of the College Students in kilograms and their

Academic Performance in terms of Grades

CARD MRI Development Institute Inc.

I. Overview

Many people had formed stereotype about students having heavy load bags which seem
to look smart and believe these students attained good grades. For instance, in a schools
setting, when someone is wearing a full loaded bag, many would think that the student is an
intelligent one or maybe the top of the class. Therefore, many would conclude that those
students have absolutely good grades.However, on other people’s point of view, it is such a
rubbish perception since there were also students who does not even bring anything but still
performing excellently at school.

With this, a survey was conducted to College students with 54 respondents from different
courses. Furthermore, the weight of the schoolbag and there average Preliminary and Midterm
grades was taken for this survey. The survey used a random sampling which was conducted in
CARD-MRI Development Institute, Inc. The Pearson Correlation Analysis and statistical
formula such as Central Tendency were carried out based on the results. The result shows that
based on the gathered data, there is no significant relationship exist between the weight of the
student’s bag with their school performance in terms of grades. Moreover, the analysis shows a
negative result.

Methodology
This Chapter entails the sub-parts of the methodology like Sampling and Population,Study
locale, Study Instrument,Data Collection, and statistical instrument

Sampling and Population

Random sampling will be utilized in selecting respondents. There will be a total of 54
respondents which randomly selected in the study.

Study Locale
This study will be conducted in CARD MRI Development Institute Inc.
 Study Instrument
The researcher-made simple questionnaire in the collection of data.

Data Collection
The data collected in the questionnaire will be tabulated, analyzed and interpreted

Statistical Instrument
The Pearson Correlation Analysis and statistical formula such as Central Tendency
will be employed to determine the relations of the weight of the bags to the academic
performance of the College students.

II. Data Presentation and Discussion

 X Y
Weight of Bag (kg) Average Prelim and Midterm
1.6 2
2.5 2.5
2.25 2
3.25 2
2.8 1.88
3.25 1.63
4.3 1.88
3.4 2.88
1.7 1.75
3.1 2.88
1.5 1.75
0.5 1.38
3.75 1.5
4.75 1.13
2.6 1.5
1 2.5
3.2 1.75
3.6 1.75
3.3 1.35
2.25 2
1.6 1.38
0.5 1.5
2 1.88
2 1.5
2.1 2.5
5.5 1.75
1.5 1.88
1.5 1.63
0.6 1.88
1.6 2.25
0.5 2
0.75 2
1 1.63
5.8 1.38
3 2.13
1.5 2.13
1.75 1.25
2.25 2.13
2.25 1.88
1.5 1.5
0.75 2.25
2.25 2.13
2.25 1.88
1.5 1.5
0.75 2.25
2.6 1.38
4.25 1.75
1.3 2.13
3 2
1.3 1.63
0.3 2.13
3 4
4 1.63
1.1 1.63
 Table 1
This table represents the data needed in computing the Central Tendency. Aparently, the
highest Value in Grades is 2.88 carrying a 3.1 kg of bag and the lowest value of grade is 1.13
carrying a 4.75 kg of bag. As the results review that the difference of their weight of bag is too
small while the difference of their grades is too far. (See the second table for the value of
Grades)

GRADES GRADES EQUIVALENT

1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
5.00

Table 2
This table represents the equivalent value of the Prelim and Mid term grades of th college
students gathered by the researcher.

A. RANGE:

 Range of the Average grade= 2.88 - 1.25

R= 1.63

 Range of the weight of bags= 4.75 kg - 0.50 kg

R= 4.25 kg

B. MEAN:

 Mean of weight = 122.15 / 54

Mean = 2. 26

 Mean of Grades

C. MEDIAN:

22

 Median of Weight 2
2

1.88  1.50

 Median of Grades 2
 1.69

X Y

 xx
2
Weight of Bag (kg) Average Prelim and Midterm  xx

1.6 2 0.662 0.438244

2.5 2.5 0.238 0.056644
2.25 2 0.012 0.000144
3.25 2 0.988 0.976144
2.8 1.88 0.538 0.289444
3.25 1.63 0.988 0.976144
4.3 1.88 2.038 4.153444
3.4 2.88 1.138 1.295044
1.7 1.75 0.562 0.315844
3.1 2.88 0.838 0.702244
1.5 1.75 0.762 0.580644
0.5 1.38 1.762 3.104644
3.75 1.5 1.488 2.214144
4.75 1.13 2.488 6.190144
2.6 1.5 0.338 0.114244
1 2.5 1.262 1.592644
3.2 1.75 0.938 0.879844
3.6 1.75 1.338 1.790244
3.3 1.35 1.038 1.077444
2.25 2 0.012 0.000144
1.6 1.38 0.662 0.438244
0.5 1.5 1.762 3.104644
2 1.88 0.262 0.068644
2 1.5 0.262 0.068644
2.1 2.5 0.162 0.026244
5.5 1.75 3.238 10.484644
1.5 1.88 0.762 0.580644
1.5 1.63 0.762 0.580644
0.6 1.88 1.662 2.762244
1.6 2.25 0.662 0.438244
0.5 2 1.762 3.104644
0.75 2 1.512 2.286144
1 1.63 1.262 1.592644
5.8 1.38 3.538 12.517444
3 2.13 0.738 0.544644
1.5 2.13 0.762 0.580644
1.75 1.25 0.512 0.262144
2.25 2.13 0.012 0.000144
2.25 1.88 0.012 0.000144
1.5 1.5 0.762 0.580644
0.75 2.25 1.512 2.286144
2.25 2.13 0.012 0.000144
2.25 1.88 0.012 0.000144
1.5 1.5 0.762 0.580644
0.75 2.25 1.512 2.286144
2.6 1.38 0.338 0.114244
4.25 1.75 1.988 3.952144
1.3 2.13 0.962 0.925444
3 2 0.738 0.544644
1.3 1.63 0.962 0.925444
0.3 2.13 1.962 3.849444
 3 4 0.738 0.544644
4 1.63 1.738 3.020644
1.1 1.63 1.162 1.350244
Total: 122.15 Total: 102.48 54.894 87.149676

