CHAPTER V
PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter presents the data gathered by the researchers which comprised the profile of students in terms of gender, GWA in the academic year 2010-2011, status of time management in studying and with the partner, and levels of motivation and anxiety of the respondents as a student.
In order to answer the main problem of the study which is to determine the effects of romantic relationship on the academic performance of BSCS 2 students (A.Y. 2010-2011), the data gathered were then tallied and presented in tabulated and textual form, analyzed using the statistical formulas described in the previous chapter and interpreted according to the sub-problems of the study.
1. Respondent’s Profile
The profile of the respondents was determined by their gender and the general weighted average in the Academic Year 2010-2011 first (1st) and second (2nd) semester which were indicated in the first part of the questionnaire.
Most of the respondents were female because majority of the BS Computer Science 2 students who were involved in romantic relationship were female. Additionally, majority of the BS Computer Science 2 students were also female.
Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of respondents according to gender. There are four (40%) male respondents and six (60%) female respondents.
The respondents’ general weighted average in the Academic Year 2010-2011 were also asked to measure their academic performance.
Considering their difference in mental capabilities of the respondents, the academic performance was measured according to the amount of points that has changed in their general weighted average from the first to the second semester. The negative score in academic performance means that the respondents’ general weighted average (GWA) from first semester decreased during the second semester while the positive score represents the increase of general weighted average of the respondents.
Table 1 shows the general weighted average of the respondents in the firstand second semester of Academic Year 2010-2011. The scores in academic performance were also indicated.
Table 1 – Respondents’ Profile in terms of GWA in the A.Y 2010-2011
Student | General Weighted Average (GWA) in 1st Semester | General Weighted Average (GWA) in 2nd Semester | Scores in Academic Performance |
A | 2.9 | 2.7 | 0.20 |
B | 3 | 3 | 0.00 |
C | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.00 |
D | 1.6 | 1.9 | -0.30 |
E | 1.7 | 2 | -0.30 |
F | 1.8 | 2.7 | -0.94 |
G | 2.2 | 2.5 | -0.30 |
H | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0.00 |
I | 1.9 | 2.5 | -0.60 |
J | 3.3 | 2.5 | 0.81 |
Five (50%) general weighted average of the respondents have decreased from first to second semester; two (20%) have increased and three (30%) general weighted average were maintained as it is from first to second semester.
The next part of this chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the tabulated data gathered which were the respondents’ answers on the survey questionnaire. Statistical formula such as the weighted mean and pearson product moment correlation and t-test of pearson’s significance were used to get their overall response of the respondents to the survey questions and test the significant correlation between the variables.
2. Status of Time Management
According to Crissey (2006), teenagers who engage in romantic relationship were often challenged in balancing the relationship and academics. She added that this challenge gives a pressure on how to maintain the romantic side and academic works at the same time.
On the other hand, Myers (2010) stated that for college students, romantic relationships consume a lot of time. This implies that the time that they must allot in studying is consumed by spending their time with their partner.
Table 2 shows the status of time management of the respondents in studying and with the partner by using weighted mean. The midpoints in each frequency were used to determine the weight of the corresponding frequency. The respondents answers were classified as Always for 1-4hrs/week, Almost Always for 5-10hrs/week, and Sometimes for above 10hrs/week.
Table 2. Status of Time Management using the weighted mean | ||||||||||
Time spent : | A | AA | S | Total | ||||||
f | W = 10 | % | f | W = 7.5 | F | W = 2 | f | WM | Description | |
In Studying | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 8 | 16 | 10 | 3 | S |
With partner | 3 | 30 | 30 | 3 | 22.5 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 6 | AA |
Legend: | ||||||||||
Sometimes | (1-4 hrs./week) | S | ||||||||
Almost Always (5-10 hrs/week) | AA | |||||||||
Always (10 hrs. above / week) | A | |||||||||
Table 2 reveals that there is no (0%) respondent who always spent his/her time in studying; eight (80%) students responded that they sometimes spent their time in studying; and two (20%) respondents almost always spent time in studying. The frequency of time they spent in studying acquired a weighted mean of 3 (Sometimes) which implies that majority of the respondents spent only 1-4 hrs/week to study.
Meanwhile, three (30%) respondents answered that they “always” spend their time with their partner (above 10 hrs./week); three (30%) responded “almost always” (5-10 hrs./week); and four (40%) responded sometimes(1-4 hrs/week).
The weighted mean ( 3 - which means Sometimes) of the time spent in studying is lesser compared to the weighted mean (6 - which means Almost Always) of the time spent with their partner. It implies that the respondents more time with their partner than in studying.
The data supports Crisseys argument saying that the respondents’ status of time management is not balanced because they spent more time with their partner than in studying. It implies that the students were more focused in their romantic relationship than their academic works. It also supports the researchers’ proposition in the study framework that the more time a person spends in a relationship, the lesser the time will remain for other tasks. Furthermore, according to Wang(2004) in her Social Exchange theory, people who are involved in a romantic relationship frequently interact with each other in order to maintain the relationship and have a feeling of being loved and cared. This situation however, affects other tasks of persons involved since they give rewards to one another (which is the time with each other) and these rewards that they give would also become a cost which means that they have lost their time which must be allotted for some important things such as academic works.
3. Levels of Motivation as a student
Davis (1999) said that there are students who seem to be passionate about learning but others also need inspiration in order to stimulate them. She suggested that students should be given their needs such as the need to be involved or in other words, the need to belong. “Motivation is the force that drives a person to do something” (Sweetland, n.d.). According the Need to Belong theory, a person is motivated do tasks when he/she satisfies his need to belong in a relationship. Having a partner makes an individual feel the affection, care, and the like, that makes them motivated.
In addition, the review of related studies described that there is somehow a sense of motivation to students who involved in romantic relationship which made them perform better in their academics. Additionally, Crissey (2006) said that one beneficial effect of romantic relationship to the academic performance is that it gives an inspiration to the students involved. Furthermore, motivation allows students to give their best on the task provided.
Table 3 shows the perception of the respondents on their levels of motivation as a student while they are involved in a romantic relationship. The weighted mean in each item were computed to find the general perception of the respondents on their levels of motivation as a student.
Table 3. Perception of the respondents on their levels of motivation as a student
Item | Choices | Overall Perception on the item | |||||||||||
SA | A | U | D | SD | |||||||||
f | W | f | W | f | W | F | W | f | W | WM | Description | ||
1 | I feel motivated to study when my partner shows affection to me. | 2 | 10 | 5 | 20 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3.6 | A |
2 | I want get good grades to ensure a brighter future with my partner. | 1 | 5 | 6 | 24 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3.6 | A |
3 | I expect my partner to help me with my studies. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3.1 | U |
4 | I feel motivated to do my projects because my partner encouraged me to do so. | 1 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3.5 | A |
5 | I feel motivated to study when I’m with my partner. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3.1 | U |
6 | I’m inspired to finish my course when I have a romantic partner. | 4 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3.3 | U |
7 | I get more comfortable when I discuss my problems and concerns in my studies to my partner. | 2 | 10 | 6 | 24 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3.9 | A |
8 | I enjoy studying when I’m in a relationship. | 1 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3.2 | U |
9 | I think I can get higher grades when I’m in a romantic relationship. | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3.1 | U |
10 | I feel motivated to study because my parents allow me to involve in a romantic relationship. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 4 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2.9 | U |
Overall Perception on the levels of motivation | 12 | 60 | 40 | 160 | 24 | 72 | 17 | 34 | 7 | 7 | 3.3 | U | |
Legend:
SA – Strongly Agree U – Undecided SD – Strongly Disagree WM – Weighted Mean f - frequency
A – Agree D – Disagree W – Weight
The statement “I get more comfortable when I discuss my problems and concerns in my studies to my partner” got the highest weighted mean 3.9 (Agree). Two (20%) respondents strongly agreed in the statement; five (50%) respondents agreed; one (10%) respondent is undecided, another one (10%) respondent disagreed; and still one (10%) respondent strongly disagreed. It entails that majority of the respondents agreed that they feel more comfortable when they discuss their problems and concerns in their studies to their partner which is in line with the perspective of Lucas &Curpuz (2007) saying that romantic relationships offers a positive environment for learning because it offers stability, trust and care to the students involved.
On the other hand, the statement “I feel motivated to study because my parents allow me to involve in a romantic relationship” acquired the lowest weighted mean 2.9 (Undecided). It implies that parents’ permission on the students’ involvement in romantic relationship doesn’t generally affect their motivation to study.
4. Levels of Anxiety
According to Morris & Maisto (1995), anxiety which can be taken from “internal and external forces” brings about stress. They added that “delays, lack of resources, losses, failure and discrimination” are the primary cause of aggravation. Additionally, Crissey (2006) said that having a romantic affair especially when you are just a student would not just give a "source of stress" but also a disturbance.
