Frances: Good morning everyone!

This morning we are going to defend our research entitled…

All: Level of Budgeting Practices Efficiency of Senior High School Students in Saint Mary’s
University
Erin: Our research wanted to know the level of budgeting practices efficiency of the senior high
school students of Saint Mary’s University. We also wanted to know the effects of the different
profile variables of the respondents to their budgeting practices. Our research is for the short-term
budgeting since we wanted to know the respondents’ weekly allowance and expenses. In this way,
it can easily adjust and control the spending habits of the students.
Jeth: In our research, we wanted to know the profile variables of the respondents. These are the
sex, age, strand, socio-economic status, and their weekly allowance. We were also determined to
know their level of budgeting practices efficiency. And of course, we also studied the effects of
the different profile variables of the respondents to their budgeting practices.
Cliff: For our conceptual framework, our independent variables are the profile of the respondents,
the dependent variables are the common expenses of the respondents which we categorized into 4,
the luxury and leisure, projects and books, communication, and transportation. And finally, the
output is the level of budgeting practices efficiency of the respondents.
Krizel: Our research study is significant to the students because it will help them keep track on
their expenses and savings. It is also significant for the parents or guardians for this research study
will provide them knowledge on how much money they must give to their children. And finally,
to the future researchers, this will serve as their guide or reference for their own research.
Dheine: The statistical treatment for the profile variables and the level of budgeting practices of
the respondents, we computed for the mean, percentage, standard deviation, and frequency count.
The indicators are never 1 – 1.49, rarely 1.5 – 2.49, sometimes 2.5 – 3.49, and always 3.5 – 4. For
the level of budgeting practices efficiency of the respondents grouped according to the profile
variables, we used the independent sample t-test and the analysis of variance or the ANOVA. And
since some of the results have a significant difference, there is a need to conduct a post hoc test, in
which we used the Tukey HSD.
Frances: Let’s proceed to the results. The first part, the profile of the respondents. As you can see,
there were 69 males and the majority are the females which were 91 respondents. There were 6
respondents who were 18 and above while there were 154 respondents who were 17 and below.
Among the 160 respondents, 60 were from the STEM, 30 were from ABM, 40 were from HUMSS,
10 were from the ICT, 10 were from HE, and 10 were from the AD. For their socio-economic
status, 20 were from class A those who had their family’s annual income of 500, 001 and above.
26 were from class B who had an annual income ranging from 300, 000 to 500, 000. There were
33 respondents who belonged to class C, their family’s annual ranged from 100, 001 to 300, 000.
And finally, there were 81 respondents who belonged to class D wherein their family’s annual
income was 100, 000 and below.For the weekly allowance, 60 respondents had 500 and below. 69
respondents had 501 to 1500. 21 respondents had 1501 to 3000. And 10 had 3001 and above.
Now let’s move on to the second part, the level of budgeting practices efficiency of the
respondents. In the luxury and leisure, the respondents spend the most on their collections while
they spend the least going to computer shops to play. For the projects and books, they spend the
most purchasing things that are needed for their performance tasks while they spend the least on
buying books or novels. For the communication, the respondents spend mostly on their cellular
load for internet purposes while they spend the least on multiple sim cards. And finally, the
transportation expenses where they spend mostly on fare and the least on purchasing gas for their
vehicles. Overall, the respondents spend the most on projects and books while they spend the least
on their luxury and leisure.
Let’s proceed to the third part, the level of budgeting practices efficiency of the respondents when
grouped according to profile variables. There is no significant difference when it is grouped
according to sex and age since their significant difference are greater than 0.05. But when it is
grouped according to the strand, there is a significant difference in the transportation expenses.
Therefore, we need to conduct a post hoc test to determine where it specifically had a significance.
With the use of the Tukey HSD, we learned that it is in the ABM and HUMSS. This may be due
to their lessons to their subjects that the other strands don’t have. There is also no significant
difference when grouped according to their socio-economic status. And finally, there is a
significant difference in the luxury and leisure, projects and books, and the transportation expenses
when it is grouped according to their weekly allowance. Once again, we used the Tukey HSD and
this is what we found out.

Erin: For the summary of findings, the respondents spend most on their projects and books aand
the least on their luxury and leisure. There are also significant differences in the level of budgeting
practices efficiency when grouped according to sex, age, and socio-economic status. While there
are significant differences when it is grouped according to their strand and weekly allowance.
Dheine: For the conclusion, the strand has an effect in the budgeting practice of the respondents.
This may imply that the lessons that are taught in their specific strands helps the respondents be
knowledge when it comes to budgeting their money. Also, their weekly allowance has an effect to
their budgeting practices. This suggests that when they have less money, they tend to plan their
expenses. That ends our presentation.
All: Thank you for listening. Now, we are open for your questions and suggestions.