For Profile

Table 1. Age of Students

N=256

Age Frequency Percent Rank

18 – 21 235 91.80 1.0
22 – 25 12 4.70 2.0
26 – 29 5 2.00 3.0
30 and above 4 1.60 4.0
Total 256 100.0

Sample Interpretation:

Out of the 256 first year college students, 235 (91.80%) aged 18 – 21. It is

followed by 12 (4.69%) aged 22 – 25, five (1.95%) aged 26 – 29, and four (1.56%) aged

30 and above. This means that most students are aged 18 – 21.

Weighted Mean Resuls (Level of …)

Table 2. Digital Communication Exposur
Item Description WM Interpretation Rank
Interactive Engagement
1. I convince someone to do or believe on 1.90 Sometimes 6.0
something.
2. I negotiate with someone for transactions, be it 1.84 Sometimes 4.0
personal, business, or work-related.
3. I encourage someone whenever I know that 2.07 Sometimes 5.0
they have problems or issues in life.
4. I invite others to do something and cooperate to 2.20 Sometimes 3.0
any activities we are involved.
5. I give feedback or effects of actions or behavior 1.70 Never 2.0
of other people to me.
6. I ask for advice and encouragement from 1.8 Sometimes 1.0
people. 4
COMPOSITE MEAN 1.93 Sometimes
Parameter:
Weight Range Interpretation
1 1.00-1.75 Never
2 1.76-2.50 Sometimes
3 2.51-3.25 Often
4 3.26-4.00 Always
Sample Interpretation:

Table 2 presents the data of the respondents’ exposure to digital communication in

terms of motivation as function of communication. It is presented that sometimes the

respondents use digital device with the weighted mean of 1.93 when the purpose of

communication is for motivation. This means that when the respondents wanted to lift

the mood of their friends, they sometimes do it digitally. It also means that when they

needed uplifting and encouragement from others, the respondents reach out digitally.

Further the respondents perhaps get this motivation they needed mostly when

communication is digital. This is also true to the findings of Ming et.al (2017) which state

that many of the people are getting positive effects on motivation when using digital

device mostly to their communication.

Summary Table
Engagement on Online Learning Mean Interpretation Rank

Interactive Engagement 3.78 3.0

Self-disciplined Engagement 3.71 4.0
Goal-oriented Engagement 4.18 1.0
Applied Engagement 3.86 2.0
Grand Mean 3.88

For Chi-square Results

Table 10. Relationship between Age and Academic Performance of the Students
in Business Mathematics
N = 256
 Academic Performance of the Students in Business Mathematics
Total
Fairly Very
Meets expectation Satisfactory Outstanding
Satisfactory Satisfactory

Age 18 - 21 21 46 113 51 4 235

22 - 25 1 2 7 2 0 12
26 - 29 0 0 1 4 0 5
30 and
0 3 0 1 0 4
above
Total 22 51 121 58 4 256

P – value = 0.091

Result: Insignificant

Ho: Failed to Reject

Sample Interpretation:
Table 10 presents the relationship between the age of students and their

academic performance. The obtained p-value of 0.091 is greater than the 0.05 level of

significance. This indicates an insignificant relationship between age and academic

performance in Business Mathematics. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted. This

result means that age cannot be associated with academic performance. This supports

the findings of Owolabi & Etuk-Iren (2014) that students’ ages are insignificant to

performance in mathematics. On the other hand, Waldman & Avolio (2015) found a

significant association of students’ ages to mathematics performance.