Table 4 shows the levels of anxiety of the respondents as students in relation to their involvement in romantic relationship. The weighted mean in each item were computed to find the general perception of the respondents on their levels of anxiety as students.
Table 4. Level of Anxiety of the Respondents
Item | Choices | Overall Perception on the item | |||||||||||
SA | A | U | D | SD | |||||||||
F | W | F | W | F | W | F | W | F | W | WM | Description | ||
1 | I can’t concentrate on my studies whenever my partner and I have misunderstandings. | 3 | 15 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3.4 | U |
2 | I can’t fix my attention on my studies because I feel worried that this romantic relationship won’t work out. | 3 | 15 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3.0 | U |
3 | I often miss my classes because of hanging out with my partner. | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2.0 | D |
4 | I can’t concentrate on my studies because my parents don’t like my partner. | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 2.2 | D |
5 | I can’t catch up with my lessons because I often hang out with my partner. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1.6 | SD |
6 | I hardly give attention on my studies because I feel worried about being left by my partner. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 1.8 | SD |
7 | I can’t pass my projects and homework on time even if I’m in a relationship. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 1.6 | SD |
8 | I can’t focus on my studies because I think that my partner doesn’t really love me. | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 1.8 | SD |
9 | I think I can’t get higher grades when I’m involved in a romantic relationship. | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2.3 | D |
10 | I feel worried about my studies because my parents might know that I’m involved in a relationship. | 2 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 2.6 | D |
Overall Perception on their levels of anxiety as student | 10 | 50 | 11 | 44 | 11 | 33 | 28 | 56 | 40 | 40 | 2.2 | D | |
Legend:
SA – Strongly Agree U – Undecided SD – Strongly Disagree WM – Weighted Mean f - frequency
A – Agree D – Disagree W – Weight
Though there are some respondents who agreed that they are often feel anxious when faced with problems in their romantic relationship, results show that majority of the respondents’ perceptions on each item disagreed to the statements which measure their levels of anxiety as a student. It implies that majority of the respondents have a lower level of anxiety as a student while they were involved in a romantic relationship. It is maybe because they feel that they are being loved and cared by their partners which causes them not to feel anxious. The need to belong theory explains that people get anxious when they don’t satisfy the aspect of romantic relationship which is the context of being loved and cared by their partners.
The statement “I can’t concentrate on my studies whenever my partner and I have misunderstandings” got the highest weighted mean, 3.4 (Undecided). Three (30%) respondents strongly agreed on this statement; two (20%) agreed; 2 (20%) remain undecided; 2 (20%) disagreed; and one (10%) respondent strongly disagreed. It implies that the general perception of the respondents on their level of anxiety is categorically neutral when it comes to the statement which describes those conflicts between them and their partner, affect their studies. Furthermore, this indicates that the respondents in general were divided on their side whether misunderstanding with their partner can cause distraction in their studies; some students agreed and some did not.
In the meantime, there were two statements which acquired the lowest weighted mean (1.6 – Strongly Disagree). In the first statement: “I can’t catch up with my lessons because I often hang out with my partner”, one (10%) respondent agreed; three (30%) disagreed; six (60%) strongly disagreed and no (0%) respondent perceived to be neutral on the statement. Meaning to say, most of the respondents disagreed to the perspective that they can’t catch up with their lessons because they often hang out with their partners. In the second statement,“I can’t pass my projects and homework on time if I’m in a relationship”, there was no respondent who strongly agreed or agreed: one (10%) respondent was undecided, four (40%) disagreed; and five (50%) respondents strongly disagreed. It means that majority of the respondents can still pass their projects and homework on time even if they engage in romantic relationship.
The following portion of this chapter determines the correlation of time management, levels of motivation and anxiety to the academic performance of the respondents. In finding the correlation, the scores of each respondent on the corresponding variable were computed using the mean, together with the academic performance of the respondents which is determined by the amount of points that the grades have changed between the two semesters. The Pearson product moment of correlation was used to determine if there is a correlation between variables. Moreover, the formula for t-test which is described in the previous chapter is used to determine the significant relationship of variables to be correlated in the following parts.
In t-test, the degrees of freedom, tabled values and the value of r are used. The degrees of freedom and tabled values will be constant in each correlation which will be 8 and 1.860. The value of the degrees of freedom is equal to the number of respondents subtracted by 2 (N - 2). In the meantime, the tabled value which is used is also according to the number of participants and the significant level 0.5 which is applicable to this study.
