Sample No.

1
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

PRE-TEST POST-TEST
Mean 81.03571429 87.42857143
Variance 98.10978836 103.5132275
Observations 28 28
Pearson Correlation 0.914234701
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Df 27
t Stat (t-computed value) -8.119295517
P(T<=t) one-tail 5.05308E-09
t Critical one-tail 1.703288423
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.01062E-08
t Critical two-tail 2.051830493

Table 1
Difference in the Statistics Performance of
TAU Students During Pre-test & Post-Test
SCORE MEAN SCORE
Pre-test 81.04
Post Test 87.43
t-computed value= 8.12
t-critical value= 2.05
Probability value = .00000001016

Table 1 shows that there is a high significant difference in the Statistics

performance of TAU students during their pre-test and post-test since the t-
computed value (8.12) is greater than the t-critical value (2.05) and the probability
value is less than .01. This implies that the intervention made by the teacher is very
effective.
MANIPULATED DATA:

Table 1. Difference in the Statistics Performance of

TAU Students During Pre-test & Post-Test
SCORE MEAN SCORE
Pre-test 81.04
Post Test 87.43
t-computed value= 8.12
t-critical value= 2.05
Probability value = .02016

Table 1 shows that there is significant difference in the Statistics performance of

TAU students during their pre-test and post-test since the t-computed value (8.12)
is less than the t-critical value (2.05) and the probability value is less than .05. This
implies that the intervention made by the teacher is effective.

Table 1
Difference in the Statistics Performance of
TAU Students During Pre-test & Post-Test
SCORE MEAN SCORE
Pre-test 87.04
Post Test 87.43
t-computed value= 8.12
t-critical value= 12.05
Probability value = .0710

Table 1 shows that there is no significant difference in the Statistics performance

of TAU students during their pre-test and post-test since the t-computed value
(8.12) is less than the t-critical value (12.05) and the probability value is greater
than .05. This implies that the intervention made by the teacher is not effective.
 Sample No. 2

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

TAGLISH ENGLISH
Mean 83.04761905 74.66666667
Variance 33.44761905 29.83333333
Observations 21 21
Pearson Correlation 0.746044383
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 20
t Stat 9.557598289
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.36682E-09
t Critical one-tail 1.724718218
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.73363E-09
t Critical two-tail 2.085963441

Table 2
Difference in the Mathematics Performance of TAU Students using
Taglish and English as Medium of Instruction in Teaching
Mathematics

MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION MEAN SCORE

Taglish 83.05
English 74.66
t-computed value = 9.55
t-critical value = 2.08
Probability value = 6.73E-09 = .00000000673

It can be gleaned in Table 2 that there is a high significant difference in the

Mathematics performance of students using Taglish and English as medium of
instruction used in teaching Mathematics since the t-computed value is greater than
the t-critical value and the probability value is less than .01. This goes to show that
the Mathematics performance of the students is better when the medium of
instruction used by the teacher is Taglish rather than pure English.
MANIPULATED DATA:
Table 2
Difference in the Mathematics Performance of TAU Students using
Taglish and English as Medium of Instruction in Teaching
Mathematics

MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION MEAN SCORE

Taglish 83.05
English 74.66
t-computed value = 9.55
t-critical value = 2.08
Probability value = .0345

Table 2 shows that there is a significant difference in the Mathematics

performance of students using Taglish and English as medium of instruction used
in teaching Mathematics since the t-computed value is greater than the t-critical
value and the probability value is less than .05. This goes to show that the
Mathematics performance of the students is better when the medium of instruction
used by the teacher is Taglish rather than pure English.

