Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the gathered and processed data using the tabular form,

interpreted and analysed to provide a better and clear understanding of the study.

1. Profile of Student-Respondents

Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution on the Profile of Respondents’
In terms of Age

Age Frequency Percent

18 - 22 42 95.5
23 - 27 1 2.3
28 - 32 1 2.3
Total 44 100.0
Mean Age:20.3 or 20 Years old
Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution according to age. This shows
that there are forty two (42) or 95.5% whose age is between 18-22; one (1) or 2.3 whose
age is between 23-27 and one (1) or 2.3% who's age is between 28-32.

Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents as to

age. Among thirty-six (42) respondents or 95.5% were under 18-22 years old; 1 or 2.3%

were under 23-27 years old and 1 or 2.3% were under 28-32 years old. The mean age is

20.3 or 20 years old. Edited

Table 3
 Frequency and Percentage Distribution on the Profile of Respondents’
In terms of Sex

Sex Frequency Percent

Male 11 25.0
Female 33 75.0
Total 44 100.0
Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to sex.
This shows that there are eleven (11) or 25% whose she's is male and thirty three (33) or
75% whose sex is female. The table shows the dominance of the female respondents.

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of students as

respondents as to sex. Among eleven (11) respondents or 25.0% are males and thirty-

three (33) or 75.0% are females. The table showed the dominance of the female

respondents.

The results showed that female students possessed more effective time

management skills than male students. Similar results emerged from a study in Thailand

by Lokam (2007), which showed that females possessed higher time management

abilities than males.

Table 4
 Frequency and Percentage Distribution on the Profile of Respondents’
In terms of Parents Occupation

Parents Occupation Frequency Percent

Government Employee 9 20.5
Farmer 6 13.6
Fisherman 1 2.3
Businessman/Woman 4 9.1
Vendor 24 54.5
Total 44 100.0
Table 4 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to
parents occupation. This shows that there are nine (9) or 20.5 % whose occupation is
government employee; six (6) or 13.6% whose occupation is farmer; one on 2.3 % whose
occupation is fisherman; or 9.1% whose occupation is businessman/woman and twenty
our (24) or 54.5% whose occupation is vendor. The table shows the dominance of the
vendor as parents occupation of the respondents.

Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution on the Profile of Respondents’
In terms of Time Schedule using gadget

Time Schedule using

Frequency Percent
gadget
1-2 2 4.5
2-3 4 9.1
4-5 8 18.2
6-7 11 25.0
8--9 19 43.2
Total 44 100.0
Average Time: 6.4 or 6 hrs.
Table 5 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to the
time schedule using gadget. This shows that there are two (2) or 4.5% who's 1-2 hours
using gadget; four (4) or 9.1% who's ing 2-3 hours , eight (8) or 18.2 % using 4-5 hours;
eleven (11) or 25% who's using 6-7 hours ; and nineteen (19) or 43.2% who's 8-9 hours
or using gadget.

Table 5 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to the

time schedule using gadget. This shows that there are two (2) or 4.5% having 1-2 hours

of time using gadget; four (4) or 9.1% were using 2-3 hours , eight (8) or 18.2 % were

using 4-5 hours; eleven (11) or 25% having 6-7 hours ; and nineteen (19) or 43.2% who's

8-9 hours or using gadget. Edited

Table 6
Mean Rating in the Level of Time Management Practices of Student
respondent in terms of Time Planning

Put numbering on the statement

Descriptiv
Time Planning Mean Rank
e Rating
I make a list of activities that should be done for a week. 3.27 A 4
I have set a goal for each week. 3.09 O 9
I do things in order of my priorities. 3.39 A 2
I set my time in completing a task. 3.18 O 8
I prioritize the task based on when the assignment is due
3.61 A 1
and how much time I need to complete it.
I divided the easy and difficult task 3.30 A 3
I always write down academic dates so that I can get it
4
done on time. 3.27 A
I make time for activities and for family 3.27 A 4
I make reminders in sticky notes 3.00 O 10
I divide my time for doing activities and making rest. 3.27 A 4
Overall Weighted Mean 3.22 A
Table 6 shows the mean rating in the level of time management practices of student
respondent in terms of time planning. In this table it tells us that 3.22 is the overall
weighted mean which implies that respondents are always practice their level of Time
Management in terms of Time planning. This was justified through the following
indicators with a qualitative description of always practice like: I make a list of activities
that should be done for a week, with a weighted mean of 3.27; I do things in order of my
priorities with a weighted mean of 3.39; I prioritize the task based on when the
assignment is due and how much time I need to complete it, with a weighted mean of
3.61. I divided the easy and difficult task, with a weighted mean 3.30. I always write
down academic dates so that I can get it done on time, with a weighted mean of 3.27. I
make time for activities and for family, with a weighted mean of 3.27. I divide my time
for doing activities and making rest, with a weighted mean of 3.27. Moreover, there are
also indication that have a qualitative description of often practice and these are the
following: I have set a goal for each week, with a weighted mean of 3.09. I set my time in
completing a task, with a weighted mean of 3.18. I make reminders in sticky notes, with a
weighted mean of 3.00.

