Anda di halaman 1dari 6

GROUP NAME: The A Team

Bayona, Khryzza Jycke


Reyes, Jules
Ricasio, Mary Joy Catherine
Venturina, Trisha Shane
Victoriano, John Clinton

HUB34

1. Qualitative Frequency Distribution Table

Number of Students
Male 17
GENDER Female 33
2nd year 10
3rd year 35
YEAR LEVEL
4th year 5
Developmental Studies 21
Human Biology 15
COURSE Electrical Engineering 9
Tourism Management 5

Discussion:

The chart directly represents the connection between the total number of males compared to females. This clearly
indicates that the number of females interviewed were almost twice as much compared to females, in this sense
the total number of students were 50. The total percentage of the males who participated for this research project
were about 34% of the total population interviewed while the female portion were about 66% of the total
population over fifty. On the other hand, the table completely shows the data including the portion of students via
year level or by the course where they belong.

Conclusion: We therefore conclude that a minimal amount of data can be established by using the pie chart.
Quantitative data can be established using this method however not all of data can be sectioned into this type of
data compilation. The table shows all of the needed data while the pie chart shows the quantitative data in its
simplest form.

Discussion:

The bar graph shows that the number of students interviewed per year level were mostly third year students with
a huge number of samples around 35 people. Second year students had 10 participants while fourth year
students were the least in terms of numbers (exactly 5) since only a few of them were seen and participated.

Conclusion: We therefore conclude that the majority of students that participated were third year students,
followed by second year and lastly fourth year students.
Discussion: The final graph was made to represent the number of students who participated based on their
designated courses. Those students who belong to development studies had the highest number with over 21
samples and second in terms of number were human biology students with 15 samples followed by 9 samples
from electrical engineering and tourism management with the least samples equal to five.

Conclusion: We therefore conclude that students in development studies had the highest number of samples
followed by human biology students then engineering students and tourism students with the least number of
participants.

1. Quantitative Frequency Distribution Table

Randomly Selected 50 DLSU-D Students With and Without Siblings

Number of Total number


RF <CF >CF <RCF >RCF
brothers or of students
sisters
0 8 16 8 50 16 100
1 22 44 30 42 60 84
2 9 18 39 20 78 40
3 6 12 45 11 90 22
4 5 10 50 5 100 10
Total 50 100
The total number of students surveyed is 50 students. Computations for class size and interval are not
necessary since the result of the survey is in a maximum of 4 siblings. The variables appeared to be
too small to be able to perform the computations. Getting the midpoint and class boundaries is not
possible. Only the relative frequency would be significant information in the table which gives the
percentage of each frequency. Cumulative frequency gave a running total of each frequency of
students. In the table as shown, majority of the randomly selected students have only a single sibling.

Number
of
Students

Number of Siblings

The majority number of students with a single sibling is 22 students. The minimum number of students is 5
students with four siblings. As seen in the table, the number of students is not equally distributed to every number
of sibling. Symmetry is not present. The distribution is right skewed where the mean is higher than the anticipated
median which is located in the middle.
Number of
students

Number of Siblings

The cumulative frequency is depicted in the table. The peak is seen in the point where 22 students have one
sibling. This result is similar to histogram but frequency polygon has a better picture of comparing data. The
survey is an open question and the randomly selected DLSUD freely answered the questionnaire. The trend
shows that the lesser number of students has the bigger amount of siblings.

Conclusion

We have come to the conclusion that questionnaires have advantages over many types of surveys because they
are cheap and can easily target groups of interest in many ways and they can be used to target a large audience
in a wide geographical area.

Students get to know of how many brothers and sisters they have in their life and they also know that how much

time they get to school. Time is very important in life because it is scarce. When things are scarce, they become
valuable because people can't get enough to satisfy their needs. Since no one can reclaim lost time,
it's important to make the most of the time one has on Earth.

Finally, we can conclude that questionnaires are the most commonly used in research because they can be
applied in many different areas; for example, education, science, health care surveys and so on; whereas
interviews can be too expensive, difficult to arrange and time consuming to be applied in a large geographical
area.
Documentation: