CARIBBEAN ADVANCED PROFICIENCY EXAMINATIONS

INTERGRATED MATHEMATICS
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

CANDIDATE NAME: Akshay Bankay

CANDIDATE #: 090047
SCHOOL: Saint Stanislaus College
CENTRE #: 090047
TERRITORY: Guyana
YEAR OF EXAMINATION: 2018
TEACHER: Mrs. Najuma Greenidge
 Table of Contents
Project Title Page 1

Introduction Page 2

Methodology Pages 3–4

Organization of Data Page 5

Presentation of Data Pages 6–13

Analysis of Data Pages 14–22

Discussion Pages 23–25

Conclusion Page 26

Glossary Page 27
 Project Title
“An analysis and comparison of the students of St. Stanislaus College’s English
grades at The National Grade 9 Assessment for 2014, 2015 and 2016.”
 Introduction
The National Grade 9 Assessment is used to measure a student’s competence in the
core subject areas: English Language, Mathematics, Social Studies and Integrated
Science. However, in the past 10 years, there has been a gradual decline in the
English Language grades of students at St. Stanislaus College, at the National
Grade 9 Assessment (NGNA). The examination is primarily diagnostic in nature
and aims to apply the most appropriate strategies for the “treatment” of observed
weaknesses students have in various subject areas. Student performance in lower
secondary education is related to motivation to learn at school. If students’ English
grades continually decline, then students will not be motivated to learn that subject
and those students may perform poorly in English Language and English Literature
in grades 10 and 11, and at The Caribbean Secondary Examination Certificate
(CSEC).

The selection of this topic is rooted in several reasons, including concern over the
continued decline in students’ English Language grades at the NGNA and a
personal interest in the topic since the researcher was, himself, a student at the St.
Stanislaus College who wrote the NGNA English Language examination.

The researcher decided to make use of quantitative data as the preferred data to be
used for this project since it, “emphasizes objective measurements and
mathematical, numerical and/or statistical analysis of data generated from using
computational techniques on antecedent statistical data or data gathered from
surveys and/or questionnaires.”[1]

Quantitative data was used for secondary sources of data.

The researcher aims to:

 Determine the probability that a student chosen at random attained 80% or

more in English Language at the NGNA.
 To determine the year in which students had the best English Language
grades.
 To determine whether there is a relationship between student performance
between the years 2014 and 2015.
 Methodology
For this project, non-experimental research was employed. A research project is
termed “non-experimental” when the researcher “cannot control, manipulate or
alter the predictor variable or subjects, but instead, relies on interpretation,
observation or interactions to come to a conclusion”.[2] Typically, this means the
non-experimental research must rely on correlations, surveys or case studies, or
secondary data and cannot demonstrate a true cause-and-effect relationship. Non-
experimental research tends to have a high level of external validity, meaning it
can be generalized to a larger population. For this project, the researcher employed
raw data, which was retrieved from the general office of the St. Stanislaus College,
to satisfy the aims of the study.

Several challenges were faced during this project. Firstly, the collection of the
statistical data of students’ grades in English Language at the NGNA was limited
to a three-year period (2014 – 2016) prior to the date of conduction of the study.
Secondly, the data provided was raw ungrouped data which had to be sorted into
class intervals and grouped. Thirdly, only grades were provided, with no additional
data such as class and sex of students to accompany those grades, so comparisons
of grades between genders and classes could not be made.

In conducting this project, the researcher targeted any student who was previously
in grade 9 and wrote the NGNA English Language examination, for the period
2014-2016. The sampling frame was set respective to each year’s data, but the
sample size was to be set at 30 students per year, which is approximately ¼ of each
year’s entire population. For 2014, the population was 125 students, whilst for
2015 the population was 120 students and 2016 had a population of 117 students.

