Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the statistical analysis of data and the corresponding
interpretation and discussion of findings based on the order of the statement of the
problem based on the order of the statement of the problem.
Profile of the Respondents
The figure below shows the distribution of the respondents as to their
gender.
41%
MALE
59%
FEMALE
Figure 2. Distribution of the Respondents according to their Gender.
It is shows clearly in the figure 2 that most of the respondents are female
with the frequency of 77 and a percentage of 59. Moreover, the male have the
42
43
lower distribution of 54 or 41 percent of the total number of respondents. Majority
of the respondents are female.
The figure below shows the distribution of the respondents as to their age.
3% 4%
15% 24%
14 years old
15years old
16years old
17years old
54% 18years old
Figure 3. Profile of the Respondents according to their Age.
It is show in the figure 3 that the highest frequency is in the age of 15
having a frequency of 70 and having the percentage of 54, second is14 years old
having the frequency of 32 with a percentage of 24, 16 years old that has a
frequency of 20 and a percentage of 15, 18 years old that has a frequency of 5 and
a percentage of 4, and last is 17 years old that has a frequency 4 with a percentage
of 3. This implies that the majority of respondents are matured to comprehend
what ever they read.

44
The figure below shows the distribution of the respondents as to their
interest.
1%
1%
13%
Reading
26%
Solving Problem
21%
Spatial Intelligence
Sports
Singing
35%
Self-Knowledge
3%
Natural Object
Figure 4. Distribution of the Respondents as to their Field of Interest
As shown in the figure 4, 46 or 35% of the respondents have interest
in sports or they have the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, next is 34 or 26%
have interest in music, singing and playing different musical instruments or
they have musical intelligence, followed by those respondents that have
interest in solving problem in Mathematics or they have logical-
mathematical intelligence that have a frequency of 28 or a have a
percentage of 21, then 17 or 13% of the respondents have the interest to
read and good in language or they have verbal-linguistic intelligence and
lastly is the respondent with self-knowledge and have interest in nature or
they have the intrapersonal intelligence and naturalistic intelligence that

45
have the same frequency of 1 and have a percentage of 1 . This implies that
majority of the respondents have the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence or most
of the respondents have interest in dancing or they are more likely an
athlete.
Table 2
Mean Perception of the Students with their Multiple Intelligence
Standard Verbal
Indicators Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Verbal-linguistic This applies to me
2.911 0.456
Intelligence strong
Logical- This applies to me
Mathematical 2.692 0.514 strong
Intelligence
Spatial This applies to me
2.559 0.576
Intelligence strong
Bodily-kinesthetic This applies to me
2.814 0.598
Intelligence strong
Musical This applies to me
2.539 0.590
Intelligence strong
Interpersonal This applies to me
2.711 0.642
Intelligence strong
Intrapersonal This applies to me
2.841 0.558
Intelligence strong
Naturalistic This applies to me
2.684 0.672
Intelligence strong
Legend:
3.25–4.00 This applies to me completely

2.50.–3.24 This applies to me strong
1.75–2.49 This applies hardly to me
1.00–1.74 This does not apply to me at all
Table 3 shows that the mean perception of the students with their multiple
intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical
Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence, Musical
Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, Naturalistic

46
Intelligence with their respective means of 2.911, 2.692, 2.559, 2.814, 2.539,
2.711, 2.841, 2.684 are interpreted as “This applies to me strong”. This imply that
Table 3
Mean Performance of the Students according to their NAT Grade and Math Grade
Indicator Mean Standard Deviation Verbal
Interpretation
NAT Grade 83.466 3.409 Average
Math Grade 81.924 3.598 Average
Legend:
96.11 – 100.00 Excellent
92.22 – 96.10 Very Good
88.33 – 92.21 Fairly Good
84.44 – 88.32 Good
80.55 – 84.43 Average
76.66 – 80.54 Bad
72.77 – 76.65 Slightly Bad
68.88 – 72.76 Very Bad
65.00 – 68.87 Needs Improvements
It can be seen from table 3 that the mean performance of the students based
on NAT and Math grades with mean of 83.466 and 81.924, respectively are
interpreted as “average”
47
Table 4
Test of Correlation between Gender and Multiple Intelligences
r-value p-value Decision Verbal
Interpretation
Verbal-linguistic 0.046 0.602 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence correlation
Logical- -0.117 0.184 Accept Ho No significant
Mathematical correlation
Intelligence
Spatial -0.087 0.322 Accept Ho No significant
Bodily- 0.207 0.018 Reject Ho Significant

kinesthetic correlation
Intelligence
Musical -0.029 0.743 Accept Ho No significant
Interpersonal 0.044 0.617 Accept Ho No significant
Intrapersonal 0.157 0.074 Accept Ho No significant

Naturalistic -0.02 0.820 Accept Ho No significant

Table 4 shows that there is no significant correlation between the gender of
the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic
Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Musical
Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and Naturalistic
Intelligence with their respective r-value of 0.046, -0.117, -0.087, 0.207, -0.029,
0.044, 0.157, -0.02 and p-value of 0.602, 0.184, 0.322, 0.743, 0.617, 0.074, 0.820.
However, Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence and gender has significant correlation
with r-value of 0.207 and p-value of 0.018.

