Caribbean Examination Council

Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate

School Based Assessment

Additional Mathematics – Project B

Does good physical health and fitness as indicated by Body Mass Index influence

the academic performance of adolescents?

Name of student: Shanoia Powell, Renee Bailey, Julian Miller, Rayvon Flash

Candidate number:

Centre number: 100087

Year of examination: 2020

 Table of Contents

Title Page

Purpose of Project…………………………………………………………………….1

Method of Data Collection……………………………………………………………2

Presentation of Data…………………………………………………………………..3

Mathematical Knowledge/ Analysis of Data………………………………………...13

Discussion of Findings……………………………………………………………….26

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………28

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….29

Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..30
 Purpose of Project

The Body Mass Index (BMI) of a person is defined as a measure of body fat which is the ratio of

the weight of the body measured in kilograms to the square of the height measured in meters

squared.

BMI was used as a measure of the student’s physical features and health as it is the most

suitable measure. Not only is it non-invasive, it is also inexpensive, simple and non-time

consuming and it gives a measure of the individual’s body fat based on their weight in relation to

height. The BMI scale is then used to categorize individuals into either underweight, healthy,

overweight or obese.

The purpose of this project is to examine the relationship between the health and fitness of

secondary students and their academic performance in English Literature and Mathematics.

The variables being considered are:

1) The health status of the students as indicated by Body Mass Index Healthy:

 Normal BMI which is considered to be healthy.

 Underweight, overweight or obese BMI which is considered to be unhealthy.

2) Academic performance in two selected subjects; English Literature and Mathematics.

3) Gender; Male and Female.

1
 Method of Data Collection

The heights and weights of students in a sample of 50 students consisting of 25 females and 25

males were measured.

Heights (in meters) were measured using a measuring tape. Students were asked to stand against

a vertical wall in their bare feet and the level of the top of the skull was marked on the wall. The

height was the distance between the floor and this mark.

Weights (in kilograms) were measured using a weighing scale. Students were asked to stand on

the scale in their bare feet and with their pockets empty.

The Body Mass Index (BMI) of each student was calculated using the formula

weight
BMI = 2
(height )

The health status of each student was classified using the age referenced Body Mass Index

Graphs [CITATION Die16 \p 30-31 \l 9225 ].

The 2015 4th Form Promotion Examination marks (as a percentage) for English Literature and

Mathematics were provided by the school with the consent of the students. Student privacy was

maintained as no names were recorded.

2
 Presentation of Data

weight State of English Lit. Math

Rank height (m2) BMI
(kg) student (%) (%)
1 54.4 2.8 19.5 Healthy 63 70
2 49.9 2.9 17.2 Healthy 78.9 56.2
3 61.2 2.8 21.9 Healthy 64.1 65
4 79.8 3.2 24.9 Overweight 65.8 82.2
5 63.5 3.2 19.8 Healthy 85.4 80.2
6 57.1 2.7 21.1 Healthy 71.7 64.8
7 83.9 3.1 27.1 Overweight 61.7 56.8
8 59 3.5 16.9 Healthy 74.3 78.1
9 52.1 3.1 16.9 Healthy 69.8 81.3
10 77.5 3.2 24.2 Overweight 78.2 30.4
11 51.2 3.2 16 Underweight 60.4 43.3
12 58.5 2.9 20.2 Healthy 72.8 70.2
13 73.4 2.9 25.3 Overweight 66.3 53.9
14 48.5 2.7 18 Healthy 66.5 75.8
15 53.5 2.9 18.4 Healthy 63.8 38.9
16 55.3 3.2 17.3 Healthy 67.6 62.6
17 68.9 3.1 22.2 Healthy 76.3 91.5
18 73 3.4 21.5 Healthy 72.1 55.7
19 61.2 2.9 21.1 Healthy 77.6 80.5
20 77.1 3.4 22.7 Healthy 70.8 53.2
21 63.9 3 21.3 Healthy 73.3 68.3
22 52.1 3.2 16.3 Underweight 67.4 48.4
23 59 3.2 18.4 Healthy 80.5 84
24 64.9 3.2 20.3 Healthy 83.4 38.3
25 72.7 3.2 22.7 Healthy 71.9 90.7

TABLE 1: Table showing the B.M.I, Health Status and 2015 Mathematics and English Literature
promotion marks (%) for 25 male students at Harrison College