In general the students response are always practice which means that they were still able
to manage their time in terms of time planning. They moderately manage their time in
doing things in order of priority, planning what needs to be done during the day and
dividing their time in doing activities. These gives an implication that having a set
schedule everyday does not affect much on the students-respondents level og time
management practices. In this table it tells us that 3.22 is the overall weighted mean
which implies that respondents are always practice their level of Time Management in
terms of Time planning.

Table 6 shows the mean rating in the level of time management practices of

student respondent in terms of time planning. Indicator number 5, “I prioritize the task

based on when the assignment is due and how much time I need to complete it.” has a

weighted mean of 3.61%, described as strongly agree and equivalent to rank 1. It implies
 that students priority is based on the assignments deadline. Indicator … i-ayos nyo po ano

yung pinakamataas na mean pababa.

 Wag nyo po ilagay sa unang sentences yung overall weighted mean, sa

pinakadulo ilalagay.
 Put quotation in every statement when interpreting

Table 7
Mean Rating in the Level of Time Management Practices of Student
respondent in terms of Time Attitude

Descriptive
Time Attitude Mean Rank
Rating
1. I proofread my activities before submitting. 3.39 A 3
2. I do my activities advanced, week before the deadline. 2.89 O 9
3. I studying my difficult task without procrastinating. 2.64 O 10
4. Priorities are something I set and stick to. 3.09 O 5
5. I can make quick decisions on trivial matters. 2.91 O 8
6. I feel I use my schedule correctly and effectively. 2.95 O 6
7. I regularly review my activities in relation to my goals. 2.93 O 7
8. I assure that all my activities will be submitted on or
1
before the deadline. 3.66 A
9. I am using other references to have relation in my
4
answers 3.18 O
10. I always add information that strengthen my answers. 3.41 A 2
Overall Weighted Mean 3.23 A
Table 7 shows the mean rating in the level of time management practices of student
respondent in terms of time attitude. In this table it tells us that 3.23 is the overall
weighted mean based on the data given. "I assure that all my activities will be
submitted on or before the deadline" got the first place in the ranking with the
weighted mean of 3.66. Rank number 2, "I always add information that strengthen
my answers" with the weighted mean of 3.41. "I proofread my activities
before submitting" is in a 3rd rank that has 3.39 weighted mean. Indicator#9,
"I am using other references to have relation in my answers" with the
weighted mean of 3.18; 3.09 is the weighted mean of indicator#4, "Priorities are
something I set and stick to". "I feel I use my schedule correctly and
effectively" indicator#6 with the weight mean of 2.95. Indicator#7, "I
regularly review my activities in relation to my goals" with the weighted mean of
2.93. "I can make quick decisions on trivial matters", indicator#5 with the
weighted mean of 2.91; 2.89 is the weighted mean of indicator#2 "I do my
activities advanced, week before the deadline". The lowest in the rank is
indicator#3, "I studying my difficult task without procrastinating" with the
weighted mean of 2.64. In general, the result is Always Practice which means that the
students knows how to prioritize their activities. Students who know how to prioritize
things are more productive and make better use of their time. It helps the students in
determining which tasks are the most critical and urgent, as well as how much time they
should devote to each.

