UNRAVELING EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES: UTILIZING DESCRIPTIVE AND

REGRESSION STATISTICS TO MEASURE STUDENT PERFORMANCE

A Final Project

Presented to the Faculty of the College of Accounting Education

University of Mindanao, Davao City

________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

2nd semester, SY 2023–2024

___________________________________

Ria Mae Bandibas

Giane Riclyde Cahucom

Jemimah Keziah Guerba

John Michael Mullet

Kenneth James Suniega

December 2023
Laboratory Activity 1 – Graphical Presentation of Data

Data Set on Average Grade by Respondents

Average Grade by Respondents

3

2.5
Average Grades

1.5

0.5

0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Respondents

Table 1.1

The line graph showcasing the average scores by respondents provides insights into the
performance trends across respondents. Each line on the graph likely represents an individual
respondent, tracking their average scores across different evaluations or criteria. The x-axis likely
represents the respondents, while the y-axis displays the average scores achieved. Observing the lines,
variations in the trends of scores for each respondent become apparent. Fluctuations, trends, or
consistency in performance across different assessments or over time might be observable. The graph
helps identify patterns, trends, and potential outliers among respondents' performance. Some
respondents may exhibit consistent high or low average scores, while others might display
fluctuations or variations in their performance across the assessments. Analyzing the graph enables
the identification of trends in respondent performance, potentially indicating areas of strengths,
weaknesses, or changes in performance over the evaluated criteria or time periods.
 Data Set on Distribution of Year Level

Distribution of Year Levels

1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
20%
27% 4th Year

23%

30%

Table 1.2
The bar graph depicting the average scores of Q1, Q2, and Q3 by gender likely presents a
comparison between the average scores of different assessment categories (Q1, Q2, and Q3) across
genders. The x-axis probably represents the assessment categories (Q1, Q2, Q3), while the y-axis
displays the average scores attained. There might be separate bars for each assessment category, with
different colors or patterns indicating the gender-specific averages. Interpreting the graph offers
insights into the performance variations between genders across these specific assessments.
Comparison between the bar heights within each assessment category illustrates how males and
females scored on average in Q1, Q2, and Q3. The graph facilitates the identification of potential
disparities or similarities in average scores between genders across different assessment categories. It
helps in understanding whether one gender tends to perform consistently higher or lower across these
specific assessments. Analyzing the bar heights for each assessment category allows for observations
on performance patterns, showcasing potential strengths or weaknesses between genders in those
specific evaluation areas.
 Average Scores of Q1, Q2, and Q3 categorized by Gender and Course

Average Scores of Q1, Q2, Q3 by Gender

28
Female

36

43

35

39
Male

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Q1 Q2 Q3

Table 1.3
The bar graph depicting the average scores of Q1, Q2, and Q3 by gender likely presents a
comparison between the average scores of different assessment categories (Q1, Q2, and Q3) across
genders. The x-axis probably represents the assessment categories (Q1, Q2, Q3), while the y-axis
displays the average scores attained. There might be separate bars for each assessment category, with
different colors or patterns indicating the gender-specific averages. Interpreting the graph offers
insights into the performance variations between genders across these specific assessments.
Comparison between the bar heights within each assessment category illustrates how males and
females scored on average in Q1, Q2, and Q3. The graph facilitates the identification of potential
disparities or similarities in average scores between genders across different assessment categories. It
helps in understanding whether one gender tends to perform consistently higher or lower across these
specific assessments. Analyzing the bar heights for each assessment category allows for observations
on performance patterns, showcasing potential strengths or weaknesses between genders in those
specific evaluation areas.
 Average Scores of Q1, Q2, Q3 by Course