3
 Weight State of English Lit. Math
Rank 2
(kg) Height (m ) BMI student (%) (%)
1 49.9 2.6 19.2 Healthy 77.4 93.3
2 56.7 3.1 18.3 Healthy 79.1 39.9
3 54.4 2.6 21 Healthy 80.6 45.1
4 61.2 2.4 25.5 Overweight 86 43.3
5 59 2.7 22 Healthy 69.7 29.4
6 41.7 2.5 16.7 Underweight 74.8 75.1
7 54 2.9 18.6 Healthy 79 75.5
8 52.1 2.9 18 Healthy 81.1 93
9 41.3 2.5 16.5 Healthy 78 50.2
10 52.6 2.8 18.8 Healthy 51.2 67.3
11 54.4 2.7 20.1 Healthy 77.8 81.6
12 62.6 2.7 23.2 Healthy 72.6 69.6
13 50.8 2.8 18.1 Healthy 74.3 46
14 47.2 2.6 18.2 Healthy 74 42.8
15 70.8 2.4 29.5 Obese 76.4 71.2
16 47.2 2.4 20 Healthy 82.9 77.4
17 54.9 2.6 21.1 Healthy 63.8 52.6
18 45.8 2.6 17.6 Healthy 53.7 45.3
19 55.3 2.5 22.1 Healthy 71.9 52.3
20 43.5 2.3 18.9 Healthy 73.7 48.8
21 42.2 2.6 16.2 Underweight 84.3 74
22 67.6 3.2 21.1 Healthy 44 84.8
23 57.2 2.7 21.2 Healthy 61.5 90.7
24 68 2.3 29.6 Obese 69.9 41.7
25 81.8 2.8 29.2 Obese 62.3 29.3

TABLE 2: Table showing the B.M.I., Health Status and 2015 Math and English Literature
Promotion Examination marks (%) for 25 female students at Harrison College

Figure 1: The Percentage of Body Mass Index Ranking for Females

4
 frequency

12% 8%
4%
Underweight
Healthy
Overweight
Obese

77%

Figure 2: The Percentage of Body Mass Index Ranking for Males

frequency

8%
17%

Underweight
Healthy
Overweight
Obese

75%

Figure 3: Distribution of Promotion Examination Marks for Females in English Literature

5
 No. of students
12
10
8
6 12
Frequency No. of students
4
5 5
2 0
1 2
0
40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99
Marks (%)

Figure 4: Distribution of Promotion Examination Marks for Females in Mathematics

No. of students
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 5
Frequency No. of students
2
1.5 3 3
1 2 2
0.5
0
50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99
Marks (%)

Figure 5: Distribution of Promotion Examination Marks for Males in English Literature

6
 No. of students
12
10
8

Frequency 6 11 11 No. of students

4
2 0 3 0
0
60-69 70-79 80-89
Marks(%)

Figure 6: Distribution of Promotion Examination Marks for Males in Mathematics

No. of students
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
5 5
Frequency 2.5 4 4
No. of students
2
1.5
1 2
0.5
0
50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99
Marks(%)

Figure 7: Bar chart showing the distribution of the 2015 Promotion Examination Marks (%) in
English Literature for Healthy and Unhealthy Male Students

7
 12 11
10

6 5
No. of students
4 Healthy
3 Unhealthy
2
0 0 0 0
0
60%- 70%- 80%-
69% 79% 89%

Marks

Figure 8: Bar chart showing the distribution of the 2015 Promotion Examination Marks (%) in
English Literature for Healthy and Unhealthy Female Students.

12
10
10

6
No. of students
4 Healthy
3 3
2 Unhealthy
2 1
0
40%- 50%- 60%- 70%- 80%-
49% 59% 69% 79% 89%

Marks

Figure 9: Bar chart showing the distribution of the 2015 Promotion Examination Marks (%) in
Mathematics for Healthy and Unhealthy Male Students

8
 4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 4 4 4
No. of students
1.5 3
1 2 2 2 2
0.5 1 1
0 0 0 0
0
30%- 40%- 50%- 60%- 70%- 80%- 90%-
39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 99%

Marks

Healthy Unhealthy

Figure 10: Bar chart showing the distribution of the 2015 Promotion Examination Marks (%) in
Mathematics for Healthy and Unhealthy Female Students

7
6
6

4
3 3 3
3
No. of students
2 Healthy
2 Unhealthy
1 1
1
0 0
0
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
- - - - - - - -
29% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 99%