Furthermore, the result to the computation of t-test is the computed value for t. In assessing the significance of the relationship of two variables, the computed value for t and the tabled value 1.860 (which is constant) is compared. A greater computed value for t than the tabled value suggests that there is a significant relationship between the variables being compared. However, if the computed t value is negative which means that it is beyond the tabulated value, then, there is still a significant relationship between the variables being correlated. Meanwhile, the computed t value which is lower than the tabulated value signifies that if there is a relationship in the two variables, the relationship is not significant.
5. Correlation of Time Management and Academic Performance
As shown in the previous pages, the respondents became more focused on their romantic relationship since they spend more time with their partner than in studying. The students who are involved in a relationship have faced a challenge in balancing their time in academics and romantic side. Consequently, it is indeed important to find out if there is a correlation between the respondents’ time management and their academic performance.
In finding the correlation between time management and academic performance, it will be divided into two: time spent in studying vs. academic performance and the time spent with the partner vs. academic performance.
Crissey (2006) who studied the impact of romantic relationship among girls in high school believed that the time management of the students involved in romantic relationship affects their academic performance. She said that the more time spent by the students to their partner, the lesser the time they will spend in studying. Consequently, the present study investigates if there is really a significant relationship of the time management (which constitutes the time spent by the respondents in studying and in their partner) and academic performance of the students in a romantic relationship.
Table 5.1.1 Correlation Between Time Spent in Studying and Academic
Performance
Student | Time Spent in Studying | Change in academic performance |
A | 7.5 | 0.20 |
B | 2 | 0.00 |
C | 2 | 0.00 |
D | 2 | -0.30 |
E | 2 | -0.30 |
F | 2 | -0.94 |
G | 2 | -0.30 |
H | 7.5 | 0.00 |
I | 2 | -0.60 |
J | 2 | 0.81 |
Total | 31 | -1.43 |
Table 5.1.2 Result in T-test (Correlation Between Time Spent in Studying and Academic Performance)
Tables 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 depict the significant correlation between the time spent in studying and the academic performance of the respondents. The value of r which is 0.27 shows that there is a slight relationship between the two variables. However, using the t-test with significance level of 0.05, and degrees of freedom which is 8, the computed t value which is 0.79 is less than the tabled value (1.860) implies that the relationship is not significant. It suggests that the amount of time they spend in studying does not necessarily affect their academic performance. This is due to the fact that there are still other academic works that the students may have done in order to succeed in academics just like making projects and assignments.
On the other hand, Crissey (2006) also proposed that the students’ time spent with their partner affects their academic performance. This is supported by social exchange theory which proposed that rewards which are given to the partner such as time would imply a cost for the giver since this source which must be needed to accomplish other important tasks such as doing school works is lost.
Table 5.2.1 Correlation between the Time Spent with Partner and
Academic Performance
Student | Scores in Time Spent with the partner | Scores on academic performance |
A | 2 | 0.20 |
B | 7.5 | 0.00 |
C | 10 | 0.00 |
D | 7.5 | -0.30 |
E | 2 | -0.30 |
F | 10 | -0.94 |
G | 10 | -0.30 |
H | 7.5 | 0.00 |
I | 2 | -0.60 |
J | 2 | 0.81 |
Total | 60.5 | -1.43 |
Table 5.2.2 Result in T-test (Correlation between the Time Spent with Partner and
Academic Performance)
Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 illustrate the correlation between time spent with partner and the academic performance of the respondents. The t-test was used with the same significance level, and tabular value in the previous correlation procedure. A correlation value of -0.37 and a computed t value of -1.12 which is beyond the tabular value illustrates that there is a significant negative correlation between the time spent by the respondents with their partner and their academic performance. Table 5.2.1 shows that the student with the most time spent with the partner has also the least score in academic performance. Additionally, in the interviews conducted by the researchers, the data reveal that the respondents were more pressured in managing their time the moment their romantic partners call or would like to communicate them since they are given the priority instead of studying, making projects, or assignments and the like. Hence, the time allotted for studying or doing some other school work was consumed and thereby causes a low academic performance.
The outcome suggested that the time spent with their partner is inversely related to their academic performance. Meaning to say, the more time they spend with their partner, there is a great probability that their academic performance will decline; and the lesser the time they spend with their partner, there is a great probability that their academic performance will increase. A respondent who has been interviewed confirmed this result. She said that spends more time with her partner that is why her grades have decreased making her not focused on her studies. Moreover, a respondent said she often postpone her academic works such as doing projects, doing homeworks or studying when her boyfriend is calling or sending him a text message.