18
IS
21
23

27
CS
30
32

18
IT
24
28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Q1 Q2 Q3

Table 1.4

The bar graph illustrating the average scores of Q1, Q2, and Q3 by course likely presents a
comparison of average scores across different courses for each assessment category. The x-axis most
likely represents the assessment categories (Q1, Q2, Q3), while the y-axis displays the average scores
achieved. Each assessment category might have separate bars representing different courses, possibly
distinguished by various colors or patterns. Interpreting the graph provides insights into the
performance variations among different courses across these specific assessments. Comparing the bar
heights within each assessment category demonstrates how each course's average scores compare in
Q1, Q2, and Q3. The graph facilitates the identification of potential disparities or similarities in
average scores among various courses across these specific assessments. It helps in understanding
whether certain courses tend to perform consistently higher or lower across these assessment
categories. Analyzing the bar heights for each assessment category allows observations on
performance patterns, showcasing potential strengths or weaknesses among different courses in those
specific evaluation areas.
Laboratory Activity 2 – Descriptive Statistics

AVERAGE First set of data: The values center around an average of

Mean 2.436666667 about 2.44, with the middle value (median) at 2.4 and the
Median 2.4 most frequent value (mode) also at 2.4. The range of values
Mode 2.4 spans from a minimum of 1.3 to a maximum of 3.4, with a
Minimun 1.3 difference of 2.1 between these extremes. This dataset
Maximum 3.4 showcases a relatively modest spread, indicated by a
Range 2.1 variance of approximately 0.186 and a standard deviation of
Variance 0.185850575 around 0.431. The data shows a slight negative skew,
Std. Dev 0.431103902 hinting at a gentle bias towards higher values. Moreover,
Coefficient of
the kurtosis value of 0.672 implies a moderately peaked
Variation 18%
-
distribution compared to a perfectly symmetrical normal
Skewness 0.119589 distribution.

Kurtosis 0.672221

Second set of data (ASSESSMENT 1 - LAST SEM): ASSESSMENT 1 - LAST SEM

These figures revolve around an average of roughly
Mean 23630.33
23,630.33, with a median at 24,000.00 and the most
frequently occurring value (mode) at 23,000.00. The Median 24000.00
range extends from a minimum value of 17,000.00 to Mode 23000.00
a maximum of 26,830.00, spanning a range of
9,830.00 units. The data displays a relatively wider Minimun 17000.00
spread, evident from a variance of approximately Maximum 26830.00
4,579,161.95 and a standard deviation of about Range 9830.00
2,139.90. It's notably skewed negatively, indicating a
strong bias towards higher values. Additionally, the Variance 4579161.95
kurtosis value of 4.72 signifies a significantly peaked Std. Dev 2139.90
distribution with heavier tails compared to a normal
Coefficient Variation 9%
distribution, suggesting substantial concentration
around the mean. Skewness - 1.873592
Kurtosis 4.718246

ASSESSMENT 2 - THIS SEM

Third set of data (ASSESSMENT 2 - THIS SEM): The
Mean 23,591.00 dataset showcases an average value around 23,591.00,
Median 23,000.00 with a median and mode both at 23,000.00. It spans
Mode 23,000.00 from a minimum of 19,000.00 to a maximum of
Minimun 19,000.00 26,900.00, with a range of 7,900.00. The variance here
Maximum 26,900.00 is approximately 5,082,774.83, and the standard
Range 7,900.00 deviation stands at about 2,254.50, indicating a
Variance 5,082,774.83 somewhat wider spread compared to the first set. The
Std. Dev 2,254.50 skewness is slightly negative, implying a gentle bias
Coefficient Variation 10% towards higher values but in the opposite direction
Skewness -0.574003026 from the first set. Moreover, the kurtosis of -0.36
Kurtosis -0.364006513 suggests a distribution slightly less peaked than a
standard normal distribution, indicating a relatively
more spread-out pattern around the mean.
Legend
Central Tendency Dispersion Symmetry
Gender: Gender: There are an equal number of males
1) Male 2) Female (15) and females (15) in the dataset.
15 15 Course: There are 9 students in IT, 12 in CS,
Course: and 9 in IS courses.
1) IT 2) CS 3) IS
9 12 9 Year Level: The distribution among year levels
YEAR LEVEL: is 8 students in the 1st year, 9 in the 2nd year, 7
1) 1st Year 2) 2nd Year 3) 3rd Year 4) 4th Year in the 3rd year, and 6 in the 4th year.
8 9 7 6
Scale for Q1, Q2, and Q3:
 17 students strongly agree with the
Scale from Q1,Q2 and Q3: statement.
1) Strongly agree with the statement 17  30 students agree with it.
2) Agree with it 30  32 students are uncertain.
3) uncerctain 32  7 students disagree.
4)disagree 7  4 students strongly disagree.
5) Strongly disagree 4