The 30 students from each year were selected by simple random sampling. Simple
random sampling is “a statistical method by which all members of the population
have an equal chance of being chosen to be part of the sample,”[3] which would
eliminate bias and create a sample that is highly representative of the entire
population. To accurately track the variation in English Language grades of
students at St. Stanislaus College for the NGNA from 2014-2016, the researcher
employed the use of documents and records pertaining to students’ English
Language grades at the NGNA from the period 2006-2016 were requested, from
the main office of St. Stanislaus College on September 23, 2017. However, only
raw data from 2014-2016 was available and thus provided. The researcher had to
assure the staff and administration of The St. Stanislaus College that the data and
records provided would only be used for the purposes of this project and that the
researcher would take every measure necessary to ensure the security of the data
provided. This data was retrieved on October 2, 2017. The records played a vital
role in this project, since it was the medium through which statistical data
pertaining to the project was obtained.

The raw data sheets provided were initially each examined individually, by year.
For the 2014 data, each English Language grade was given a number from 1 to
125, for the 2015 data, each English Language grade was given a number from 1 to
120 and for the 2016 data, each English Language grade was given a number from
1 to 117. A random number generator was then utilized to select 30 grades from
each year.

The selected grades from each year were then transcribed to ‘Microsoft Excel.’
The specialized tools in excel were then utilized to present the raw data into a
structured presentation, in the form of a spreadsheet with grouped data, so that it
could be interpreted easily. The data was further utilized to generate frequency
tables, graphs and charts for presentational purposes. The softcopy of the data was
encrypted using Ransomware security software.

After the raw data was obtained, each year was considered to be its own separate
population. For the 2014 data, each English Language grade was given a number
from 1 to 125. Meanwhile, for the 2015 data, each English Language grade was
given a number from 1 to 120. Finally, the 2016 data, each English Language
grade was given a number from 1 to 117. Simple random sampling was used to
generate a sample of 30 grades from each year by means of a random number
generator.

The samples were then transcribed to Microsoft Excel and grouped into class
frequency tables for presentation purposes.
 Organization of Data
Table 1: showing the 30 random English Language grades generated for 2014

Class Lower Upper Tally Frequency Cumulative

Intervals Boundary Boundary Frequency
78-80 77.5 80.5 |||| |||| |||| 15 15
81-83 80.5 83.5 |||| | 6 21
84-86 83.5 86.5 |||| | 6 27
87-89 86.5 89.5 ||| 3 30

Table 2: showing the 30 random English Language grades generated for 2015

Class Lower Upper Tally Frequency Cumulative

Intervals Boundary Boundary Frequency
76-78 75.5 78.5 |||| |||| || 12 12
79-81 78.5 81.5 |||| |||| | 11 23
82-84 81.5 84.5 |||| 5 28
85-87 84.5 87.5 || 2 30

Table 3: showing the 30 random English Language grades generated for 2016

Class Lower Upper Tally Frequency Cumulative

Intervals Boundary Boundary Frequency
76-78 75.5 78.5 |||| |||| |||| | 16 16
79-81 78.5 81.5 |||| |||| 9 25
82-84 81.5 84.5 |||| 4 29
85-87 84.5 87.5 | 1 30
 Presentation of Data
 It should first be noted that the class intervals are the same for 2015 and
2016, but not for 2014. In 2014, the lowest class interval was 80.5, with the
highest class interval being 89.5, whereas for 2015 and 2016, the lowest
class interval was 78.5, whilst the highest was 87.5

Figure 1: Bar graph showing 2014 English

Language Grades
16
FREQUENCY: NUMBER OF STUDENTS

14

12

10

8
15
6

4
6 6
2
3
0
80.5 83.5 86.5 89.5
ENGLISH LANGUAGE GRADES

Source: Table 1
 Figure 2: Bar Graph showing 2015 English
Language Grades
FREQUENCY: NUMBER OF STUDENTS

14

12

10

6 12 11
4

2 5
2
0
78.5 81.5 84.5 87.5
ENGLISH LANGUAGE GRADES

Source: Table 2

Figure 3:Bar Graph showing 2016 English

Language grades
18
FREQUENCY: NUMBER OF STUDENTS

16

14

12

10

8 16
6
9
4

2 4
0
1
78.5 81.5 84.5 87.5
ENGLISH LANGUAGE GRADES

Source: Table 3
“Bar graphs are one of the many techniques used to present data in a visual form so
that the reader may readily recognize patterns or trends.”[4] The bars depict
frequencies of different values of a variable or simply the different values
themselves. The numbers on the x-axis of a bar graph or the y-axis of a column
graph are called the scale. Bar graphs usually present categorical and numeric
variables grouped in class intervals. For the purposes of this project, the upper
boundaries of each class interval along with the frequencies were used to generate
figures 1, 2 and 3.

In 2014, 15 students achieved 80.5 (lowest grade in sample for 2014), whilst for
2015, 12 students (2/5 of the sample) attained 78.5 (lowest grade in sample for
2015 and 2016) and in 2016, 16 students attained 78.5. It can already be observed
that throughout the years, the English Language grades are declining, as the
number of students placed in lowest interval is increasing. This is further
evidenced when comparing the highest grades throughout the years. In 2014, 3
students attained 89.5, whilst in 2015, 2 students obtained 87.5 and in 2016, 1
student obtained 87.5.
Figure 4: Pie Chart showing 2014 English
Language grades

10%

20%
50%

20%

80.5 83.5 86.5 89.5

Source: Table 1
Figure 5: Pie Chart showing 2015 English
Language grades

7%
17%
40%

36%

78.5 81.5 84.5 87.5

Source: Table 2
 Figure 6: Pie Chart showing 2016 English
Language grades

3%
13%

54%
30%

78.5 81.5 84.5 87.5

Source: Table 3

Another common way to represent data graphically is a pie chart. Pie charts are
best to use when you are trying to compare parts of a whole. This type of chart is a
circle divided into a series of segments. Each segment represents a different grade
interval. The area of each segment is the same proportion of a circle as the
category is of the total data set.

For each year, in ascending order, blue represents the 1st class interval, red
represents the 2nd class interval, green represents the 3rd class interval and purple
represents the 4th class interval.

From the pie charts, it can be observed that throughout the years, the percentage of
students earning the highest to lowest grades fluctuates. It is however important to
keep in mind that for 2014, the lowest grade is 80.5, whilst for 2015 and 2016 it is
78.5. This means that even though a lower percentage of students were represented
in the blue segment in 2015 than in 2014, which would have normally indicated
that students in 2015 were doing better, the disparity between the class intervals
must be considered when making comparisons for the whole sample.

In 2014, 50% of students were placed in the blue segment, whilst for 2015, 40%
were placed in the blue segment and for 2016, 54% were placed in the blue
segment. As the size of the blue segment increases from year to year, this indicates
an overall decline in grades. This can be clearly seen in the case of 2015 and 2016
as the percentage wet from 40% to 56%. When the disparity is accounted for
between 2014 and 2015/2016 the declining trend continues to be apparent.

This trend is further evidenced by the fact that as each year went by, the purple
segment got smaller and smaller, which indicated that less and less students were
being placed in the interval with the highest grade and thus the grades overall were
declining.
 Figure 7: Bar Graph showing Cumulative Frequency
Distribution of 2014 English Language grades
35
30
30
27
Cumulative Frequency

25
21
20
15
15

10

0
80.5 83.5 86.5 89.5
English Language Grades

Source: Table 1

Figure 8: Bar Graph shwoing Cumulative Frequency

Distribution for 2015 English Language Grades
35
30
30 28
Cumulative Frequency

25 23

20

15 12
10

0
78.5 81.5 84.5 87.5
English Language Grades

Source: Table 2
 Figure 9: Bar Graph showing Cumulative Frequency
Distribution for 2016 English Language grades
35
30
30 29

25
Cumulative Frequency

25

20
16
15

10

0
78.5 81.5 84.5 87.5
English Language Grades

Source: Table 3

“Cumulative frequency is defined as a running total of frequencies. The frequency

of an element in a set refers to how many of that element there are in the set.”[4]
The cumulative frequency is important when analyzing data, where the value of the
cumulative frequency indicates the number of elements in the data set that lie
below the current value.