Table 2
Difference in the Mathematics Performance of TAU Students using Taglish
and English as Medium of Instruction in Teaching Mathematics

MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION MEAN SCORE

Taglish 83.05
English 74.66
t-computed value = 9.55
t-critical value = 22.08
Probability value = .0945

Table 2 shows that there is no significant difference in the Mathematics

performance of students using Taglish and English as medium of instruction used
in teaching Mathematics since the t-computed value is less than the t-critical value
and the probability value is greater than .05. This implies that whether the teacher
will use Taglish or pure English as medium of instruction in teaching Mathematics
the performance of the students will just be the same or comparable.
Sample No. 3:
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
PUBLIC PRIVATE
Mean 94.5 94.7
Variance 8.94444444 10.2333333
Observations 10 10
Pooled Variance 9.58888889
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 18
t Stat -0.14442117
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.44338631
t Critical one-tail 1.73406359
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.88677262
t Critical two-tail 2.10092204

Table 3. Difference in the High School Admission Test

Performance of Students from the Private and
Public School of Camiling
TYPE OF SCHOOL MEAN SCORE
Public 90.50
Private 94.70
t-computed value = 0.1444
t-critical value = 2.10
Probability value = 0.8867
Table 3 shows that there is no significant difference in the Admission test
performance of students graduated from the private and public school since the t-
computed value is less than the t-critical value and the probability is greater
than .05. This means that whether the students are graduate of the private school
and public school their performance will just be the same or comparable.
MANIPULATED DATA:
Table 3. Difference in the High School Admission Test
Performance of Students from the Private and
Public School of Camiling
TYPE OF SCHOOL MEAN SCORE
Public 90.50
Private 94.70
t-computed value = 5.1444
t-critical value = 2.10
Probability value = 0.0288
Table 3 shows that there is a significant difference in the Admission test
performance of students graduated from the private and public school since the t-
computed value is greater than the t-critical value and the probability is less
than .05. This means the students who graduated from the private school
performed better than those who graduated from the public school.

Table 3. Difference in the High School Admission Test

Performance of Students from the Private and
Public School of Camiling
TYPE OF SCHOOL MEAN SCORE
Public 90.50
Private 94.70
t-computed value = 5.1444
t-critical value = 2.10
Probability value = 0.0002
Table 3 shows that there is a high significant difference in the Admission
test performance of students graduated from the private and public school since the
t-computed value is greater than the t-critical value and the probability is less
than .01. This means that the students who graduated from the private school
performed better than students wj=jho graduated from the public school.
Sample No. 4:

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

SINGLE MARRIED
Mean 94.2857143 83.05555556
Variance 14.8351648 11.23202614
Observations 14 18
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
Df 26
t Stat 8.65484317
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.9608E-09
t Critical one-tail 1.7056179
P(T<=t) two-tail 3.9215E-09
t Critical two-tail 2.05552942

Table 4.
Difference Between Single and Married Teachers of
Mayantoc in terms of their Performance Ratings
CIVIL STATUS MEAN SCORE
Single 94.28
Married 83.05
t-computed value = 8.65
t-critical value = 2.05
Probability = 3.91E-09 =.0000000000391

Table 4 shows that there is a high significant difference in the performance

ratings of single and married teachers since the t-computed value is greater than
the t-critical value and the probability is less than .01. This means that single
teachers performed better than the married ones.
MANIPULATED DATA:

Table 4. Difference Between Single and Married Teachers of

Mayantoc in terms of their Performance Ratings
CIVIL STATUS MEAN SCORE
Single 94.28
Married 83.05
t-computed value = 8.65
t-critical value = 2.05
Probability =.039

Table 4 shows that there is a significant difference in the performance

ratings of single and married teachers since the t-computed value is greater than
the t-critical value and the probability is less than .05. This means that single
teachers performed better than the married ones.

Table 4. Difference Between Single and Married Teachers of

Mayantoc in terms of their Performance Ratings
CIVIL STATUS MEAN SCORE
Single 94.28
Married 93.05
t-computed value = 8.65
t-critical value = 42.05
Probability =.0639

Table 4 shows that there is no significant difference in the performance

ratings of single and married teachers since the t-computed value is less than the t-
critical value and the probability is greater than .05. This means that whether the
teacher is single or married, hi sor her performance will just be the same or
comparable.
 Sample No. 5

z-Test: Two Sample for

Means

MALE FEMALE
Mean 94.28125 89.8125
Known Variance 13.95 10.67
Observations 32 32
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
5.09468132
z 7
P(Z<=z) one-tail 1.74664E-07
1.64485362
z Critical one-tail 7
P(Z<=z) two-tail 3.49328E-07
1.95996398
z Critical two-tail 5

