Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the results, the analysis and interpretation of data

gathered from the answers to the questionnaires distributed to the fields. The

said data were presented in tabular form in accordance with the specific

questions posited on the statements of the problem.

Age Frequency Percentage

Male 66 51.2%

Female 63% 48.8%

Total 129 100%

Table 2. Profile of Respondents in Terms of Sex.

Table 2 presents the gender distribution of the respondents involved in the

research. Out of the total 129 respondents, 66 or 51.2% are male, while 63 or

48.8% are female. This indicates that the majority of the respondents in this

study are male. The data suggests a higher level of participation or

representation from males in this research. In line with the findings presented,

research by Smith et al. (2020) on gender participation in academic studies

similarly found a trend of higher male representation. Their study spanning

multiple disciplines reported a consistent pattern where male respondents

constituted a majority, suggesting a prevalent trend of greater male participation

in research studies.
Table 3. Profile of Respondents in Terms of Grade Level.
Grade Level Frequency Percentage
11 52 40.3%
12 77 59.7%

Total 129 100%

Table 3 revealed that the most students were from grade 12. As shown in

the table, grade 11 only has 52 participants or 40.3% of the grade 11 population

while grade 12 has 77 participants or 59.7% of the grade 12 population.

Therefore, majority of our respondents came from grade 12 students.

Academic
Frequency Percentage Mean Description
Performance
75 below 0 0%

75 – 79 6 4.7%

80 – 84 30 23.3% Very
85
Satisfactory
85 – 89 58 45%

90 – 100 35 27.0%
Total: 129 100%
Table 4. Profile of Respondents in terms of their Academic Performance.
Legend:

Grade Verbal Description

90 – 100 Outstanding
85 – 89 Very Satisfactory
80 – 84 Satisfactory
75 – 79 Fairly Satisfactory
Below 75 Need not meet Expectations

Table 4 findings presents the academic performance of the respondents

based on their grades. With a mean grade of 85, it indicates that on average, the

respondents have achieved a ‘Very Satisfactory’ level of academic performance.

This suggests that the majority of the respondents are performing well in their

academic endeavors, with their grades being significantly above average. This

high level of performance demonstrates a good understanding of their study

material and a strong engagement in their academic work.

 However, it’s worth noting that this is an average figure, and individual

performances may vary. The result obtained in this study is supported with the

findings of Jhoselie Tus (2021) which reveals that high school students’ general

average in one quarter are mostly within the level of satisfactory, very

satisfactory and outstanding but there are still students belonging under the

level of fairly satisfactory.

AI Tools Frequency Percentage

Chatgpt 60 46.5%

Cici 44 34.1%

Meta AI 34 26.3%

Quillbot 5 3.9%
Others 3 2.3%

Total 146 100%

Table 5. Profile of Respondents in Terms of AI tools they are using.

This table shows how many students use different AI tools. ChatGPT is the

most popular, used by 60 students or 40.5%, followed by Cici 44 students or

34.1%, and Meta AI 34 students or 26.3%, Fewer students use Quillbot 5

students or 3.9%, and other unspecified tools 3 students or 2.3%. There's a slight

error in the total percentage (113.1% instead of 100%), probably due to

rounding. In short, ChatGPT is the dominant AI tool among these students. Our

results is more likely to Azzeddine et. al.(2024) that majority of their

respondents uses Chapgpt and Quillbot. According to them, the respondents

uses those tools in writing essays, in order to make it grammatically correct

 Variable Frequency Percentage

Never 2 1.7%

Rarely 28 23.3%

Sometimes 84 70%

Always 6 5%

Total: 120 100%

Table 6. Profile of Respondents in Terms of their frequency of using AI

tools.

