CHAPTER-IV-V.pptx-tvl-Copy-2.pptxsfweqr5

chpter iv

1. CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

2. This chapter presents the results, the analysis and interpretation of data gathered from the answers to the questionnaires distributed to the fi el d. The said data were presented in tabular form in accordance with the specific questions posited on the statement of the problem.

3. Gender Frequency Percentage Male 7 43.75 % Female 9 56.25 % Total 16 100 % Profile of the Respondents TABLE I Gender of the Respondent s Based on the table, our female respondents are 56. 25 while our male respondents are 43.75; both of them are the majority respondents .

4. Age Frequency Percentage 17 years old 12 68.75 % 18 years old 2 18.75 % 19 years old 1 6.25 % 20 years old 1 6.25 % Total 16 100 Table II According to Table 2, 68.75% of the respondents have the age of 17, 18.75% are from the age of 18, and 6.25% are from the ages of 19 and 20. For most of our respondents, who are at the age of 17, answered the questionnaire.

5. Table lll Frequency Percentage CHAT GPT 6 37.5 % CICI 6 37.5 % QUILLBOT 2 12.5 % GRAMMARLY 2 12.5 % Total 16 100 % The table shows in the table, most of the respondents answered questions of 37.5, whereas the other question was 12.5, and added the percentage to get a total of 100%.

6. Table IV Frequency Percentage ESSAY 8 50 % PARAGRAPH 4 25 % RESEARCH 1 6.25 % ASSIGNMENT 3 18.75 % Total 16 100 % Based on the data of respondent 50% answered of essay and 25% answered of the paragraph 18.75% answered the assignment and last is only 6.25% answered of research therefore most of our respondent answered of the essay.

7. Table V Frequency Percentage YES 16 100 % NO TOTAL 16 100 According to table 5, Most of the respondents of Grade 12 Humss answered the questioner yes with the total of 100 Percentage.

8. Chapter V

9. Summary This chapter presents the findings of the study, providing an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the data collected from the questionnaire survey administered to the respondents. The data is organized into five tables, each addressing specific research questions and objectives. The tables provide insights into the demographic characteristics of the respondents Table I and II their preferences regarding AI-powered writing tools Table III writing tasks Table IV, and the perceived impact of these tools on their writing experiences.

10. The majority (75%) used either ChatGPT or Cici, each accounting for 37.5% of responses. Quillbot and Grammarly were used by a much smaller percentage (12.5% each). This suggests a strong preference for ChatGPT and Cici among the respondents. While, the distribution of responses across different question types (essay, paragraph, research, assignment). The most popular question type was the essay, with 50% of respondents choosing it. Paragraph questions received 25%, assignments 18.75%, and research questions the least, at only 6.25%. This indicates a clear preference for essay-type questions among the respondents.

11. This study's findings provide valuable insights into the demographics, preferences and experiences of respondents regarding AI-powered writing tools key takeaways include: 1. Gender distribution: Females (56.25%) slightly outnumbered males (43.75%) among respondents. 2. Age concentration: Respondents were predominantly aged 17-20. 3. AI tool preferences: ChatGPT and CICI tied for first place (37.5%), while QuillBot and Grammarly trailed (12.5% each). 4. Writing tasks: Essays (37.5%) and assignments (31.25%) were most common, followed by paragraphs (18.75%) and research papers (12.5%). 5. Perceived impact: Overwhelmingly (100%), respondents acknowledged AI-powered writing tools' influence.

12. CONCLUSION The impact of AI on academic performance is therefore not inherent to the technology if self but rather contingent upon it's responsible and effective application.The highlights the importance of providing students with proper guidance and training on the ethical and effective use of AI in academic setting , st ud ie s have shown that student who proactively and strategically employ AI tools for learning focusing on tasks like generating ideas improving writing quality and conducting research tend to demonstrate improved academic outcomes. Conversely , students who misuse AI tools relying on them for rote memorization or plagiarism,often exhibit lower academic performance. There is a significant difference in academic performance between students who utilize AI tools and those who do not.While AI tools offer potential benefits such as enhanced research capabilities and improved writing skills their effective integration into the learning process is crucial.

13. RECOMMENDATIONS Al powered search engines and knowledge graphs can provide student with relevant and reliable information promoting critical thinking and research skill. On the positive side, AI facilitates personalized learning, tailoring educational content to individual student needs, fostering deeper understanding and engagement.

14. SUGGESTIONS AI has revolutionized academic research by facilitating data analysis, literature reviews, and citation management. Tools like ChatGPT assist researchers in drafting papers, summarizing sources, and generating ideas. Platforms such as Grammarly and Turnitin help students and educators maintain academic integrity by detecting plagiarism and improving the quality of writing. Additionally, AI-driven data analysis tools enable researchers to process vast datasets quickly and accurately. Ai is not the problem here. The problem is the students or the user that is not responsible for using ai tools such as chat gpt. The real purpose of AI is only to assist their users, of what they need or want. AI doesn't do anything when there is no one using it. AI is not a threat to education,we can't go beyond the evolving technology the mere problem here is how will the students use it purposely.