Caribbean Examination Council

Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate

Does good physical health and fitness as indicated by Body Mass Index influence
the academic performance of adolescents?

Name of student:
Candidate number:
School code:
Year of examination: 2016

Table of Contents
Title

Page

Purpose of Project.1
Method of Data Collection2
Presentation of Data..3
Mathematical Knowledge/ Analysis of Data...13
Discussion of Findings.26
Conclusion28
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 students 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 individuals 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.

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

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

BMI =

weight
(height )2

The health status of each student was classified using the age referenced Body Mass Index
Graphs (Dietations of Canada, 2016, pp. 30-31).
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.

Presentation of Data
2

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

weight
(kg)
54.4
49.9
61.2
79.8
63.5
57.1
83.9
59
52.1
77.5
51.2
58.5
73.4
48.5
53.5
55.3
68.9
73
61.2
77.1
63.9
52.1
59
64.9
72.7

height (m2)

BMI

2.8
2.9
2.8
3.2
3.2
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.1
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.4
3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2

19.5
17.2
21.9
24.9
19.8
21.1
27.1
16.9
16.9
24.2
16
20.2
25.3
18
18.4
17.3
22.2
21.5
21.1
22.7
21.3
16.3
18.4
20.3
22.7

State of
student
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Overweight
Healthy
Healthy
Overweight
Healthy
Healthy
Overweight
Underweight
Healthy
Overweight
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Underweight
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy

English
Lit. (%)
63
78.9
64.1
65.8
85.4
71.7
61.7
74.3
69.8
78.2
60.4
72.8
66.3
66.5
63.8
67.6
76.3
72.1
77.6
70.8
73.3
67.4
80.5
83.4
71.9

Math
(%)
70
56.2
65
82.2
80.2
64.8
56.8
78.1
81.3
30.4
43.3
70.2
53.9
75.8
38.9
62.6
91.5
55.7
80.5
53.2
68.3
48.4
84
38.3
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

Ran
k

Weight
(kg)

Height (m2)

BMI

State of
student
3

English
Lit. (%)

Math
(%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

49.9
56.7
54.4
61.2
59

2.6
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.7

19.2
18.3
21
25.5
22

41.7
54
52.1
41.3
52.6
54.4
62.6
50.8
47.2
70.8
47.2
54.9
45.8
55.3
43.5

2.5
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3

16.7
18.6
18
16.5
18.8
20.1
23.2
18.1
18.2
29.5
20
21.1
17.6
22.1
18.9

42.2
67.6
57.2
68
81.8

2.6
3.2
2.7
2.3
2.8

16.2
21.1
21.2
29.6
29.2

Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Overweight
Healthy
Underweigh
t
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Obese
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
Underweigh
t
Healthy
Healthy
Obese
Obese

77.4
79.1
80.6
86
69.7

93.3
39.9
45.1
43.3
29.4

74.8
79
81.1
78
51.2
77.8
72.6
74.3
74
76.4
82.9
63.8
53.7
71.9
73.7

75.1
75.5
93
50.2
67.3
81.6
69.6
46
42.8
71.2
77.4
52.6
45.3
52.3
48.8

84.3
44
61.5
69.9
62.3

74
84.8
90.7
41.7
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

12%

8%

4%

Underweight
Healthy
Overweight
Obese
77%

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

17%

8%
Underweight
Healthy
Overweight
Obese
75%

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

12

No. of students

4
5

2
0

40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99

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

5
3

3
2

0.5
0

50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99

No. of students

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

12
10
8
Frequency

11

11

No. of students

2
0
60-69

70-79

80-89

Marks(%)

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

5
4

1.5

No. of students
2

1
0.5
0

50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99

Figure 7: Bar chart showing the distribution of the 2015 Promotion Examination Marks (%) in
English Literature for Healthy and Unhealthy Male Students
12
10
8
No. of students

