Scribd
Upload
2 views5 pages

DATA INTERPRETATION (AutoRecovered)

Uploaded by

jerwinlazartemiranda18
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views5 pages

DATA INTERPRETATION (AutoRecovered)

Uploaded by

jerwinlazartemiranda18
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

1.

Profile of the Respondents

The table shows the profile of 50 student respondents from


Sorsogon State University. The findings revealed a balanced
gender distribution (46% male, 54% female), with most students
falling within the 18-20 age range. Additionally, the sample was
evenly distributed across academic years: 30% in the first year,
30% in the second year, and 32% in the third year.

Table 1. Profile of the respondents (Students)

Student Profile Frequency (n=50) Percentage (%)


SEX
o Male 23 46
o Female 27 54
AGE
o 33-35 2 4
o 30-32 5 10
o 27-29 6 12
o 24-26 10 20
o 21-23 16 32
o 17-19 11 22
YEAR LEVEL
o First year 15 30
o Second year 19 38
o Third year 16 32

2. Level of Acceptance in Zero-Based Grading System

A survey conducted at Sorsogon State University Castilla Campus (SSU


Castilla Campus), students evaluated their perception of a zero-based
grading. The survey presented five statements about the system, with
students responding using a weighted mean scoring system (higher score
indicates stronger agreement) and descriptive ratings on a scale of
"Highly Accepted," "Moderately Accepted," "Less Accepted," and "Not
Accepted."

The survey results (average score: 4.3, "Moderately Accepted")


revealed a generally positive student perception of the zero-based
grading system. Students expressed moderate agreement with statements
regarding the system's effectiveness in measuring learning (weighted
mean score of 3.9, "Moderately Accepted") and its value as a learning
tool (weighted mean score of 4.2, "Moderately Accepted"). However,
stronger agreement emerged for statements concerning fairness and
motivation. Students indicated strong agreement (weighted mean score
of 4.6, "Highly Accepted") that the system fairly evaluates
performance and motivates them to learn independently (weighted mean
score of 4.6, "Highly Accepted"). In conclusion, while students see
some value in the system's ability to measure learning and enhance the
learning environment, they hold a stronger belief in its fairness and
effectiveness in motivating independent study.

Table 2. Level of Acceptance in Zero-Based Grading System

Statements Weighted Descriptive


Mean Rating

a. The zero-based grading system effectively 3.9 Moderately


measures student learning. Accepted

b. This system promotes a deeper understanding 4.4 Moderately


of course material. Accepted

c. The zero-based grading system is fair in 4.6 Highly


evaluating student performance. Accepted

d. The system motivates students to learn 4.6 Highly


independently. Accepted

e. Overall, the zero-based grading system is a 4.2 Moderately


valuable tool for my learning environment. Accepted

3. Students’ problems and Difficulties

The table shows the student perspectives on the Zero-Based Grading


System. Notably, 92% of students expressed concern about receiving
poor grades, while 60% found failing a course challenging. Remedial
exams posed difficulties for 78% of students, and demotivation due to
low grades affected 94%. Additionally, heightened stress during exams
impacted 76% of students, and 56% struggled to recover from mistakes.
Alarmingly, 80% acknowledged resorting to cheating to pass exams.

Table 3. Students’ problems and Difficulties

Student Problem and Frequency (Multiple Percentage (%)


Difficulties Response)

a. Receiving poor 46 92
grades

b. Failing a course 30 60
c. Needing to 39 78
undergo remedial
exams.

d. Enrolling in 47 94
summer classes
due to low
grades

e. Feeling 22 44
demotivated to
continue
studies.

f. Heightened 38 76
stress,
particularly
during exam
periods.

g. Struggling to 28 56
recover back
from mistakes.

h. Escalation of 35 70
anxiety levels

i. Resorting to 41 82
cheating to pass
exams.

4. Proposed Solution

The table shows student preferences for improving academic


performance at Sorsogon State University Castilla Campus reveals a
strong focus on planning and utilizing available resources. The most
agreed-upon solutions include planning summer schedules with lighter
course loads (88%), utilizing resources for remedial exams (86%), and
analyzing mistakes to develop improvement plans and seek help (84%).
This suggests that students prioritize strategies that directly
address their academic workload and knowledge gaps.

Table 4. Proposed Solutions

Proposed Solution Frequency (Multiple Percentage (%)


Responses)
a. Identify areas 37 74
of difficulty
and seek help.

b. Discuss options 34 68
with advisor to
recover credit.

c. Utilize 42 84
resources
offered for
remedial exams.

d. Plan summer 44 88
schedule,
consider lighter
course loads.

e. Take breaks, 33 66
identify
academic goals,
connect with
support.

f. Develop stress- 36 72
management
techniques,
communicate with
professors.

g. Analyze 43 86
mistakes,
develop a plan
to improve, seek
help.

h. Practice 29 58
relaxation
techniques, seek
professional
help for
anxiety.

i. Understand 30 60
consequences of
cheating, focus
on genuine
learning.

You might also like