Marks

Figure 11: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of healthy males

9
 Stem Leaf
6 3 4 4 7 8
7 0 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 6 8 9
8 1 3 5

KEY:6 3
Mean
s 63

Figure 12: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of unhealthy
males

Stem Leaf
6 0 2 6 6 7
7 8

KEY: 6 6
Mea
ns 66

Figure 13: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of healthy males

Stem Leaf
3 8 9
4
5 3 6 6
6 3 5 5 8
7 0 0 6 8
8 0 1 1 4
9 1 2

KEY:5 5
Means 55

Figure 14: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of unhealthy males

Stem Leaf

10
 3 0
4 3 8
5 4 7
6
7
8 2
9

KEY:4 3
Means 43

Figure 15: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of healthy
females

Stem Leaf
4 4
5 1 4
6 2 4
7 0 2 3 4 4 4 7 8 8 9 9
8 1 1 3

KEY:5 4
Means 54

Figure 16: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of unhealthy
females

Stem Leaf
6 2
7 0 5 6
8 4 6

KEY:6 2
Means 62

Figure 17: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of healthy females

Stem Leaf

11
 2 9
4 0 3 5 5 6 9
5 0 2 3
6 7
7 0 6 7
8 2 5
9 1 3 3

KEY:4 3
Means 43

Figure 18: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of unhealthy females

Stem Leaf
2 9
3
4 2 3
5
6
7 1 4 5

KEY:4 2
Means 42

Mathematical Knowledge/ Analysis of Data

12
For each of the 8 groups being considered i.e. Healthy Males (English literature), Unhealthy

Males (English Literature), Healthy Males (Mathematics), Unhealthy Males (Mathematics),

Healthy Females (English Literature), Unhealthy Females (English Literature), Healthy Females

(Mathematics) and Unhealthy Females (Mathematics) Box-and-Whisker plots were drawn for

each group. These show for each specified group, the lowest promotion examination mark, the

highest promotion examination mark, the lower quartile, the median and the upper quartile for

each group. The median mark (Q2) is the value that divides the data for a specific group into two

equal parts. The data is arranged in ascending order. The median is that value which occurs in

th
n+1
the ( )
2
position of the data where n = number of students in the group. Where this position

is not a whole number, then the median is the mean of the mark immediately before and the mark

after the determined position. The lower quartile (Q1) is the median of the lower half of the data

set. The upper quartile (Q3) is the median of the upper half of the data set. The interquartile range

is the difference between the upper quartile and the lower quartile.

Figures 24, 25, 26 and 27 show the Box-and-Whisker plots for each of the 8 groups being

considered.

13
 English Literature marks : Healthy vs Unhealthy males

Unhealthy
Healthy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Marks

Figure 19: A box and whisker plot showing the English Literature marks of healthy and
unhealthy males

Mathematics marks: Healthy vs Unhealthy males

Unhealthy
Healthy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Marks

Figure 20: A box and whisker plot showing the Mathematics marks of healthy and
unhealthy males

14
 English Literature marks: Healthy vs Unhealthy females

Unhealthy
Healthy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Marks

Figure 21: A box and whisker plot showing the English Literature marks of healthy and
unhealthy females

Mathematics marks: Healthy vs Unhealthy females

Unhealthy
Healthy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Marks

Figure 22: A box and whisker plot showing the Mathematics marks of healthy and
unhealthy females

15
The mean and standard deviation for each of the eight specified groups were calculated. The

following formulas were used:

x́=
∑ xi
n

∑ ( x i− x́ ) 2
σ=
√ n

∑ Xi represents the sum of all the marks for a specified group.

‘n’ represents the number of students in a specified group.

x́ represents the mean mark.

σ represents standard deviation.

Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 show the results of these calculations for the eight specified

groups being considered.

The statistics for the eight specified groups are summarized in Table 11.

16
 Table 3: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in English Literature for healthy males

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
63 -9.8947 97.9051
64 -8.8947 79.1157
64 -8.8947 79.1157
67 -5.8947 34.7475
68 -4.8947 23.9581
70 -2.8947 8.3793
71 -1.8947 3.5899
72 -0.8947 0.8005
72 -0.8947 0.8005
72 -0.8947 0.8005
73 0.1053 0.0111
73 0.1053 0.0111
74 1.1053 1.2217
76 3.1053 9.6429
78 5.1053 26.0641
79 6.1053 37.2747
81 8.1053 65.6959
83 10.1053 102.1171
85 12.1053 146.5383
Σ 1385 717.7897