From the cumulative frequency bar graphs, as the difference between the 1st
interval and the last interval becomes smaller and the difference between the 3rd
interval and the last interval become larger, students’ English Language grades are
getting better. This is because cumulative frequency can also be defined as the sum
of all previous frequencies up to the current point; which means that the lower the
cumulative frequency for the 3rd interval, the more students are able to attain
grades in the highest interval for their respective years, even when accounting for
the disparity of the intervals between 2014 and 2015/2016. Following this logic,
the cumulative frequencies for the 3rd interval for 2014, 2015 and 2016 were 27, 28
and 29 respectively, which means that grades continually declined from 2014 to
2016.
 Analysis of Data
Table 4: Analysis of 2014 English Language grades

Class Frequency Mid f(MI) x-x-1 (x-x-)2 (x-x-1)2 (f)

Intervals (f) Interval
(MI/x)
78-80 15 79 1185 -2.7 7.29 109.35
81-83 6 82 492 0.3 0.09 0.54
84-86 6 85 510 3.3 10.89 65.34
87-89 3 88 264 6.3 39.69 119.07
Σ 30 334 2451 294.3

Mean = Σ f(MI) ÷ Σ (f)

= 2451 ÷ 30
= 81.7
The mean was found to be 81.7

V = Variance/var(X)/ σ2

S2 = Σ {f (x-x-1)2} ÷ (Σ(f) – 1)
S2 = {15(79 – 81.7)2 + 6(82 – 81.7)2 + 6(85 – 81.7)2 + 3(88 – 81.7)2} ÷ 29
S2 = {15(-2.7)2 + 6(0.3)2 + 6(3.3)2 + 3(6.3)2} ÷ 29
S2 = {15(7.29) + 6(0.09) + 6(10.89) + 3(39.69)} ÷ 29
S2 = (109.35 + 0.54 + 65.34 + 119.07) ÷ 29
S2 = 294.3 ÷ 29
S2 = 10.15
The variance was found to be 10.15
Standard deviation = std(X)

S = √10.15
S = 3.18
The standard deviation was found to be 3.18

Probability = Number of favorable outcomes

__________________________
Number of possible outcomes
Probability = 25/30
= 5/6
Probability that a student in 2014 achieved ≥ 80% was 5/6
Table 5: Analysis of 2015 English Language grades

Class Frequency Mid Interval f(MI) x-x-1 (x-x-)2 (x-x-1)2 (f)

Intervals (f) (MI/x)

76-78 12 77 924 -2.7 7.29 87.48

79-81 11 80 880 0.3 0.09 0.99
82-84 5 83 415 3.3 10.89 54.45
85-87 2 86 172 6.3 39.69 79.38
Σ 30 326 2391 222.3

Mean = Σ f(MI) ÷ Σ (f)

= 2391 ÷ 30
= 79.7
The mean was found to be 79.7

V = Variance/var(X)/ σ2

S2 = Σ {f (x-x-1)2} ÷ (Σ(f) – 1)
S2 = {12(77 – 79.7)2 + 11(80 – 79.7)2 + 5(83 – 79.7)2 + 2(86 – 79.7)2} ÷ 29
S2 = {12(-2.7)2 + 11(0.3)2 + 5(3.3)2 + 2(6.3)2} ÷ 29
S2 = {12(7.29) + 11(0.09) + 5(10.89) + 2(39.69) ÷ 29
S2 = {87.48 + 0.99 + 54.45 + 79.38) ÷ 29
S2 = 222.3 ÷ 29
S2 = 7.66
The variance was found to be 7.66
Standard deviation = std(X)

S = √7.66
S = 2.77
The standard deviation was found to be 2.77

Probability = Number of favorable outcomes

__________________________
Number of possible outcomes
Probability = 13/30
Probability that a student in 2015 achieved ≥ 80% was 13/30
Table 6: Analysis of 2016 English Language grades

Class Frequency Mid Interval f(MI) x-x-1 (x-x-)2 (x-x-1)2 (f)

Intervals (f) (MI/x)

76-78 16 77 1232 -2.0 4 64

79-81 9 80 720 1.0 1 9
82-84 4 83 332 4 16 64
85-87 1 86 86 7 49 49
Σ 30 2370 186

Mean = Σ f(MI) ÷ Σ (f)