Table 5
Difference in the Mathematics Performance of
Male and Female BSE Students of TAU
SEX MEAN SCORE
Male 94.28
Female 89.81
Zcomputed value= 5.09
Zcritical value =1.96
Probability value = 3.49E-07 = .000000349

It can be gleaned in Table 5 that there is a high significant difference in the

Mathematics performance between male and female students since the z-computed
value is greater than the z-critical value and the probability is less than .01. This
implies that male students performed better than female.
 Table 5
Difference in the Mathematics Performance of
Male and Female BSE Students of TAU
SEX MEAN SCORE
Male 94.28
Female 84.69
Zcomputed value= 9.70
Zcritical value =1.96
Probability value = 0.0456

It can be gleaned in Table 5 that there is a significant difference in the

Mathematics performance between male and female students since the z-computed
value is greater than the z-critical value and the probability is less than .05. This
implies that male students performed better in Math than the female students.

Table 5
Difference in the Mathematics Performance of
Male and Female BSE Students of TAU
SEX MEAN SCORE
Male 94.28
Female 93.69
Zcomputed value= 9.70
Zcritical value =11.96
Probability value = 0.0856

It can be gleaned in Table 5 that there is no significant difference in the

Mathematics performance between male and female students since the z-computed
value is less than the z-critical value and the probability is greater than .05. This
implies that male and female students performed equally well in Math.
 Sample No. 6:

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
PURE VEGETABLE 20 671 33.55 a 17.41842
MEAT & VEGETABLE 20 271 13.55 b 17.41842
PURE MEAT 20 177 8.85 c 16.45

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 6881.2 2 3440.6 201.2563 1.47E-26 3.158843
Within Groups 974.45 57 17.09561
LSMD 2.323841
Total 7855.65 59

Table 6. Variation in the Weight Gains of Pupils Using

Different Types of Food Served
Type of Foods Served Mean Weight (grams)
Pure Vegetable 33.55 a
Meat & Vegetable 13.55 b
Pure Meat 8.85 c
F-computed value = 201.25 F-critical value = 3.15
Probability value = 1.47E-26 = .0000 LSMD = 2.32
Legend: Weighted Means followed by different letters are significantly different at 5% level

Table 6 reveals that there is a high significant variation in the

weight gains of the pupils using different types of foods served in school
since the F-computed value is greater than the F-critical value and the
probability value is less than .01.

This means that pupils served with pure vegetables have the
highest gain in weight of 33.55 grams followed by the pupils served with
combination of meat and vegetable with a gain weight of 13.55 grams
and the least gain weight are the pupils served with pure meat with a
weight gain of 8.85 grams.
MANIPULATED DATA:

Table 6
Variation in the Weight Gains of Pupils Using
Different Types of Food Served

Type of Foods Served Mean Weight (grams)

Pure Vegetable 33.55 a
Meat & Vegetable 13.55 b
Pure Meat 12.55 b
F-computed value = 201.25 F-critical value = 3.15
Probability value = 0.0123 LSMD = 2.32
Legend: Weighted Means followed by common letters are not
significantly different at 5% level

Table 6 reveals that there is a significant variation in the weight

gains of the pupils using different types of foods served in school since
the F-computed value is greater than the F-critical value and the
probability value is less than .05. This means that pupils served with
pure vegetables have the highest weight gain of 33.55 grams followed
by the pupils served with the combination of meat and vegetables and
pure meat with weight gains of 13.55 grams and 12.55 grams,
respectively which are of comparable effect.

Table 6
Variation in the Weight Gains of Pupils Using
Different Types of Food Served

Type of Foods Served Mean Weight (grams)

Pure Vegetable 33.55 a
Meat & Vegetable 33.15 a
Pure Meat 30.12 a
F-computed value = 1.25 F-critical value = 3.15
Probability value = 0.071
 Table 6 reveals that there is no significant variation in the weight
gains of the pupils using different types of foods served in school since
the F-computed value (1.25) is less than the F-critical value (3.15) and
the probability value is greater than .05. This means that whether the
pupils will be served with pure vegetables, combination of meat and
vegetables or pure meat, the weight gain effects will just be the same or
comparable.
 Sample No. 7

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 20 1801 90.05 28.36579 a
DISCOVERY APPROACH 20 1160 58 348.4211 b
INQUIRY APPROACH 20 1137 56.85 329.9237 b
TRADITIONAL APPROACH 20 760 38 348.4211 c

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 27976.45 3 9325.483 35.35287 2.07E-14 2.724944
Within Groups 20047.5 76 263.7829
LSMD 10.38359
Total 48023.95 79

Table 7
Variation of Science Performance of Grade XI TSU
Students Using Different Teaching Approaches
APPROACHES MEAN SCORE
INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 90.05 a
DISCOVERY APPROACH 58.00 b
INQUIRY APPROACH 56.85 b
TRADITIONAL APPROACH 38.00 c
F-computed value = 35.35 F-critical value = 2.72
Probability value = 2.7E-14 = .0000 LSMD = 10.38

Table 7 shows that there is a high significant variation

among the approaches used in teaching Science for Grade XI
students of TSU since the F-computed value is greater than the
F-critical value and the probability value is less than .01.
The table further revealed that the best approach in
teaching Science is the Integrative approach with a mean
students’ score of 90.05, followed by the Discovery and Inquiry
approaches with a mean scores of 58 and 56.85, respectively.
And the least approach is the Traditional approach with a mean
score of 38.

Table 7. Variation of Science Performance of Grade

XI TSU Students Using Different Teaching Strategies
APPROACHES MEAN SCORE
INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 90.05 a
DISCOVERY APPROACH 58.00 b
INQUIRY APPROACH 46.85 c
TRADITIONAL APPROACH 38.00 d
F-computed value = 35.35 F-critical value = 2.72
Probability value = .03450 LSMD = 7

Table 7 shows that there is a significant variation among

the approaches used in teaching Science for Grade XI students
of TSU since the F-computed value is greater than the F-critical
value and the probability value is less than .05.
The table further revealed that the best approach in
teaching Science is the Integrative approach with a mean
students’ score of 90.05, followed by the Discover approach
with a mean score of 58.00, followed by the Inquiry approach
with a mean score of 46.85. And the least approach is the
Traditional approach with a mean score of 38.00
 Table 7. Variation of Science Performance of Grade XI TSU
Students Using Different Teaching Strategies
APPROACHES MEAN SCORE
INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 89.05 a
DISCOVERY APPROACH 88.00 a
INQUIRY APPROACH 86.85 a
TRADITIONAL APPROACH 86.00 a
F-computed value = 5.35 F-critical value = 12.72
Probability value = .0789

Table 7 shows that there is no significant variation among

the approaches used in teaching Science for Grade XI students
of TSU since the F-computed value is less than the F-critical
value and the probability value is greater than .05.
This result implies that whether the teacher will use
Integrative approach, Discovery approach, Inquiry approach or
Traditional approach, the Science performance of Grade XI
students of TSU will just be the same or comparable.
Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Averag Varianc
Groups Count Sum e e
Associate
Professor 13 1200 92.31 8.8974 a
Professor 17 1569 92.29 7.9706 a
Instructor 19 1575 82.89 7.655 b
Assistant
Professor 17 1385 81.47 8.1397 b
16.5

ANOVA
P-
Source of Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between Groups 1680.12 3 560.04 69.124 9E-20 2.753
Within Groups 502.323 62 8.102
LSMD 2.01379
Total 2182.44 65

Table 8
Variation of Research Competence of the Faculty of TSU
Along with Their Academic Ranks
ACADEMIC RANK MEAN RATING IN RESEARCH
Associate Professor 92.31 a
Professor 80.00 a
Instructor 82.89 b
Assistant Professor 81.47 b
F-computed value = 69.124 F-critical value = 2.753
Probability value = 9E-20 = .000 LSMD = 2.013
Sample No. 9

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.84282066
R Square 0.71034666 71.03
Adjusted R Square 0.67931238
Standard Error 10.422092
Observations 32

ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
Regression 3 7458.63998 2486.21333 22.8890933 1.0832E-07
Residual 28 3041.36002 108.620001
Total 31 10500

