Question one

a. Statistics

Educational status

N Valid 113

Missing 0 Educational status

LCF MCF Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid BA Degree 28 28 113 24.8 24.8 24.8

Diploma 27 55 85 23.9 23.9 48.7

Master 53 108 58 46.9 46.9 95.6

PHD 5 113 5 4.4 4.4 100.0

Total 113 100.0 100.0

Interpretation
 Among the total employee of 113, 27 of them are diploma, 28 are BA degree, 53 of them
are masters and 5 of them are PHD
 Among the whole employee, Master degree (53) is more than the rest of the education
levels and PHD(5) is smallest one
 The number of employee whose diploma is 23.9% and that of master degree is 46.9%
 As a recommendation, this organization must take steps to increase the PHD holders
a. Pei Charts

1|Page
 b. Simple Bar Chart

Interpretation
 The above graph, you see that the smallest one is PHD(5)
 In this graph, the greatest one is Master degree (53)
 The number of employee who has Diploma is 27
 The number of employee who have BA degree is 28

2|Page
Question two
a. Simple bar chart

Interpretation
 The school that enrolls the highest number of students is school D
 The school that enrolls the smallest number of students is school A
 The schools B and C enrolls same number of students in this year
 The whole number of students that the five schools enrolls is 116

3|Page
Interpretation
o In this bar chart, the school that enrolls the greatest number of students 35 is School C
o The whole number of students that this year 1958 enrolled is 119
o The school A is the school that enrolls the smallest number of students
o The number of students that school B enrolls is 29.41%

4|Page
Interpretation
 The school that enrolls the highest number of students is school C
 The school that enrolls the smallest number of students is school A and B
 The schools A and B enrolls same number of students in this year
 The whole number of students that the five schools enrolls is 143

5|Page
 b. Component Bar Charts

Interpretation

 The schools A (44) enroll the smallest number of students in the three years
 The schools C (113) enroll the greatest number of students in three years
 In the year of 1957 enrolls number of students of 44 students
 Among whole years number of students that the five enrolls is 2878 students

6|Page
Interpretation

 The schools A (44) enroll the smallest number of students in the three years
 The schools C (113) enroll the greatest number of students in three years
 In the year of 1957 enrolls number of students of 44 students
 Among whole years number of students that the five enrolls is 2878 students

a. Statistics
No of students(in No of students(in No of students(in
Question three
Chi-Square Tests
thousands) in 1957 thousands) in 1958 thousands) in 1959

N Valid 5Asymp. Sig. (2- 5 5

Value df sided)
Missing 0 0 0
Pearson Chi-Square 14.037a 4 .007
Mean 23.20 23.80 28.60
Likelihood Ratio 14.489 4 .006
Median 24.00 24.00 23.00
N of Valid Cases 100
Std. Deviation 6.723 7.596 15.027
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
Variance 45.200 57.700 225.800
expected count is 6.00.
Range 18 21 36 Our hypothesis will be
Minimum 12 14 18
7|Page
Maximum 30 35 54
H0 = There is association between food feed program and non-food feed program in student’s retention
H1 = There is difference between food feed program and non-food feed program in student’s retention
Since p-value (.007) is less than 0.05, we forced to reject the null hypothesis and therefore we accept
Alternative hypothesis
Conclusion: There is difference between food feed program and non-food feed program in student’s retention
Question four
 Our hypothesis should be:
Ho: Academic performance (GPA) of student coming to JJU from private & government school are the
same (or Academic performance cannot determined by whether student coming private or govt. school)
H1: there is statistically sig. difference in Acc. Performance among two groups

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

GPA 40 2.40 .626 .099

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 40

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

GPA -380.019 39 .000 -37.598 -37.80 -37.40

Decision: since the p-value (0.000) is less than 0.05, we forced to reject Ho
Conclusion: there is statistically sig. difference in Acc. Performance among two groups

8|Page