= 2370 ÷ 30
= 79.0
The mean was found to be 79.0

V = Variance/var(X)/ σ2

S2 = Σ {f (x-x-1)2} ÷ (Σ(f) – 1)
S2 = {16(77 – 79)2 + 9(80 – 79)2 + 4(83 – 79)2 + 1(86 – 79)2} ÷ 29
S2 = {16(-2)2 + 9(1)2 + 4(4)2 + 1(7)2} ÷ 29
S2 = {16(4) + 9(1) + 4(16) + 1(49)} ÷ 29
S2 = {64 + 9 +64 +49}
S2 = 186 ÷ 29
S2 = 6.41
The variance was found to be 6.41
Standard deviation = std(X)

S = √6.41
S = 2.53
The standard deviation was found to be 2.53

Probability = Number of favorable outcomes

__________________________
Number of possible outcomes
Probability = 9/30
= 3/10
Probability that a student in 2015 achieved ≥ 80% was 3/10
Correlation Analysis of 2014 and 2015 English Language grades
Student 2014 2015 x*y x*x y*y
Number (#) English English
Language Language
grades (x) grades (y)
1 89 85 7565 7921 7225
2 89 84 7476 7921 7056
3 88 84 7392 7744 7056
4 86 84 7224 7396 7056
5 85 83 7055 7225 6889
6 84 83 6972 7056 6889
7 84 82 6888 7056 6724
8 84 81 6804 7056 6561
9 84 81 6804 7056 6561
10 83 81 6723 6889 6561
11 83 80 6640 6889 6400
12 82 80 6560 6724 6400
13 82 80 6560 6724 6400
14 82 79 6478 6724 6241
15 82 79 6478 6724 6241
16 81 79 6399 6561 6241
17 81 79 6399 6561 6241
18 80 78 6240 6400 6084
19 80 78 6240 6400 6084
20 80 78 6240 6400 6084
21 80 78 6240 6400 6084
22 80 78 6240 6400 6084
23 80 77 6160 6400 5929
24 80 77 6160 6400 5929
25 80 77 6160 6400 5929
26 79 77 6083 6241 5929
27 79 77 6083 6241 5929
28 79 77 6083 6241 5929
29 79 77 6083 6241 5929
30 79 77 6083 6241 5929
Sum 2464 2390 196512 202632 190594
Pearson Formula for correlation analysis:

r= 30 (196512) – (2464)( 2390)

_______________________________________________________

√[(30)( 202632) – (2464)( 2464)][(30)( 190594) – (2390)( 2390)]

r= 5895360 – 5888960
________________________________________

√[6078960 – 6071296][5717820 – 5712100]

r= 6400
_______________________

√(7664)(5720)
r= 6400
_______________

√43838080

r= 6400

__________

6621.033152

r = 0.967 to 3 significant figures

 Discussion
For the purpose of this project the mean or average English Language grade for
each year was calculated by summing all the grades in the sample and then diving
that by the sample size. The calculated means for 2014, 2015 and 2016 were 81.7,
79.7 and 79.0 respectively. If the mean is to be taken as the statistical measure that
identifies a single value as representative of an entire distribution and since the
mean uses every value in the data and hence is a good representation of the data,
then the mean of each year is a general representation of every student’s
performance in that year. Therefore, there was a decline in English Language
grades from 2014 to 2016; students in 2014 did better than those in 2015 and 2016
whilst students in 2015 did better than those in 2016. (2014>2015>2016).

The square root of the variance is known as the standard deviation. Like the
variance, the standard deviation measures how close the scores in the data set are
to the mean. However, the standard deviation is measured in the exact same unit as
the data. The standard deviations for 2014, 2015 and 2016 were calculated to be
3.18, 2.77 and 2.53 respectively. Even though the mean indicated that students in
2014 did best overall, the standard deviation of 3.18 indicated that more students
fell below or above the mean by a greater degree than in other years. This meant
the mean was more affected by extremes of grades in the year 2014.