Coefficient Standard
s Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 30.529676 5.57091365 5.48019193 7.4766E-06 19.1181767 41.9411753 1
Age 1.85210783 1.41325883 1.31052274 0.20066763 -1.0428217 4.7470373 -
Study Habit 8.92493934 3.1254907 2.8555322 0.00800452 2.52266186 15.3272168 2
Frequency of watching TV 11.0390805 2.97487318 3.71077347 0.00090737 4.94532903 17.132832 4

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.84282066
R Square 0.71034666
Adjusted R Square 0.67931238
Standard Error 10.422092
Observations 32

ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
Regression 3 7458.63998 2486.21333 22.8890933 1.08E-07
Residual 28 3041.36002 108.620001
Total 31 10500

Coefficient Standard
s Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%
Intercept 30.529676 5.57091365 5.48019193 7.4766E-06 19.1181767
Age 1.85 1.41325883 1.31052274 0.2007 -1.04282165
Study Habit 8.92 3.1254907 2.8555322 0.0080 2.52266186
Frequency of watching
TV 11.04 2.97487318 3.71077347 0.0009 4.94532903
 Table 9
Influence of Students’ Attributes on their Science Performance
ATTRIBUTES COEF. OF PROBABILITY
REGRESSION
Age +1.85 ns .2007
Study Habit +8.92 ** .0080
Frequency of watching TV +11.03 ** .0009
2
Multiple Coefficient of Determination (R ) = 71.03%
Overall Probability = 1.08E-07 = .000000108
Legend: highly significant(**) significant(*) not significant (ns)

Age
The age of the student has no significant influence on his or her Science performance
since the probability value is greater than .05. This result implies that whether the student is
younger or older, his or her Science performance will just be the same or comparable. “Or” This
means that the age of the student has nothing to do with his or her Science performance.

Study Habit.
The study habit of the students has high significant influence on their Science
performance since the probability value is less than .05. The positive sign of the coefficient of
regression means that student with desirable study habit is expected to do well in Science than
student with undesirable study habit.

Frequency of watching TV.

The frequency of watching TV of the student has high significant influence on his or her
Science performance since the probability value is less than .01. The positive sign of the
coefficient of regression implies that student who frequently watch TV has the tendency to
perform well in Science than the student who seldom watch TV.

Multiple Coefficient of Determination

The multiple coefficient of determination of 71.03% means that about 28.97% variables
are unaccounted for in this study. This implies that there are other variables not included in this
study that are strong predictors of Science performance of students.
This also means that 71.03% variance or change in the Science performance of students
can be attributed to the change in their personal attributes.
MANIPULATED DATA:

Table 8.Influence of Students’ Attributes on their Academic Performance

ATTRIBUTES COEF. OF PROBABILITY
REGRESSION
Age +1.85 * .0200
Study Habit -8.92 * .0080
Frequency of watching TV +11.03 ns .0678
2
Multiple Coefficient of Determination (R ) = 71.03%
Overall Probability =
Legend: highly significant(**) significant(*) not significant (ns)

Age
The age of the student has significant influence on his or her Science performance since
the probability value is less than .05. The positive sign of the coefficient of regression implies
that older students are expected to be doing well in Science than the younger ones.

Study Habit.
The study habit of the students has significant influence on their Science performance
since the probability value is less than .05. The negative sign of the coefficient of regression
means that student with undesirable study habit tends to do well in Science than student with
desirable study habit.

Frequency of watching TV.

The frequency of watching TV of the student has no significant influence on his or her
Science performance since the probability value is greater than .05. This result implies that
whether the student watches TV frequently or just seldom, his or her Science performance will
just be the same or comparable. “Or” This means that the frequency of watching TV by the
student has nothing to do with his or her Science performance.