Table 3
The table shows the data needed in computing the value of the Average Deviation, Variance
and Standard Deviation.

AVERAGE DEVIATION

 XX
AD 
n

58.894
AD 
54
AD  1.09

VARIANCE

2
 X X
2 
n
87.1497
2 
54
  1.61
2

STANDARD DEVIATION

 XX

n

87.1497

54
  1.27
 X Y
Weight of Bag (kg) Average Prelim and Midterm X^2 Y^2 XY
1.6 2 2.56 4 3.2
2.5 2.5 6.25 6.25 6.25
2.25 2 5.0625 4 4.5
3.25 2 10.5625 4 6.5
2.8 1.88 7.84 3.5344 5.264
3.25 1.63 10.5625 2.6569 5.2975
4.3 1.88 18.49 3.5344 8.084
3.4 2.88 11.56 8.2944 9.792
1.7 1.75 2.89 3.0625 2.975
3.1 2.88 9.61 8.2944 8.928
1.5 1.75 2.25 3.0625 2.625
0.5 1.38 0.25 1.9044 0.69
3.75 1.5 14.0625 2.25 5.625
4.75 1.13 22.5625 1.2769 5.3675
2.6 1.5 6.76 2.25 3.9
1 2.5 1 6.25 2.5
3.2 1.75 10.24 3.0625 5.6
3.6 1.75 12.96 3.0625 6.3
3.3 1.35 10.89 1.8225 4.455
2.25 2 5.0625 4 4.5
1.6 1.38 2.56 1.9044 2.208
0.5 1.5 0.25 2.25 0.75
2 1.88 4 3.5344 3.76
2 1.5 4 2.25 3
2.1 2.5 4.41 6.25 5.25
5.5 1.75 30.25 3.0625 9.625
1.5 1.88 2.25 3.5344 2.82
1.5 1.63 2.25 2.6569 2.445
0.6 1.88 0.36 3.5344 1.128
1.6 2.25 2.56 5.0625 3.6
0.5 2 0.25 4 1
0.75 2 0.5625 4 1.5
1 1.63 1 2.6569 1.63
5.8 1.38 33.64 1.9044 8.004
3 2.13 9 4.5369 6.39
1.5 2.13 2.25 4.5369 3.195
1.75 1.25 3.0625 1.5625 2.1875
2.25 2.13 5.0625 4.5369 4.7925
2.25 1.88 5.0625 3.5344 4.23
1.5 1.5 2.25 2.25 2.25
0.75 2.25 0.5625 5.0625 1.6875
2.25 2.13 5.0625 4.5369 4.7925
 2.25 1.88 5.0625 3.5344 4.23
1.5 1.5 2.25 2.25 2.25
0.75 2.25 0.5625 5.0625 1.6875
2.6 1.38 6.76 1.9044 3.588
4.25 1.75 18.0625 3.0625 7.4375
1.3 2.13 1.69 4.5369 2.769
3 2 9 4 6
1.3 1.63 1.69 2.6569 2.119
0.3 2.13 0.09 4.5369 0.639
3 4 9 16 12
4 1.63 16 2.6569 6.52
1.1 1.63 1.21 2.6569 1.793
Total: 122.15 Total: 102.48 363.4575 206.5844 229.631

Table 4
The table 4 shows the data needed in computing the Pearson Correlation Analysis which
consist of X that represents the weight of bags, then the Y that represents the Value of Grades,
the sum of the product of x and y, lastly the square of x and y.

Pearson Correlation Analysis

n xy   x  y
r
[n x  ( x) 2 ][ n y 2  ( y ) 2
2

54(229.631)  (122.15)(102.48)
r
[54(363.460  (122.15) 2 ][54(206.58)  (102.48) 2 ]
12,400.07  12,577.932
r
[19,626.71  14,920][11,155.56  10,502.15
 117 .86
r
( 4,706.09)(653.41)
r  0.0383

III. Conclusion