Number of students 19
Σ xi σ= √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

1385 σ = 717.7897
x́ =
19 √ 19

x́= 72.8947 σ= 6.1464

17
 Table 4: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in English Literature for unhealthy males

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
60 -6.50 42.25
62 -4.50 20.25
66 -0.50 0.25
66 -0.50 0.25
67 0.50 0.25
78 11.50 132.25
Σ 399 195.50

Number of students 6
Σ xi σ= √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

399 σ= 195.50
x́=
6 √ 6

x́ = 66.5 σ= 5.7082

18
 Table 5: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in Mathematics for healthy males

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
38 -30.7368 944.7509
39 -29.7368 844.2773
53 -15.7368 247.6469
56 -12.7368 162.2261
56 -12.7368 162.2261
63 -5.7368 32.9109
65 -3.7368 13.9637
65 -3.7368 13.9637
68 -0.7368 0.5429
70 1.2632 1.5957
70 1.2632 1.5957
76 7.2632 52.7541
78 9.2632 85.8069
80 11.2632 126.8597
81 12.2632 150.3861
81 12.2632 150.3861
84 15.2632 232.9653
91 22.2632 495.6501
92 23.2632 541.1765
Σ 1306 4301.6847

Number of students= 19
Σ xi σ= √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

1306 σ= 4301.6847
x́=
19 √ 19

x́= 68.7368 σ= 15.0467

19
 Table 6: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in Mathematics for unhealthy males

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
30 -22.3333 498.7763
43 -9.3333 87.1105
48 -4.3333 18.7775
54 1.6667 2.7778
57 4.6667 21.7781
82 29.6667 880.1131
Σ 314 1528.1084

Number of students 6
Σ xi σ= √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

314 σ= 1528.1084
x́=
6 √ 6

x́= 52.3333 σ= 15.9588

20
 Table 7: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in English Literature for healthy females

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
44 -26.8421 720.4983
51 -19.8421 393.7089
54 -16.8421 283.6563
62 -8.8421 78.1827
64 -6.8421 46.8143
65 -5.8421 34.1301
70 -.8421 0.7091
72 1.1579 1.3407
73 2.1579 4.6565
74 3.1579 9.9723
74 3.1579 9.9723
77 6.1579 37.9197
78 7.1579 51.2355
78 7.1579 51.2355
79 8.1579 66.5513
79 8.1579 66.5513
81 10.1579 103.1829
81 10.1579 103.1829
83 12.1579 147.8145
Σ 1346 2211.3151
Number of students 19

Σ xi σ =¿ √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

1346 σ =¿ 2211.3151
x́ =
19 √ 19

x́= 70.8421 σ =¿ 10.7882

21
 Table 8: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in English Literature for unhealthy females

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
62 -13.50 182.25
70 -5.50 30.25
75 -0.50 0.25
76 0.50 0.25
84 8.50 72.25
86 10.50 110.25
Σ 453 395.50

Number of students 6
Σ xi σ= √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

453 σ= 395.50
x́ =
6 √ 6

x́=75.50 σ =¿ 8.1189

22
 Table 9: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in Mathematics for healthy females

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
29 -33.6316 1131.0845
40 -22.6316 512.1893
45 -17.6316 310.8733
45 -17.6316 310.8733
46 -16.6316 276.6102
47 -15.6316 244.3469
49 -13.6316 185.8205
50 -12.6316 159.5573
52 -10.6316 113.0309
53 -9.6316 87.6396
67 4.3684 19.0829
70 7.3684 54.2933
76 13.3684 178.7141
77 14.3684 206.4509
82 19.3684 375.1349
85 22.3684 500.3453
91 28.3684 804.7661
93 30.3684 922.2397
93 30.3684 922.2397
Σ 1190 7315.2927

Number of students = 19
Σ xi σ= √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

1190 σ= 7315.2927
x́ =
19 √ 19

x́= 62.6316 σ= 19.6218

23
 Table 10: A table showing the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of a set of
marks obtained in Mathematics for unhealthy females

xi x i- x́ ( x i-x́)2
29 -26.6667
42 -13.6667
43 -12.6667
71 15.3333
74 18.3333
75 19.3333
Σ 334 2003.3334

Number of students= 6
Σ xi σ =¿ √ Σ¿ ¿ ¿
x́=
n

334 σ =¿ 2003.3334
x́ =
6 √ 6

x́= 55.6667 σ =¿ 18.2726

24
 Table 11: Summary of statistical results for 8 specified groups of 5th Form students at
Harrison College
(where M- Mathematics, E.l – English Literature)