Multiple Coefficient of Determination

The multiple coefficient of determination of 71.03% means that about 28.97% variables
are unaccounted for in this study. This implies that there are other variables not included in this
study that are strong predictors of Science performance of students.
This also means that 71.03% variance or change in the Science performance of students
can be attributed to the change in their personal attributes.
Sample No. 9
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.815731466
R Square 0.665417824
Adjusted R Square 0.615850095
Standard Error 11.40680896
Observations 32

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 4 6986.887155 1746.722 13.42442 3.80238E-06
Residual 27 3513.112845 130.1153
Total 31 10500

Standard
Coefficients Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%
Intercept 56.2774911 7.429507822 7.574861 3.79E-08 41.0334004
FAMILY INCOME 6.519523425 1.467082974 4.443868 0.000136 3.509317843
EDUCL ATTAINMENT OF FATHER 10.0266018 4.567490047 2.19521 0.036925 0.654886446
EDUCL ATTAINMENT OF MOTHER -6.36007926 4.554164005 -1.39654 0.173927 -15.70445184
NO. OF CHILDREN -4.44760553 1.522933935 -2.92042 0.006977 -7.572407819

Table 9. Influence of Socioeconomic factors on Students’ Science Performance

VARIABLES COEF. OF PROBABILITY
REGRESSION
Family Income +6.519** .0001
Educ’l Attainment of Father +10.02* .0369
Educ’l Attainment of Mother -6.36ns .1739
No. of Siblings in the Family -4.47** .0069
2
Multiple Coefficient of Determination (R ) = 66.54%
Legend: highly significant(**) significant(*) not significant (ns)

Family Income
Student’s family income has high significant influence on his or her Science
performance since the probability value is less than .01. The positive sign of the
coefficient of regression implies that student whose family income is high has the
tendency to perform well in Science than student whose family income is low.

Educational Attainment of Father

The educational attainment of student’s father has significant influence to
his or her Science performance. The positive sign of the coefficient of regression
means that student is expected to perform well in Science if his or her father is
with higher educational attainment.

Assumptions:
Family Income. If the sign of coefficient of regression is negative: (-6.519)
The family income of the student has high significant influence to his or her
Science performance since the probability is less than .01. The negative sign of
the coefficient of regression implies that student whose family income is low tends
to perform well in Science than the student whose family income is high.

Family Income. If the probability is greater than .05:

The family income of the student has no significant influence to his or her
Science performance since the probability is greater than .05. This result implies
that whether the student’s family income is high or low his or her Science
performance will just be the same or level of family income of the student has
nothing to do with his or her Science performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumptions:
Educ’l Attainment of Father. If the sign of coef. of regression is negative: (-
10.02)
The educational attainment of student’s father has significant influence to
his or her Science performance since the probability is less than .05. The negative
sign of the coefficient of regression implies that student whose father has low
educational attainment tends to perform well in Science than the student whose
father’s educational attainment is high.

Educ’l Attainment of Father. If the probability is greater than .05:

The level of educational attainment of the student’s father has no significant
influence to his or her Science performance since the probability is greater
than .05. This result implies that whether the educational attainment of student’s
father high or low his or her Science performance will just be the same or the level
of father’s educational attainment of the student has nothing to do with his or her
Science performance.

Educational Attainment of Mother

 The educational attainment of student’s father has no significant influence to
his or her Science performance. This goes to show that whether the educational
attainment of student’s mother is high or low his or her Science performance wil
just be the same or educational attainment of mother has nothing to do to his oe her
Science performance.

Assumptions:
Educ’l Attainment of Mother. If the probability is less than .05 and the sign of
coef. of regression is negative: (-6.36)
The educational attainment of student’s mother has significant influence to
his or her Science performance since the probability is less than .05. The negative
sign of the coefficient of regression implies that student whose mother has low
educational attainment tends to perform well in Science than the student whose
mother’s educational attainment is high.

Educ’l Attainment of Mother. If the probability is less than .05 and the sign of
the coef. of regression is positive (+6.36)
The educational attainment of student’s mother has significant influence to
his or her Science performance since the probability is less than .05. The positive
sign of the coefficient of regression implies that student whose mother has high
educational attainment tends to perform well in Science than the student whose
mother’s educational attainment is high.

The multiple coefficient of determination of 66.54% implies that about

33.46% of the socioeconomic variables are unaccounted for. This means that there
are other socioeconomic variables which are predictors of Science performance of
students that are not included in this study.
Likewise, 66.54% of the variance in the Science performance of the students
can be attributed to the change in the socioeconomic variables included in this
study.