6. Correlation between Levels of Motivation/Anxiety and Academic Performance
The results shown in the previous pages illustrate that the respondents’ general perception in their level of motivation as students is neutral. However, there are also respondents who agreed that they are motivated as students while they are involved in a romantic relationship. In relation to this, it is noteworthy to determine whether a significant correlation between levels of motivation of the respondents and their academic performance exists.
Table 6.1.1 Correlation between Levels of Motivation as a Student and
Academic Performance of the Respondents
Student | Score in Motivation | Change in Academic Performance |
A | 3.8 | 0.20 |
B | 3.2 | 0.00 |
C | 2.7 | 0.00 |
D | 4.1 | -0.30 |
E | 3.5 | -0.30 |
F | 3.2 | -0.94 |
G | 3.4 | -0.30 |
H | 2.5 | 0.00 |
I | 3.6 | -0.60 |
J | 3.6 | 0.81 |
Total | 33.6 | -1.43 |
Table 6.1.2 Result in T-test (Correlation between Levels of Motivation as a Student and
Academic Performance of the Respondents)
Tables 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 show that there is no significant relationship between the levels of motivation of the respondents as students and their academic performance. The t-test which results a computed t value of 0.02 which is less than tabulator value of (1.860) at 0.05 level of significance with 8 degrees of freedom reveals that the positive slight correlation of levels of motivation and academic performance is not statistically significant.
Based from the data presented in table 6.1.1 it implies that the respondents’ level of motivation shows a very low coefficient of correlation (r) which is equal to 0.006. Meaning to say, the levels of motivation of the respondents is not related to their academic performance since the value of r in the correlation is very near to zero. Therefore, the change in the grades of the respondents was not dependent on their levels of motivation. Respondents who have been interviewed showed a higher level of motivation as students while in a relationship but their answers do not show some pattern of relationship between levels of motivation and academic performance. One respondent who has a score of 3.6 in the level of motivation has a positive score in academic performance while another respondent who is in the same level of motivation has a negative score in academic performance.
A respondent confirmed the result by saying that sometimes, when one is inspired because of involvement in romantic relationship, the motivation is not sufficient because the distraction overcomes which will greatly affect the academic performance. She even broke up with her boyfriend because of this.
Furthermore, anxiety creates a distraction to students because it gives pressure to them and the attention will be divided. . According to the Multidimensional anxiety theory (Martens et. al., 1990), a person who is anxious has a lower performance, because anxiety has effects (negative) of the body’s activation.
Table 6.2.1 Correlation between Levels of Anxiety as a Student and Academic Performance
Student | Scores in Anxiety | Change in Academic Performance |
A | 4.3 | 0.20 |
B | 2.6 | 0.00 |
C | 1.6 | 0.00 |
D | 1.9 | -0.30 |
E | 1.7 | -0.30 |
F | 1.2 | -0.94 |
G | 3.1 | -0.30 |
H | 2 | 0.00 |
I | 2.1 | -0.60 |
J | 2 | 0.81 |
Total | 22.5 | -1.43 |
tv = 0.06 | r = -0.61 | |
Significant | p = 0.05, 8 df | CV = -2.18 <tv |
Table 6.2.2 Result in T-test(Correlation between Leves of Anxiety and Academic Performance)
Table 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 describes the correlation of the respondents’ levels of anxiety as a student and academic performance, relating to their romantic relationship. It indicates that the value of correlation is -0.61 which means that there is a considerable negative linear relationship between the two variables. Furthermore, at 0.05 significant level, the critical value which is -2.18 is less than or beyond the tabled value which is 1.860. It signified that the relationship is statistically significant. Meaning to say, as their level of anxiety increases the academic performance decreases while as their anxiety level decreases the academic performance of their increases. It is also true to the present study based from the data shown in table 6.2.1. However, there are respondents who increase their grade despite of high anxiety because of some other factors like school ability and support of their peers which are not considered in this study. Based from the interview conducted, break-up which was not mentioned in the questionnaire was also a factor which contributes to the anxiety of students. The respondent said that she find it difficult to adjust to her situation after the break-up. As a result, the situation distracted her studies that she could not focus on it and at the end of the semester, she received a failing grade in one of the subjects she took up.
Table 6.2.2 implies that the levels of anxiety of the respondents inversely correlated with their academic and this correlation is significant statistically. Meaning to say, it is necessary that the academic performance increases as the anxiety level gets lower; and the higher the anxiety level is, the academic performance will decline. This coincides with the theory of multidimensional anxiety that was mentioned earlier.
