CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter presented the overall findings of the study and presented using
tables, analysis, and interpretation, to include a significant discussion of the study.
Problem 1 stated that what is the demographic profile of students in terms of:
Table 2. Courses
Courses Frequency Percentage
BEED 12 12%
BSED-MATH 12 12%
BSED-ENGLISH 11 11%
BSCE 10 10%
BPED 9 9%
BSAT 9 9%
BTLED 9 9%
BSHM 8 8%
BS-ENTREP 8 8%
BSMarE 8 8%
BSFi 4 4%
Total 100 100%
Table 2 shows the preferred courses of respondents from the combined total of
College A and College B. The table displays the courses, their corresponding frequencies,
and the percentages they represent. The data shows that the courses BEED and BSED-
MATH were the most preferred choices among the respondents, each selected by 12% of
the total participants. Following closely behind was BSED-ENGLISH, which garnered a
preference rate of 11%. In terms of the remaining courses, BSCE, BPED, BSAT, and
BTLED were all chosen by 10% of the respondents, indicating a relatively high level of
23
interest in these fields of study. The courses BSHM, BS-ENTREP, and BSMarE received
equal preference from 8% of the respondents, suggesting a similar level of interest in
these courses. On the other hand, the course BSFi has the lowest preference rate, with
only 4% of the respondents opting for it. This implies that the data showcases a varied
range of preferred courses among the respondents, with some courses being highly
favored, while others receive relatively lower preference rates. The power of self-concept
is strong and cannot only impact the classes students do enroll in, but it can also impact
the classes where they choose not to enroll.
According to Nagy et al. (2017), students are less likely to enroll in a science
class if they have high self-concepts of their math abilities because they want to be in a
class, they believe they do well in and not take a chance on other classes. This study
indicates that if students have high expectations for a certain skill, they are less likely to
enroll in other programs because they prefer to select classes that they know they succeed
in rather than taking a chance on other subjects.
Table 3. Parents Educational Attainment
Mother Father
Indicators Frequency Percentage Indicators Frequency Percentage
Elementary 13 13% Elementary 12 12%
Level Level
Elementary 10 10% Elementary 10 10%
Graduate Graduate
High School 29 29% High School 26 26%
Level Level
High School 19 19% High School 25 25%
Graduate Graduate
College Level 16 16% College Level 15 15%
College 13 13% College 14 14%
Graduate Graduate
Total 100 100% Total 100 100%
24
Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according
to the highest level of schooling they attended. Out of 100 respondents, 29 or 29% of the
mothers and 26 or 26% of the fathers were high school level but didn’t finish high school.
There were 19 or 19% of the mothers and 25 or 25% of the fathers were high school
graduates. 16 or 16% of the mothers and 15 or 15% of the fathers were college level but
didn’t finish college. This implies that most of the respondents’ parents attained High
School levels.
It supports the study of Tenenbaum (2018) the higher the degree the parents have
obtained, the greater the support the student has from their parents. Parent’s educational
attainment could sometimes have an impact on student’s educational support.
Table 4. Parents Employment Status
Mother Father
Indicators Frequency Percentage Indicators Frequency Percentage
Employed 13 13% Employed 37 37%
Unemployed 76 76% Unemployed 48 48%
Self-Employed 11 11% Self-Employed 15 15%
Total 100 100% Total 100 100%
Table 4 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents
according to their parent’s employment status. For employed, the fathers got the highest
percentage of 37% while the mothers got 13%. For the unemployed, both got the highest
percentage, 76% of mothers were unemployed, and 48% of fathers were also
unemployed. For self-employed, some fathers are self-employed with the highest
percentage of 15%, and 11% of mothers were also self-employed. This implies that most
25
of the respondent’s parents were unemployed. As asserted by Engel (2018) at the
University of California that Parent's occupational social status also plays a significant
role in the first transition choice. Students with a parent of higher occupational status was
inclined to follow their parent's achievements and select a path that directly prepares
them for the University, which in turned likely obtain them a higher occupational status.
It included that Parental occupational and educational characteristics do influence a
child's educational path.
Table 5. Family Monthly Income
Indicators Frequency Percentage
Below P5,000 56 56%
P5,001 - P7,500 23 23%
P7,5001 - P10,000 18 18%
P10,0001- Above 3 3%
Total 100 100%
Table 5 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents
according to their family income. Most of the respondents, 56 in total have a monthly
income below P5,000. 23 of them earn a monthly income of P5,001 – P7,500. 18 of them
earn P7,001-P10,000 a month. Only 3 of them have a monthly income of P10,001 and
above. This implies that most of the respondent’s family income is below 5,000.
Family financial income has a positive correlation with the academic achievement
of students in their chosen courses (Dahie et. al., 2016). On the contrary, there is no
significant relation between the academic performance of students on their chosen strand,
26
and the socio-economic and educational background of their parents (Ogunshola &
Adewale, 2012). Additionally, parental socioeconomic status is not strongly significant to
students in the selection of courses (Obiyo & Eze, 2015).
Problem 2 stated that what is the level of influence of college students toward course
preference in terms of:
Table 6. Parents Influence
Indicators Mean Scores Interpretation
1. I seek my parents’ advice in choosing my 2.31 Low
course.
2. My parents choose the course for me based on 1.83 Low
our culture.
3. Parents choose my course based on their 1.98 Low
income.
4. My Parents choose my course based on their 2.59 Low
perception and expectations of my future
career.
5. Parents decide what course fitted based on my 2.24 Low
abilities/capabilities.