Table 8
Mean Rating in the Level of Time Management Practices of Student
respondent in terms of Time Wasting

Descriptive
Time Wasting Rank
Rating
1. I do my activities rushing at last minute. 2.41 R 7
2. I find myself making leisure with other media
2.77 O 4
platforms that interfere with my activities/school works.
3. I prioritize sleeping than doing activities/school
2.45 R 6
works in advanced because deadline is too far
4. I am satisfied come what may as long as I finished
3.07 O 2
my activities.
5. I am making empty promises to do my activities, but
2.30 R 9
in the end will not do it.
6. I am spending precious minutes dealing with things 2.30 R 9
 that are not my priority and distracts me from doing
school related stuff.
7. I discipline myself in using my cellphone. 2.84 O 3
8. I delay my activities because of poor internet
5
connection. 2.52 O
9. My actions are mainly decided by me, not others. 3.32 R 1
10. I always procrastinate 2.36 R 8
Overall Weighted Mean 2.67 O

Table 8 shows the mean rating of the respondents in terms of Time wasting in the level of
Time Management Practices which has an overall weighted mean of 2.67. It implies that
a large number of the respondents are either rarely or often wasting their time. This was
justified through the following indicators with qualitative descriptions of rarely practiced
and often practiced.

We have listed a number of activities that indicates time wasting to be answered by our
respondents with numbers ranging from 4 (which indicates always practice) to 1 (which
indicates never practice) and these are their weighted mean:

I do my activities rushing at last minute. (2.41). I find myself making leisure with other
media platforms that interfere with my school activities/works because I still have days
before the deadline. (2.77 or 3). I am making empty promises to do my school activities
but in the end I won’t do it. (2.30). I am spending precious minutes dealing with things
that are not my priority and distract me from doing school related stuff. (2.30). I delay my
activities because of poor internet connections. (2.52 or 3). I always procrastinate. (2.36).

Table 9
Frequency and Percentage Distribution on the Profile of Respondents’
In terms of Academic Performance

Descriptive Rating Grade Frequency Percent

Excellent 1.25 - 1.00 3 6.8

Very Good 1.26 - 1.75 38 86.4
Good 1.76 - 2.25 2 4.5
Satisfactory 2.26 - 2.75 1 2.3
Total 44 100.0
 Mean Grade: 1.52 (Very Good)

Table 9 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of our respondent’s academic
performances. The overall weighted mean of their grades is 1.52 which indicates that
most of them have very good academic performances.

In the table it is showed that 93.2% of our respondents, which is a total of 41 students,
have either very good academic performances or have excellent academic performances
and 6.8% of our respondents (3 students) have either satisfactory or good academic
performances.
 Table 10
Analysis of Variance to tests differences on the Level of Time Management
Practices of Student respondent in Time Planning when grouped according to
their profile variables
Sum of Mean
Interpretatio
Square df Squar F Sig.
n
s e
Between 0.0
7.31 2 3.66 8.99
Groups 0 Reject Ho
Sex
Within Groups 16.68 41 0.41 Significant
Total 24.00 43
Between 20.6 0.0
7.90 1 7.90
Groups 2 0 Reject Ho
Age
Within Groups 16.10 42 0.38 Significant
Total 24.00 43
Between 23.2 0.0
16.90 4 4.23
Parents Groups 2 0 Reject Ho
Occupation Within Groups 7.10 39 0.18 Significant
Total 24.00 43
Time Between 26.7 0.0
17.59 4 4.40
Schedule Groups 7 0 Reject Ho
Using Within Groups 6.41 39 0.16 Significant
Gadgets Total 24.00 43

Table 10 shows the variance of the respondents’ Demographic profile in Time planning.
According to Tinto (1975), demographic characteristics such as gender, level of study,
and specialization play an important role in determining students' academic performance.
But in the case of our study, we wanted to know the significant relationship of the Time
Management practices and the students’ academic performances.
The table above shows that every Demographic characteristics that we have included on
our survey has zero significance and are all interpreted as Reject Ho Significant:
Sex has 0.00 significance; age has 0.00 significance; parents’ occupation has 0.00
significance; and Time schedule using gadgets has 0.00 significance.
The above data only implies that the null hypothesis is rejected which means
Demographic profile has no significant relationship or it is entirely not connected with
Time planning which is an example of Time management practices. We can also
conclude from this that it has no significant value in determining the main aim of our
study.
Source for the related study above:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demographics.asp
Table11
Analysis of Variance to tests differences on the Level of Time Management
Practices of Student respondent in Time Attitude when grouped according to
their profile variables
Sum of Mean
Square df Squar F Sig. Interpretation
s e
Between Groups 6.41 2 3.20 10.76 0.00
Reject Ho
Sex Within Groups 12.21 41 0.30
Significant
Total 18.62 43
Between Groups 7.47 1 7.47 28.14 0.00
Reject Ho
Age Within Groups 11.15 42 0.27
Significant
Total 18.62 43
Between Groups 11.17 4 2.79 14.63 0.00
Parents Reject Ho
Within Groups 7.45 39 0.19
Occupation Significant
Total 18.62 43
Between Groups 13.14 4 3.29 23.41 0.00
Time Schedule Reject Ho
Within Groups 5.47 39 0.14
Using Gadgets Significant
Total 18.62 43