11

Healthy
Unhealthy

4
2
0

5
3
1

60%-69%

70%-79%

0
80%-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
8
6
No. of students

10

Healthy

2
0

3
0

Marks

Unhealthy

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

No. of students

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

3
2

1
0

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
5
4
3

No. of students

6
Healthy

2
3
1

2
11

2
1
0 0

00

Unhealthy

Marks

Figure 11: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of healthy males
Stem
6
7
8

Leaf
3
0
1

4
1
3

4
2
5

7
2

8
2

KEY:6
3
Mean
s
63
Figure 12: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of unhealthy
males
Stem
6
7

Leaf
0
8

KEY: 6 6
Mea
ns
66
10

Figure 13: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of healthy males
Stem
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Leaf
8

3
3
0
0
1

6
5
0
1
2

6
5
6
1

8
8
4

KEY:5 5
Means 55

Figure 14: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of unhealthy males
Stem
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
KEY:4
Means

Leaf
0
3
4

8
7

3
43

Figure 15: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of healthy
females
Stem
4
5
6
7
8

Leaf
4
1
2
0
1

4
4
2
1

3
3

4
11

KEY:5 4
Means

54

Figure 16: A stem and leaf diagram showing the English Literature marks of unhealthy
females
Stem
6
7
8
KEY:6
Means

Leaf
2
0
4

5
6

2
62

Figure 17: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of healthy females
Stem
2
4
5
6
7
8
9

Leaf
9
0
0
7
0
2
1

3
2

5
3

6
5
3

KEY:4 3
Means 43
Figure 18: A stem and leaf diagram showing the Mathematics marks of unhealthy females
Stem
2
3
4
5
6
7

Leaf
9
2

12

KEY:4
Means

2
42

Mathematical Knowledge/ Analysis of Data

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 the

n+1
2

th

( )

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
13

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.

14

English Literature marks : Healthy vs Unhealthy males

Healthy
Unhealthy

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Marks

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

Mathematics marks: Healthy vs Unhealthy males

Healthy
Unhealthy

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

15

English Literature marks: Healthy vs Unhealthy females

Healthy
Unhealthy

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

Healthy
Unhealthy

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

16

The mean and standard deviation for each of the eight specified groups were calculated. The
following formulas were used:

x =

xi
n

( x ix )2

Xi

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

n represents the number of students in a specified group.

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.

17

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
63
64
64
67
68
70
71
72
72
72
73
73
74
76
78
79
81
83
85
1385

Number of students
x
x = i
n

x =

xi -

xi

-9.8947
-8.8947
-8.8947
-5.8947
-4.8947
-2.8947
-1.8947
-0.8947
-0.8947
-0.8947
0.1053
0.1053
1.1053
3.1053
5.1053
6.1053
8.1053
10.1053
12.1053

- x )2

97.9051
79.1157
79.1157
34.7475
23.9581
8.3793
3.5899
0.8005
0.8005
0.8005
0.0111
0.0111
1.2217
9.6429
26.0641
37.2747
65.6959
102.1171
146.5383
717.7897

19
=

1385
19

x = 72.8947

=
=

18

x x

717.7897
19
6.1464

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
60
62
66
66
67
78
399

Number of students
x
x = i
n

x =

xi -

-6.50
-4.50
-0.50
-0.50
0.50
11.50

xi

- x )2

42.25
20.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
132.25
195.50

399
6

x = 66.5

19

x x 2

195.50
6

5.7082

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
38
39
53
56
56
63
65
65
68
70
70
76
78
80
81
81
84
91
92
1306

Number of students=
x
x = i
n

x =

xi -

xi

-30.7368
-29.7368
-15.7368
-12.7368
-12.7368
-5.7368
-3.7368
-3.7368
-0.7368
1.2632
1.2632
7.2632
9.2632
11.2632
12.2632
12.2632
15.2632
22.2632
23.2632

- x )2

944.7509
844.2773
247.6469
162.2261
162.2261
32.9109
13.9637
13.9637
0.5429
1.5957
1.5957
52.7541
85.8069
126.8597
150.3861
150.3861
232.9653
495.6501
541.1765
4301.6847