Average Mean Score 2.20 Low
Legend: 4.21-5.00 was very high, 3.41-4.20 was high, 2.61-3.40 was moderate, 1.81-
2.60 was low, 1.00-1.80 was very low
Table 6 shows that the parents have a low influence on the course preference of
the students with a low average mean score of 2.20. This also implies that students
choose their course not because of their parent’s perception and expectations, and this
results in a mean score of 2.59 which is indicated to be low. Also, students don’t seek
advice from their parents in choosing their course with a mean score of 2.31 which is
indicated to be low, as well as their parents don’t decide what course fitted based on their
27
abilities/capabilities with a low mean of 2.24. This implies that most college students
aren’t influenced by their parents in choosing their courses.
As Lipman Hearne (2019) claimed that parents allowed their children to choose
their career path or the course that their children want to pursue, but at the end of the day,
the biggest impact on the children’s decisions is the parents’ options. Some students have
been influenced by their teacher, friends, and family, but there are some cases in that
students are undecided about the course that they want to study.
Table 7. Peer Influence
Indicators Mean Score Interpretation
1. I consult my friends before choosing a course. 2.32 Low
2. I go with the trends or popular courses chosen 2.15 Low
by most students prior to class in choosing by my
peers and today’s generation.
1. My peers recommend me to take this course. 2.35 Low
4. My peers and I shared thoughts or opinions in 2.72 Moderate
choosing a course.
5. My peers will acknowledge me if I take a 2.32 Low
course that is similar to theirs.
Average Mean Score 2.37 Low
Legend: 4.21-5.00 was very high, 3.41-4.20 was high, 2.61-3.40 was moderate, 1.81-
2.60 was low, 1.00-1.80 was very low
Table 7 shows that peers have a low influence on the course preference of the
students with a low average mean score of 2.37. This suggests that students don’t share
their thoughts and opinions in choosing their course, this shows a moderate mean score of
28
2.72. This also implies that peers don’t recommend a course that shows a low mean score
of 2.35. This also indicates that students don’t consult their friends before choosing a
course, and acknowledgment doesn’t matter to the students whether they have a similar
course or not with their peers. This resulted in a low mean score of 2.32.
In this case, the impact peers have on other peers becomes more prominent in
getting students to enroll in classes compared to persuading students not to enroll in
certain classes. According to Anderson et al. (2018), when students did not enroll in a
certain class, the students’ fear of what their friends would think and/or the receiving of
discouraging comments from their friends had no significant impact on the students'
decision.
Table 8. Self-Choice
Indicators Mean Interpretation
Score
1. I choose this course based on my skills and 3.82 High
abilities.
2. I choose this course because of the future 3.42 High
opportunities.
3. I choose this course because it is in demand. 3.60 High
4. I choose this course because I believe I am good at 3.50 High
it and I see myself excelling at it.
5. I choose this course based on my future career job. 3.60 High
Average Mean Score 3.59 High
Legend: 4.21-5.00 was very high, 3.41-4.20 was high, 2.61-3.40 was moderate, 1.81-
2.60 was low, 1.00-1.80 was very low
29
Table 8 shows that self-choice has a high influence on students in choosing their
course with a high average mean score of 3.59. This manifests that students choose their
course based on their skills and abilities which resulted in a high mean score of 3.82. This
also implies that students choose their courses based on their future career jobs and it is in
demand, where are all results in a mean score of 3.60 which is indicated to be high. This
also suggests that students choose their course because of what they believe they are good
at and where they see themselves excelling.
As Dickhuaser et al., (2018) claimed, students are more likely to enroll in a class
where they have a high self-concept because they believe themselves to be competent in
the subject matter rather than when they are not as confident about their abilities.
Problem 3 stated that is there a significant relationship between the influence of
parents and peers on students’ course preferences.
Table 9. Determining the significant relationship between the influence of parents or
peers on students’ course preference.
Variables Mean Std. Deviation P-value Decision
Parents influence 2.20 .450 .076 Accept the
null
Peer influence 2.37 .229 .022 hypothesis
Table 9 shows the summary of computation in Pearson’s Coefficient of
Correlation Statical Method. Based on the formula, if the level of significance (0.05) is
less than the P-value, then reject Ho. In this case, the standard deviation of both
influences which were Parents (0.076) and Peer (0.022) is greater than the level of
significance (0.05), therefore, accept the Ho or the null hypothesis. This implies that there
30
is no significant relationship between the influence of parents and peers on students’
course preference which means students are more likely to choose a course based on their
own decision and self-concept, and not because of their parents or peers.
In fact, according to Babad and Taybe, 2018, a student's own self and life can
impact their decisions on course enrollment, as they consider aspects like their own
personal needs and interest, pressures of their life, stereotypes, and their own goals,
motivations, and beliefs of their education.
PROPOSED INTERVENTION PLAN
This intervention plan is an infographic specifically in a form of flyers that are
mainly proposed for the Grade 12 students or for the incoming college enrollees. This
flyer serves as a basis for students to know the importance of decision-making when it
comes to choosing a course for their future career path.
Rationale
Choosing a course is an important part of the educational process because it gives
students the chance to learn what is necessary to obtain and maintain employment, learn
about different professions, have the chance to experience those professions they are
interested in, and make decisions about their plans after they graduated in college such as
whether to pursue further education or enter the workforce right away. Being afraid to
make the wrong decision is a valid concern. Instead of dreading this big step, let us help
you in making this big decision in your life. This flyer served as the basis for Grade-12
students and/or incoming first-year students to get some insights and predictions on
choosing the courses for their future career paths.
31
Objectives
The goals of this infographic are:
1. to enlighten students’ minds about the future career opportunities of the courses
they will enroll in or take in college.
2. to help individuals understand their personal interests, preferences, and
decision-making process when it comes to selecting a course.
3. to reflect on their personal values, interests, and goals toward a future career
path.
Sample Flyer:
32