Laboratory Activity 3 – Covariance and Correlation

Respondent No. Ass_1 Ass_2

Respondent No. 74.91666667
Ass_1 3458.833333 4426523
Ass_2 3385.833333 3465770 4913349

Table 1.5

The provided covariance values between variables are as follows:

 Covariance between Respondent No. and Respondent No. is not used in analyses as it's a
variable correlated with itself.
 Covariance between Respondent No. and Ass_1 is about 74.92.
 Covariance between Respondent No. and Ass_2 is around 3385.83.
 Covariance between Ass_1 and Ass_2 is approximately 4913349.
 Covariance measures the tendency for two variables to change together. A positive covariance
suggests that when one variable increases, the other tends to increase, while a negative
covariance implies the opposite relationship.

However, interpreting covariance alone can be challenging due to its dependency on variable
scales. To gain a more standardized insight into their relationship, it's better to use the correlation
coefficient. This normalized measure provides a standardized assessment of the variables'
relationship, independent of their scales.
Respondent No. Ass_1 Ass_2
Respondent No. 1
Ass_1 0.189936766 1
Ass_2 0.17647677 0.743155 1

Table 1.6

The correlation analysis reveals:

 Respondent No. and Respondent No.: Perfect correlation (1) as it's a variable correlated with
itself.
 Respondent No. and Ass_1: Very weak positive correlation at approximately 0.1899.
 Respondent No. and Ass_2: Similar to Ass_1, a very weak positive correlation at
approximately 0.1765.
 Ass_1 and Ass_2: Demonstrates a moderately strong positive correlation around 0.7432.

\
Correlation near 1 indicates a strong positive linear relationship.
 Correlation near 1 indicates a strong positive linear relationship.
 Correlation close to -1 signifies a strong negative linear relationship.
 Correlation close to 0 implies a weak or no linear relationship between variables.

In this scenario:

 "Ass_1" and "Ass_2" exhibit a moderately strong positive linear relationship.

 Between "Respondent No." and the assessment variables (Ass_1 and Ass_2), there's almost
no discernible linear relationship based on the very weak positive correlations.
 Laboratory Activity 4 – Regression Statistics

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.743155192
R Square 0.552279639
Adjusted R Square 0.536289626
Standard Error 1457.190757
Observations 30

Table 1.7

Regression Statistics:

 Multiple R (correlation coefficient): Approximately 0.743.

 R Square (variance explained): Around 0.552, indicating that approximately 55.2% of the
variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable(s).
 Adjusted R Square: Approximately 0.536 after accounting for the number of predictors.
 Standard Error: Approximately 1457.19, indicating the average deviation of observed values
from the regression line.
 Observations: Total observations in the dataset are 30.

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 73340359.39 73340359 34.53903648 2.54932E-06
Residual 28 59455337.28 2123405
Total 29 132795696.7

Table 1.8

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 6989.75433 2843.950198 2.457763 0.020432239 1164.186433 12815.32223 1164.186433 12815.32223
Ass_2 0.70537828 0.12002369 5.876992 2.54932E-06 0.459520897 0.951235663 0.459520897 0.951235663

Table 1.9

 The regression model is statistically significant (p < 0.05) as indicated by a small p-value
(2.54932E-06) in the F-test.
 The model explains a significant amount of variance in the dependent variable, supported by
the F-value of 34.54.
Coefficients:

 Intercept: The intercept value is approximately 6989.75. It represents the estimated value of
the dependent variable when all independent variables are zero.

Overall, the regression analysis demonstrates a statistically significant relationship between

the independent variable (Ass_2) and the dependent variable. Approximately 55.2% of the variance in
the dependent variable is explained by changes in Ass_2, based on this model.