Table 11 shows the variance of the respondents’ Demographic profile in Time attitude. It
can be seen from this table that every Demographic segment/data that we have included
on our study has zero significance and has all interpreted as Reject Ho Significant:
Sex has 0.00 significance; age has 0.00 significance; parents’ occupation has 0.00
significance; and Time schedule using gadgets has 0.00 significance.
After studying the survey’s results, we can only conclude that Demographic profile has
no significant relationship or it is entirely not connected with Time attitude which is an
example of Time management practices because the hypothesis has been rejected. This
also means that it has no significant value in determining the main aim of this study.

Table12
Analysis of Variance to tests differences on the Level of Time Management
Practices of Student respondent in Time Wasting when grouped according to
their profile variables
 Sum of Mean
Square df Squar F Sig. Interpretation
s e
Between Groups 5.26 2 2.63 4.94 0.01
Reject Ho
Sex Within Groups 21.84 41 0.53
Significant
Total 27.10 43
Between Groups 13.94 1 13.94 44.51 0.00
Reject Ho
Age Within Groups 13.16 42 0.31
Significant
Total 27.10 43
Between Groups 21.37 4 5.34 36.40 0.00
Parents Reject Ho
Within Groups 5.73 39 0.15
Occupation Significant
Total 27.10 43
Between Groups 22.21 4 5.55 44.34 0.00
Time Schedule Reject Ho
Within Groups 4.88 39 0.13
Using Gadgets Significant
Total 27.10 43

Table 12 shows the variance of the respondents’ Demographic profile in Time wasting.

In the table, we can see data regarding the significance of our respondent’s Demographic
profile to Time wasting:

Sex has 0.01 significance; age has 0.00 significance; parents’ occupation has 0.00
significance; and Time schedule using gadgets has 0.00 significance.
The data above shows that every Demographic characteristics that we have included on
our survey has a significance level of lower than 5% and therefore interpreted as rejected;
the null hypothesis is rejected.
These results only imply that Demographic profile has no significant relationship or it is
entirely not connected with Time wasting which is related or has a connection with Time
management practices. This means that it has also no significant value in determining the
main aim of this study.

Table13
Significant Relation between the Level of Time Management Practices of
Student respondent and Academic Performance
Academic Performance Interpretation
Time Pearson Correlation 0.585** Moderate
Planning Positive
Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 Significant
N 44
Moderate
Pearson Correlation 0.656** Positive
Time Attitude Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 Significant
N 44
High Positive
Pearson Correlation 0.735**
Correlation
Time Wasting
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 Significant
N 44
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 13 shows the significant relationship between Time Management practices and our
respondents’ academic performances by identifying and analyzing the significant value of
the following:
Time planning and Time attitude were interpreted as Moderate Positive Correlation
Significant; and Time wasting was interpreted as High Positive Correlation significant.
The data above only imply that Time planning and Time attitude (which are examples of
Time Management practices) have moderate relationship with the students’ academic
performances; and Time wasting (which is related or has a connection with Time
Management practices) has a strong relationship with the students’ academic
performances.
By studying the above findings, we can safely conclude that there is a significant
relationship between the Time management practices and our respondents’ academic
performances.

Appendix

Data Matrix

Age
Valid Cumulati
Frequen Perce Perce ve
cy nt nt Percent
Vali 18-22 42 95.5 95.5 95.5
d
23-27 1 2.3 2.3 97.7
28-32 1 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Sex
 Valid Cumulati
Frequen Perce Perce ve
cy nt nt Percent
Vali Male 11 25.0 25.0 25.0
d
Female 33 75.0 75.0 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Occupation
Frequen Perce Valid Cumulati
cy nt Perce ve
nt Percent
Vali Government 9 20.5 20.5 20.5
d Employee
Farmer 6 13.6 13.6 34.1
Fisherman 1 2.3 2.3 36.4
Businessman/ 4 9.1 9.1 45.5
Woman
Vendor 24 54.5 54.5 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Time Schedule using gadget

Frequen Perce Valid Cumulati
cy nt Perce ve
nt Percent
Vali 1-2 2 4.5 4.5 4.5
d
2-3 4 9.1 9.1 13.6
4-5 8 18.2 18.2 31.8
6-7 11 25.0 25.0 56.8
8--9 19 43.2 43.2 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Time Planning 4 3 2 1
1. I make a list of activities that should be done for a week. 21 15 7 1