48
Table 5
Test of Correlation between Age and Multiple Intelligences
Interpretation
Verbal-linguistic -0.082 0.354 Accept Ho No significant
Logical- 0.278 0.001 Reject Ho Significant
Intelligence
Spatial 0.079 0.372 Accept Ho No significant
Bodily- -0.055 0.534 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence
Musical 0.075 0.397 Accept Ho No significant
Interpersonal -0.033 0.712 Accept Ho No significant
Intrapersonal -0.037 0.676 Accept Ho No significant
Naturalistic .020 0.825 Accept Ho No significant
Table 5 revealed that there is no significant correlation between the age of
the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic
Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Musical
Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and Naturalistic
Intelligence with respective r-value -0.082, 0.079, -0.055, 0.075, -0.033, -0.037,
.020 and p-value of 0.354, 0.372, 0.534, 0.397, 0.712, 0.676, 0.825. On the other
hand, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence and age has significant correlation with r-
value of 0.278 and p-value of 0.001.

49
Table 6
Test of Correlation between Field of Interest and Multiple Intelligences
Interpretation
Verbal-linguistic -0.030 0.736 Accept Ho No significant
Logical- -0.011 0.899 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence
Spatial -0.116 0.186 Accept Ho No significant
Bodily- -0.002 0.985 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence
Interpersonal -0.053 0.545 Accept Ho No significant
Intrapersonal -0.052 0.559 Accept Ho No significant
Naturalistic .003 0.977 Accept Ho No significant
It is shown in the Table 6 that there is no significant correlation between the
Field of Interest of the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-
linguistic Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence,
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence,
Intrapersonal Intelligence, and Naturalistic Intelligence with respective r-value -
0.030, -0.011, -0.116,-0.002, 0.066, -0.053, -0.052, 0.003 and p-value of 0.736,
0.899, 0.985, 0.186, 0.455, 0.545, 0.559, 0.977.

50
Table 7
Test of Correlation between NAT Grade and Multiple Intelligences
Interpretation
Logical- 0.545 0.820 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence
Spatial 0.383 0.634 Accept Ho No significant
Bodily- 0.157 0.129 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence
Naturalistic 0.393 0.797 Accept Ho No significant
In Table 7 it is shown that there is significant correlation between the NAT
grade of the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic
Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, , Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence,
Musical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and
Naturalistic Intelligence with respective r-value 0.797, 0.545, 0.383, 0.157, 0.129,
0.634, 0.820, 0.393 and p-value of 0.393, 0.820, 0.634, 0.129, 0.157, 0.383, 0.545,
0.797.
51
Table 8
Test of Correlation between Math Grade and Multiple Intelligences
Interpretation
Logical- 0.053 0.547 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence
Spatial 0.178 0.042 Reject Ho Significant
Bodily- 0.162 0.065 Accept Ho No significant
Intelligence
Musical -0.075 0.394 Accept Ho No significant
Naturalistic 0.030 0.736 Accept Ho No significant
Table 8 shows that there is no significant correlation between the Math
grade of the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic
Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence,
Musical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and
Naturalistic Intelligence with respective r-value of 0.087, 0.053, 0.162, -0.075,
0.167, 0.099, 0.030 and p-value of 0.323, 0.547, 0.065, 0.394, 0.057, 0.258, 0.736.
However, Spatial Intelligence and Math grade has significant correlation with r-
value of 0.178 and p-value of 0.042

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

problem based on the order of the statement of the problem.

Profile of the Respondents

The figure below shows the distribution of the respondents as to their

Figure 2. Distribution of the Respondents according to their Gender.

lower distribution of 54 or 41 percent of the total number of respondents. Majority

of the respondents are female.

Figure 3. Profile of the Respondents according to their Age.

It is show in the figure 3 that the highest frequency is in the age of 15

of 3. This implies that the majority of respondents are matured to comprehend

what ever they read.

The figure below shows the distribution of the respondents as to their

Figure 4. Distribution of the Respondents as to their Field of Interest

As shown in the figure 4, 46 or 35% of the respondents have interest

in sports or they have the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, next is 34 or 26%

have interest in music, singing and playing different musical instruments or

they have musical intelligence, followed by those respondents that have

interest in solving problem in Mathematics or they have logical-

mathematical intelligence that have a frequency of 28 or a have a

percentage of 21, then 17 or 13% of the respondents have the interest to

read and good in language or they have verbal-linguistic intelligence and

lastly is the respondent with self-knowledge and have interest in nature or

they have the intrapersonal intelligence and naturalistic intelligence that

majority of the respondents have the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence or most

of the respondents have interest in dancing or they are more likely an

3.25–4.00 This applies to me completely

intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical

Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence, Musical

Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, Naturalistic

Math Grade 81.924 3.598 Average

Bodily- 0.207 0.018 Reject Ho Significant

Intrapersonal 0.157 0.074 Accept Ho No significant

Naturalistic -0.02 0.820 Accept Ho No significant

Table 4 shows that there is no significant correlation between the gender of

the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic

Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Musical

Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and Naturalistic

However, Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence and gender has significant correlation

with r-value of 0.207 and p-value of 0.018.

Table 5 revealed that there is no significant correlation between the age of

the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic

Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Musical

Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and Naturalistic

hand, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence and age has significant correlation with r-

value of 0.278 and p-value of 0.001.

It is shown in the Table 6 that there is no significant correlation between the

linguistic Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence,

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence,

Intrapersonal Intelligence, and Naturalistic Intelligence with respective r-value -

0.899, 0.985, 0.186, 0.455, 0.545, 0.559, 0.977.

In Table 7 it is shown that there is significant correlation between the NAT

grade of the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic

Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, , Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence,

Musical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and

Table 8 shows that there is no significant correlation between the Math

grade of the respondents and their Multiple Intelligence such as Verbal-linguistic

Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence,

Musical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and

Naturalistic Intelligence with respective r-value of 0.087, 0.053, 0.162, -0.075,

value of 0.178 and p-value of 0.042

Você também pode gostar