Table 15. Summary on the Relationship between Profile and Academic

Performance
N = 256
Groupings P – Value Decision Result
Age Academic Performance of the Failed to Reject
0.091 Insignificant
students in Business Math Ho
Sex Academic Performance of the
0.020 Significant Reject Ho
students in Business Math
Program Academic Performance of the
0.000 Significant Reject Ho
students in Business Math
Type of Academic Performance of the Failed to Reject
0.096 Insignificant
Student students in Business Math Ho
Secondary Academic Performance of the Failed to Reject
Curriculum 0.143 Insignificant
students in Business Math Ho
Taken

Sample Interpretation:
Table 15 shows the relationship of profile and academic performance of the

students. Results revealed an insignificant relationship between the students' Academic

Performance in Business Mathematics and the age, type of student, and secondary curriculum

taken by students. This means that students Age, Type, and Secondary Curriculum Taken

cannot be associated with their Academic Performance in Mathematics. Meanwhile, a

significant relationship was obtained between Sex and Academic Performance and Program

and Academic Performance. This implies that Academic Performance can be associated with

Sex and the Program of the students.

Generally, the study found an insignificant association between profile and

academic performance. This opposed the findings of Korhonen et al. (2014) and

Andaya (2014), which both stated that profile and achievement are strongly correlated.

For Pearson/ Spearman Correlation Results

Table 22. Correlation between Proficiency Level and Academic Performance

N = 256

Proficiency Academic
Spearman’s Rho
Level Performance
Proficiency Level Correlation 1.000 -.571**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 256 256
Academic Correlation -.571** 1.000
Performance Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
 N 256 256
P-value = 0.000
Result: Significant
 Ho: Reject

Sample Interpretation:
Data obtained from the students’ Proficiency Level and Academic Performance in

Business Mathematics were treated using Spearman’s Rho Correlation.

The computed p-value, 0.000, is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance (2-

tailed). This suggests rejection of the null hypothesis and denotes a significant degree

of correlation between Proficiency Level and Academic Performance of the Students in

Business Mathematics. The obtained r-value (-) 0.571 indicates a moderate negative

correlation. The negative correlation implies that as students' grades decrease, the

higher is their academic performance. Furthermore, it indicates that students with High

Proficiency are likely to have High Academic Performance. In the same sense, it implies

that students with Low Proficiency levels are also Low in Academic Performance.

The correlation between proficiency level and academic performance was proven

by the study of Guinocor et al. (2020). In addition, the result supports the findings of

Faber (2017) and Johnson & Kuennen (2017), which stated that obtaining high

formative test results leads to higher grades. Thus, the students' Academic

Performance signifies retention towards the topics tackled in the areas of Business

Mathematics.

For Variance

Table 30. Variance in the Mastery Level of the Nine Areas in Business
Mathematics
N = 256
Areas N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Interval for Mean
 Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Fractions, Decimals, 3 60.5200 4.43162 2.55860 49.5112 71.5288 57.73 65.63
Percent(A1)
Ratio and Proportion(A2) 3 52.0300 9.10737 5.25814 29.4061 74.6539 41.72 58.98
Markup, Markdown, 3 49.4033 4.05010 2.33833 39.3423 59.4643 44.77 52.27
Discount (A3)
Interest (A4) 3 44.8700 2.02724 1.17043 39.8341 49.9059 43.44 47.19
Mortgage and 3 49.1933 9.18675 5.30397 26.3722 72.0145 43.20 59.77
Amortization (A5)
Commission (A6) 3 55.9900 4.21522 2.43366 45.5188 66.4612 51.80 60.23
Salaries and Wages (A7) 3 57.2267 11.47266 6.62375 28.7270 85.7263 44.02 64.73
Depreciation (A8) 3 41.2000 3.21016 1.85338 33.2255 49.1745 37.89 44.30
Analysis and 3 79.7900 6.20087 3.58007 64.3862 95.1938 76.17 86.95
Presentation of Data (A9)
Total 27 54.4693 12.18019 2.34408 49.6509 59.2876 37.89 86.95
ANOVA Mastery Level
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3046.006 8 380.751 8.448 0.000
Within Groups 811.278 18 45.071
Total 3857.284 26

Sample Interpretation
Table 31 reveal that the f-value of 8.448 with a p-value 0.000 is lesser than the

0.05 level of confidence. This implies the rejection of the null hypothesis and concludes

a significant degree of variance among the means on the Mastery Level in the Nine

Areas of Business Mathematics. Furthermore, Post hoc Test (Scheffe’s) was done to

locate the areas of differences among the means.