Standar
Inter d
Lowest Highest Media quartil Deviatio %Passe
Column1 N= Score Score n e range Mean n s
Unhealthy
Males E.l 6 60 78 65.5 4.75 66.50 5.7082 100%
Healthy 72.894
Males E.l 19 63 85 72 8.5 7 6.1464 100%
Unhealthy
Females E.l 6 62 86 75 11.75 75.50 8.1189 100%
Healthy 70.842
Females E.l 19 52 82 74 11.5 1 10.7882 95%
Unhealthy 52.333
Males M 6 30 82 50.5 11 3 15.9588 50%
Healthy 68.736
Males M 19 38 91 70 21 8 15.0467 89%
Unhealthy 55.666
Females M 6 29 75 57 31.75 7 18.2726 83%
Healthy 62.631
Females M 19 29 93 52 30.5 6 19.6218 63%

25
 Discussion of Findings
Table 11 summarized the results of unhealthy and healthy males and females in English

Literature and Mathematics. Unhealthy males performed better in English Literature receiving

100% passes with a mean of 66.50 and a small standard deviation of 5.7082 , implying that the

marks were consistent and close to the mean mark. On the other hand, in Mathematics for

unhealthy males there was a wide variability of marks across the mark range because of the large

standard deviation of 15.9588 receiving 50% passes. The median and mean for unhealthy

females in English Literature was determined to be the same, this indicates that the dataset is

evenly distributed from the lowest to the highest values while unhealthy females in Mathematics,

the data was widely distributed because of a large standard deviation of 18.2726.

In Mathematics, the marks for healthy males had a large variability to its mean of 68.7368 while

healthy females also had a large deviation to its mean of 62.6316 but healthy males performed

better than healthy females receiving 26% more passes than the females. In English Literature,

healthy males performed slightly better than healthy females. The standard deviation for healthy

males was determined to be 6.1464 which is a small deviation and the marks are close to the

mean, 72.8921. This shows that healthy males performed well in English Literature while

healthy females received a standard deviation of 10.7882 which is not much deviation away from

the mean of 70.8421, indicating that healthy females also performed well in English Literature.

In sum, it can be said that students performed better in English Literature than in Mathematics

despite of their health statuses and gender. Also, in Mathematics males performed somewhat

better than females but considering both English Literature and Mathematics, males performed

better. Furthermore, there is no visible evidence that the performance of healthy males and

unhealthy males differs in English Literature. In Mathematics, healthy males performed better

26
than unhealthy males. On the other hand, unhealthy females performed better than healthy

females in both Mathematics and English Literature.

27
 Conclusion

In conclusion, from examining the data obtained through this study, it can be said that good

health influences academic performance. There is no clear evidence that the performance of

healthy and unhealthy males differs in English Literature, however healthy males performed

better than unhealthy males in Mathematics. Unhealthy females performed better than healthy

females in English Literature and Mathematics. It would appear that good health seems to be

more effective with males than females but females would perform good or poorly academically

regardless of their health status.

In this experiment, participants were all taken from the same school so that the environment

would not influence their results. Also, this conclusion only pertains to English Literature and

Mathematics and may not be true for other subjects. This study can be improved by considering

the person’s social and economic environment, the person’s education level or the genetics of the

individual. Limitations of this project are that the Body Mass Index does not distinguish between

fat and muscle, which can categorize muscular individuals into the unhealthy category and the

Body Mass Index calculation is solely dependent on the net weight and height of the individual

and does not consider the distribution of muscle and bone mass.

28
Bibliography
Dietations of Canada. (2016). BMI for Children/Teens. Retrieved March 15th, 2016, from
https://www.dietations.ca/Your-Health/Assess-Yourself/Assess-Your-BMI-Children.aspx

National Obesity Observatory. (2009, June). Body Mass Index as a measure of obesity. Retrieved
March 15th, 2016, from http://www.noo.org.uk/uploads/doc789_40_noo_BMI.pdf

Study.com. (2012). What is BMI?- Definition, Fomula, & Calculation. Retrieved March 15th,
2016, from http://www.http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-bmi-definition-
formula-calculation.html

World Health Organization. (2016). Health Impact Assessment. Retrieved March 15th, 2016,
from http://www.who.int/hia/evidence/doh/en/

29
Appendix

30
31
32