19

1306
19
20

x x 2

4301.6847
19

x = 68.7368

15.0467

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
30
43
48
54
57
82
314

Number of students
x
x = i
n

x =

xi -

xi

-22.3333
-9.3333
-4.3333
1.6667
4.6667
29.6667

- x )2

498.7763
87.1105
18.7775
2.7778
21.7781
880.1131
1528.1084

6
=

314
6

x = 52.3333

21

x x 2

1528.1084
6
15.9588

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

44
51
54
62
64
65
70
72
73
74
74
77
78
78
79
79
81
81
83
1346

Number of students

19

xi -

-26.8421
-19.8421
-16.8421
-8.8421
-6.8421
-5.8421
-.8421
1.1579
2.1579
3.1579
3.1579
6.1579
7.1579
7.1579
8.1579
8.1579
10.1579
10.1579
12.1579

22

xi

- x )2

720.4983
393.7089
283.6563
78.1827
46.8143
34.1301
0.7091
1.3407
4.6565
9.9723
9.9723
37.9197
51.2355
51.2355
66.5513
66.5513
103.1829
103.1829
147.8145
2211.3151

x
x = i
n

1346
19

x x 2

x = 70.8421

2211.3151
19
10.7882

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
62
70
75
76
84
86
453

Number of students
x
x = i
n

xi -

-13.50
-5.50
-0.50
0.50
8.50
10.50

xi

- x )2

182.25
30.25
0.25
0.25
72.25
110.25
395.50

453
6

23

x x

395.50
6

x =75.50

8.1189

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

xi -

29
40
45
45
46
47
49
50
52
53
67
70
76
77
82

-33.6316
-22.6316
-17.6316
-17.6316
-16.6316
-15.6316
-13.6316
-12.6316
-10.6316
-9.6316
4.3684
7.3684
13.3684
14.3684
19.3684
24

xi

- x )2

1131.0845
512.1893
310.8733
310.8733
276.6102
244.3469
185.8205
159.5573
113.0309
87.6396
19.0829
54.2933
178.7141
206.4509
375.1349

85
91
93
93
1190

Number of students =
x
x = i
n

22.3684
28.3684
30.3684
30.3684

19

1190
19

500.3453
804.7661
922.2397
922.2397
7315.2927

x = 62.6316

x x 2

7315.2927
19
19.6218

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

29
42
43
71
74
75
334

Number of students=

xi -

xi

- x )2

-26.6667
-13.6667
-12.6667
15.3333
18.3333
19.3333
2003.3334

25

x
x = i
n

334
6

x x 2

x = 55.6667

2003.3334
6
18.2726

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

Column1
Unhealthy
Males E.l
Healthy

N=

Lowest
Score

Highest
Score

Media
n

Inter
quartil
e range

6
19

60
63

78
85

65.5
72

4.75
8.5

26

Mean

Standar
d
Deviatio
n

%Passe
s

66.50
72.894

5.7082
6.1464

100%
100%

Males E.l
Unhealthy
Females E.l
Healthy
Females E.l
Unhealthy
Males M
Healthy
Males M
Unhealthy
Females M
Healthy
Females M

7
6

62

86

75

11.75

19

52

82

74

11.5

30

82

50.5

11

19

38

91

70

21

29

75

57

31.75

19

29

93

52

30.5

75.50
70.842
1
52.333
3
68.736
8
55.666
7
62.631
6

8.1189

100%

10.7882

95%

15.9588

50%

15.0467

89%

18.2726

83%

19.6218

63%

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
27

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
than unhealthy males. On the other hand, unhealthy females performed better than healthy
females in both Mathematics and English Literature.

28

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
29

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 persons social and economic environment, the persons 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.

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

30

Study.com. (2012). What is BMI?- Definition, Fomula, & Calculation. Retrieved

Appendix

31

32

33

34