On the Result of Post hoc Test (included only if the result of ANOVA is significant)

Table 31. Summary on Variance in the Mastery Level of the Nine Areas in
Business Mathematics
N = 256

Mean 95% Confidence

Std.
(I) Areas Difference Sig. Interval
Error
(I-J)
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Fractions, Ratio and Proportion 8.49000 5.48154 0.956 -16.0740 33.0540
Decimals,
Markup, Markdown, 11.11667 5.48154 0.830 -13.4473 35.6806
Percent
Discount
 Interest 15.65000 5.48154 0.457 -8.9140 40.2140
Mortgage and Amortization 11.32667 5.48154 0.816 -13.2373 35.8906
Commission 4.53000 5.48154 0.999 -20.0340 29.0940
Salaries and Wages 3.29333 5.48154 1.000 -21.2706 27.8573
Depreciation 19.32000 5.48154 0.208 -5.2440 43.8840
Analysis and Presentation -19.27000 5.48154 0.211 -43.8340 5.2940
of Data
Fractions, Decimals, -8.49000 5.48154 0.956 -33.0540 16.0740
Percent
Markup, Markdown, 2.62667 5.48154 1.000 -21.9373 27.1906
Discount
Interest 7.16000 5.48154 0.984 -17.4040 31.7240
Ratio and Mortgage and Amortization 2.83667 5.48154 1.000 -21.7273 27.4006
Proportion
Commission -3.96000 5.48154 1.000 -28.5240 20.6040
Salaries and Wages -5.19667 5.48154 0.998 -29.7606 19.3673
Depreciation 10.83000 5.48154 0.849 -13.7340 35.3940
Analysis and Presentation -27.76000 *
5.48154 0.019 -52.3240 -3.1960
of Data
Fractions, Decimals, -11.11667 5.48154 0.830 -35.6806 13.4473
Percent
Markup, Ratio and Proportion -2.62667 5.48154 1.000 -27.1906 21.9373
Markdown,
Discount Interest 4.53333 5.48154 0.999 -20.0306 29.0973
Mortgage and Amortization 0.21000 5.48154 1.000 -24.3540 24.7740
Commission -6.58667 5.48154 0.991 -31.1506 17.9773
Salaries and Wages -7.82333 5.48154 0.973 -32.3873 16.7406
Depreciation 8.20333 5.48154 0.964 -16.3606 32.7673
Analysis and Presentation -30.38667* 5.48154 0.008 -54.9506 -5.8227
of Data
Fractions, Decimals, -15.65000 5.48154 0.457 -40.2140 8.9140
Percent
Ratio and Proportion -7.16000 5.48154 0.984 -31.7240 17.4040
Markup, Markdown, -4.53333 5.48154 0.999 -29.0973 20.0306
Discount
Mortgage and Amortization -4.32333 5.48154 1.000 -28.8873 20.2406
Interest
Commission -11.12000 5.48154 0.830 -35.6840 13.4440
Salaries and Wages -12.35667 5.48154 0.739 -36.9206 12.2073
Depreciation 3.67000 5.48154 1.000 -20.8940 28.2340
Analysis and Presentation -34.92000 *
5.48154 0.002 -59.4840 -10.3560
of Data
Fractions, Decimals, -11.32667 5.48154 0.816 -35.8906 13.2373
Percent
Ratio and Proportion -2.83667 5.48154 1.000 -27.4006 21.7273
Markup, Markdown, -0.21000 5.48154 1.000 -24.7740 24.3540
Mortgage Discount
and Interest 4.32333 5.48154 1.000 -20.2406 28.8873
Amortization Commission -6.79667 5.48154 0.989 -31.3606 17.7673
Salaries and Wages -8.03333 5.48154 0.968 -32.5973 16.5306
Depreciation 7.99333 5.48154 0.969 -16.5706 32.5573
Analysis and Presentation -30.59667 *
5.48154 0.008 -55.1606 -6.0327
 of Data
Fractions, Decimals, -4.53000 5.48154 0.999 -29.0940 20.0340
Percent
Ratio and Proportion 3.96000 5.48154 1.000 -20.6040 28.5240