2. I have set a goal for each week. 15 19 9 1

3. I do things in order of my priorities. 24 15 3 2
4. I set my time in completing a task. 18 17 8 1
5. I prioritize the task based on when the assignment is due 29 14 0 1
and how much time I need to complete it.
6. I divided the easy and difficult task 18 22 3 1
7. I always write down academic dates so that I can get it 21 15 7 1
done on time.
8. I make time for activities and for family 19 19 5 1
9. I make reminders in sticky notes 18 10 14 2
10. I divide my time for doing activities and making rest. 20 17 6 1
Time Attitude 4 3 2 1
1. I proofread my activities before submitting. 2 14 5 1
Time Wasting 44 3 2 1
2.
1. II do
do my
my activities
activities advanced, week
rushing at last before the deadline.
minute. 51 20
15 13
17 71
2. I find myself making leisure with other media platforms 60 23 14 1
3.
thatI studying
interfere my
withdifficult task without procrastinating.
my activities/school works. 3 23 17 1
4.
3. I prioritize sleeping than Idoing
Priorities are something set and stick to.
activities/school works in 71 23
12 7
19 61
advanced because deadline is too far 3
5.
4. II can make quick
am satisfied come decisions
what may on as
trivial
longmatters.
as I finished my 6
14 30 77 21
21
6. I feel I use my schedule correctly and effectively.
activities. 8 28 6 2
7. II am
5. regularly
makingreview
empty mypromises
activitiestoindo
relation to my goals.
my activities, but in 59 24 16
13 10 10
1
8.
theI assure
end willthat
not all
do my
it. activities will be submitted on or before 3 10 1 1
theI am
6. deadline.
spending precious minutes dealing with things that 32 14 20 7
9. I am
are not using otherand
my priority references
distractstomehavefromrelation
doing in my
school 1 19 6 1
answers
related stuff. 8
10.I discipline
7. I always add information
myself in using that strengthen my answers.
my cellphone. 92 17
21 3
12 21
8. I delay my activities because of poor internet connection. 63 16 17 5
9. My actions are mainly decided by me, not others. 20 20 2 2
10. I always procrastinate 4 15 18 7

Grade Frequency
1.25 - 1.00 3
1.26 - 1.75 38
1.76 - 2.25 2
2.26 - 2.75 1

Sum of Mean
 Time Planning df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 7.31 2 3.66 8.99 0.00
Sex Within Groups 16.68 41 0.41
Total 24.00 43
Between Groups 7.90 1 7.90 20.62 0.00
Age Within Groups 16.10 42 0.38
Total 24.00 43
Between Groups 16.90 4 4.23 23.22 0.00
Parents
Within Groups 7.10 39 0.18
Occupation
Total 24.00 43
Between Groups 17.59 4 4.40 26.77 0.00
Time Schedule
Within Groups 6.41 39 0.16
Using Gadgets
Total 24.00 43

Sum of Mean
 Time Attitude df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 6.41 2 3.20 10.76 0.00
Sex
Within Groups 12.21 41 0.30
 Total 18.62 43
Between Groups 7.47 1 7.47 28.14 0.00
Age Within Groups 11.15 42 0.27
Total 18.62 43
Between Groups 11.17 4 2.79 14.63 0.00
Parents
Within Groups 7.45 39 0.19
Occupation
Total 18.62 43
Between Groups 13.14 4 3.29 23.41 0.00
Time Schedule
Within Groups 5.47 39 0.14
Using Gadgets
Total 18.62 43

Sum of Mean
 Time Wasting df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 5.26 2 2.63 4.94 0.01
Sex Within Groups 21.84 41 0.53
Total 27.10 43
Between Groups 13.94 1 13.94 44.51 0.00
Age Within Groups 13.16 42 0.31
Total 27.10 43
Between Groups 21.37 4 5.34 36.40 0.00
Parents
Within Groups 5.73 39 0.15
Occupation
Total 27.10 43
Between Groups 22.21 4 5.55 44.34 0.00
Time Schedule
Within Groups 4.88 39 0.13
Using Gadgets
Total 27.10 43

Academic Performance

Pearson Correlation 0.585**

Time Planning
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00
N 44
Pearson Correlation 0.656**
Time Attitude
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00
N 44
Pearson Correlation 0.735**
Time Wasting
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00
N 44