Table 6 shows how often 120 students use AI tools. Most students (84, or

70%) use them sometimes. A smaller number use them rarely (28 students,

23.3%) or always (6 students, 5%). Very few students (2 students, 1.7%) never

use AI tools. The table shows that using AI tools is common among these

students, with most using them at least occasionally. Our result is not the same

as Alberto et. al.(2024) tells that theirs findings shows that mostly of the senior

high school students uses Chatgpt ‘Always’.

Variables Correlation Decision Verbal Interpretation

Coefficient
Sex and AI 0.210 Accept Ho Not Significant
Frequency

Table 7. Significant Difference between Male and Female Students

Frequency of using AI.
Note: Reject Ho if P – Value is < 0.05

Legend:
Range Verbal Interpretation
± 0.00 – 0.09 Negligible coefficient
± 0.10 – 0.39 Weak coefficient
± 0.40 – 0.69 Moderate coefficient
± 0.70 – 0.89 Strong coefficient
± 0.90 – 1.00 Very Strong coefficient

Based on the table. The study found no significant difference in how often

male and female students in using AI. The data revealed a not significant
correlation coefficient of 0.210 indicates a weak positive coefficient relationship

between Sex and AI frequency.

The p-value of 0.210 is above the threshold of 0.05, meaning any observe

difference is likely due to chance. Therefore, there is no difference wether it’s a

male or female in using AI. Our results is the same with Bancoro(2024) says that

there is no significant releationship between AI use and academic performance

found. In conclusion, AI tools offer personalized learning experiences, immediate

feedback, and collaborative, but further growth and improvement are needed,

including training, accessibility, research, monitoring, and best practices sharing.

Variables Correlation Verbal P– Decisio Verbal

Coefficient Interpretatio Value n Interpretatio
(Pearson’s n n
r)
Frequency – 0.045
Negative 0.615 Accept Not Significant
of using AI Negligible Ho
and Correlation
Academic
Performanc
e
Table 8. Significant Relationship between Frequency of using AI and
Academic Performance.
Note: Reject Ho if P – Value is < 0.05

Legend:

Range Verbal Interpretation

± 0.00 – 0.09 Negligible coefficient
± 0.10 – 0.39 Weak coefficient
± 0.40 – 0.69 Moderate coefficient
± 0.70 – 0.89 Strong coefficient
± 0.90 – 1.00 Very Strong coefficient
 Table 8 reveals that there is no significant relationship between frequency

of using AI and Academic Performance. The correlation coefficient is -0.045. This

indicates a negative negligible correlation between frequency of using AI and

academic performance. However, since the correlation coefficient is negative,

the relationship between two variables is not very strong. With a P-Value of

0.615, which is greater than standard significance level of 0.05. We accepted the

null hypothesis(Ho), indicating that there is no significant relationship between

frequency of using AI and the academic performance of the students. In other

words, no matter how frequent the students uses AI tools it doesn’t affect their

academic performance because they excelled their academics. Our study is

likely with Bancoro (2024) that the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) among

students is moderately prevalent in terms of its functionality, accessibility, and

complexity.
 Chapter V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In the light of the result and analyses of data from the previous parts of

this study, these are the findings.

1. Most respondents are in Grade 12.

2. Majority of the respondents uses Chatgpt, sometimes.

3. Majority of the respondents are in level of very satisfactory and

outstanding in their academic performance of first semester in the school

year 2024-2025.

4. Male and female frequency of using AI found to be not significant.

5. The relationship between frequency of using AI and academic

performance are found to be not significantly related.

CONCLUSION
 Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that Matalom National

High School students wether male or female are chatgpt dominated users. Usage

of AI seemed not necessary especially for those students who performed well

academically.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the findings, to help students at Matalom National High School

do better in school despite of high frequency of using AI, here are some

suggestions based on what we found:

1. Discussion about the negative consequences of AI tools abuse to

academic performance.

2. Teach students how to use AI more effectively. And not to be

dependent on it.

3. Observe students who were listening to teachers explaination and

the other students reading the explanation made by an AI. And see

who got the highest understanding.