Markup, Markdown, 6.58667 5.48154 0.991 -17.9773 31.1506
Discount
Interest 11.12000 5.48154 0.830 -13.4440 35.6840
Commission
Mortgage and Amortization 6.79667 5.48154 0.989 -17.7673 31.3606
Salaries and Wages -1.23667 5.48154 1.000 -25.8006 23.3273
Depreciation 14.79000 5.48154 0.530 -9.7740 39.3540
Analysis and Presentation -23.80000 5.48154 0.062 -48.3640 0.7640
of Data
Fractions, Decimals, -3.29333 5.48154 1.000 -27.8573 21.2706
Percent
Ratio and Proportion 5.19667 5.48154 0.998 -19.3673 29.7606
Markup, Markdown, 7.82333 5.48154 0.973 -16.7406 32.3873
Discount
Salaries and Interest 12.35667 5.48154 0.739 -12.2073 36.9206
Wages Mortgage and Amortization 8.03333 5.48154 0.968 -16.5306 32.5973
Commission 1.23667 5.48154 1.000 -23.3273 25.8006
Depreciation 16.02667 5.48154 0.426 -8.5373 40.5906
Analysis and Presentation -22.56333 5.48154 0.089 -47.1273 2.0006
of Data
Fractions, Decimals, -19.32000 5.48154 0.208 -43.8840 5.2440
Percent
Ratio and Proportion -10.83000 5.48154 0.849 -35.3940 13.7340
Markup, Markdown, -8.20333 5.48154 0.964 -32.7673 16.3606
Discount
Depreciatio Interest -3.67000 5.48154 1.000 -28.2340 20.8940
n Mortgage and Amortization -7.99333 5.48154 0.969 -32.5573 16.5706
Commission -14.79000 5.48154 0.530 -39.3540 9.7740
Salaries and Wages -16.02667 5.48154 0.426 -40.5906 8.5373
Analysis and Presentation -38.59000 *
5.48154 0.001 -63.1540 -14.0260
of Data
Fractions, Decimals, 19.27000 5.48154 0.211 -5.2940 43.8340
Percent
Ratio and Proportion 27.76000* 5.48154 0.019 3.1960 52.3240
Markup, Markdown, 30.38667* 5.48154 0.008 5.8227 54.9506
Analysis Discount
and Interest 34.92000* 5.48154 0.002 10.3560 59.4840
Presentatio
n of Data Mortgage and Amortization 30.59667 *
5.48154 0.008 6.0327 55.1606
Commission 23.80000 5.48154 0.062 -0.7640 48.3640
Salaries and Wages 22.56333 5.48154 0.089 -2.0006 47.1273
Depreciation 38.59000 *
5.48154 0.001 14.0260 63.1540

Sample Interpretation
Table 31 shows that a significant degree of variance among the means: Area 2

(Markup, Markdown, Discount) and Area 9 (Analysis and Presentation of Data), Area 3
(Ratio and Proportion), and Area 9 (Analysis and Presentation of Data), Area 4 (Interest)

and Area 9 (Analysis and Presentation of Data), Area 5 (Commission) and Area 9

(Analysis and Presentation of Data, Area 8 (Depreciation) and Area 9 (Analysis and

Presentation of Data), and vice versa. The Analysis and Presentation of Data (Area 9)

was determined to have the majority of mean differences with other areas. This is

because the area with the highest mean is expected to have a variance towards the

area/s with the lowest means.

On the other hand, the unmentioned areas were found to have insignificant

differences in the means. This is because these areas were similar in terms of Mastery

Level (Not Mastered).

In general, the significant variance among the nine areas of Business

Mathematics implies the need to improve students’ performance through proposing a

remedial program.