The mean for 2015 indicated that students in that year performed better than those
in 2016 but worse than those in 2014. The standard deviation for 2014 was 2.77
which was smaller than that of 2014. This indicated that students in 2014 didn’t
have grades closer to the average grade than those in 2014. Meanwhile, 2016 had
the lowest average grade and the lowest standard deviation of the three years; 2.53.
This indicated that more students were able to achieve grades closer to the average
grade in 2016 than in 2014 and 2015 and so the mean would have been less
affected by extremes of grades, than in other years.

The mean and standard deviation, together indicates, that throughout the years
(2014 -2016) individual student performance was getting better as more students
were able to attain grades closer to their year’s average grade but overall student
performance throughout the years was declining since students couldn’t
individually attain grades as high as those in years past.

Since the difference in grades was evaluated, the correlation in grades (degree of
relation between one year’s grades with consideration to another) must also be
evaluated. Correlation is a statistical technique that can show whether and how
strongly pairs of variables are related. For the purposes of this project, Pearson’s
correlation coefficient formula was used to calculate the degree to which how
related grades in 2014 were to those in 2015. Using Pearson’s formula, if r is close
to 0, it means there is no relationship between the variables. If r is positive, it
means that as one variable gets larger the other gets larger. If r is negative it means
that as one gets larger, the other gets smaller.

The correlation coefficient (r) between 2014 and 2015 grades was calculated to be
.967 to 3 significant figures. This indicated a strong positive relationship between
grades in 2014 to those in 2015. This means that as every student’s grade in 2014
got higher, the corresponding student’s grade in 2015 will get higher by almost the
same degree.

However, it must be kept in mind that students in 2014 got far better grades overall
than those in 2015, so a strong positive relationship doesn’t necessarily mean
students attaining the same grades year to year.

The probability that a student in each respective year achieved ≥ 80% was
calculated; 80% was chosen since it is St. Stanislaus College’s standard for a good
grade. The probabilities calculated for 2014, 2015 and 2016 were 25/30, 13/30 and
9/30 respectively. This further indicates that from year to year, students’ English
Language grades were declining.

Some reasons why English Language grades may have declined throughout the
years were: the introduction of the new English syllabus – With the new syllabus,
new topics would’ve been brought, or different assignments than the previous year,
the teachers that would’ve taught in the different years – Some teachers would’ve
been more experienced in teaching or have more effective teaching methods, the
condition of the learning environment – Students are better able to focus in quiet,
calm and comfortable environments, the orientation of the classroom in relations to
the school building itself and the busy streets would’ve affected this, the available
learning facilities and teaching tools – The school may have obtained new source
material (text books, past papers of previous English examinations) for English
Language in 2015 that weren’t available to students in 2014, the preliminary scores
that students would’ve entered he exam with – Students in 2015 may have scored
higher on their preliminary (course work) English assessments than those in 2014.

Some possible improvements that could be made to improve student performance

are: re-evaluating the syllabus, initiating new techniques in teaching and classroom
approach and offering additional classes to students for English language.
 Conclusion
From the extensive analysis of data, it can be concluded that throughout the years
(2014 -2016) individual student performance was getting better as more students
were able to attain grades closer to their year’s average grade but overall student
performance throughout the years was declining since students couldn’t
individually attain grades as high as those in years past as evidenced by the fact
that the correlation coefficient (r) between 2014 and 2015 grades was calculated to
be .967 to 3 significant figures, which indicated a strong positive relationship
between grades in 2014 to those in 2015 and the fact that the probability that a
student attained ≥80% in English Language at the NGNA declined throughout the
years. Therefore, out of the 3 years examined, students performed best in 2014 and
worst in 2016.
 Glossary

Sample
Description
Statistic Parameter

n
N Number of members of sample or population

s σ “sigma” Standard deviation

(TIs say Sx) For variance, apply a squared symbol (s² or σ²)

r ρ “rho” Coefficient of linear correlation

f (none) Frequency (i.e. how often something happens)

x (none) One data value

x̄ (none) Mean of a sample.

∑ (none) The sum of