Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University

COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Agoo, La Union

SMARTPHONE AND

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

OF GRADE 12TH STUDENTS OF

SANTO TOMAS CATHOLIC SCHOOL

By:

SHARMAINE ROZ A. CARRERA

SUMMER 2018

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

1.1 Introduction 4-6

1.2 Statement of the Problem 6

1.3 Significance of the Study 6-7

1.4 Scope and Limitation 7

1.5 Definition of Key Terms 7-8

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review 10-17

CHAPTER 3

3.1 Research Methodology 18

3.2 Area of the Study 18

3.3 Population and Samples 18-19

3.4 Research Instrument for Data Collection 19

3.5 Validation of Research Instrument 19

3.6 Administration of Instrument and Method of Data Collection 20

3.7 Data Analysis Technique 20

CHAPTER 4

Data Analysis and Interpretation 21

4.1 Interpretation of Results 21-31

4.2 Discussion of the Findings 31-32

2
CHAPTER 5

Summary, Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation 33

5.1 Summary of the Principal Findings 33

5.2 Suggestions for Further Research 33

5.3 Conclusion 33

5.4 Recommendations 34

REFERENCES 36-38

3
 CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Human species began the discovery of technology by improvisation of natural resources

to simple tools. The conversion of stones to fires led to the increase of the availability of sources

of foods, and then there comes the invention of wheels that helped humans to travel in their

environment and then countless technological advancement followed like the invention of

calculators, printing press, the telephone and now the computers that helped humans perform

work easier and efficient. (Sonya, 2015) Computer, for example, is a useful tool to communicate

with one another at wide distances through accessing Social Media Sites (SMS) like Facebook,

Twitters, Linkedln, WhattsApp, Viber, etc. and is useful for acquiring information that are

readily available in Google, Yahoo, and the like.

Technology like computers are helpful to a student's academic performance, especially

because it has so many functions that will help them make their school works easier and more

efficient, for instances like learning the history of things. Decades ago, students go to libraries to

dig deep about our history, but now, with the advent of computers, learning about our history is

easy and accessible through searching it in digital books and encyclopedias, or online sources

like Wikipedia. They do not only access it effortlessly, but it also redirects them to the context

according to their need by searching using keywords.

However, since technology change over time, in the early 2000s, there was a release of a

new mobile phone, but not like keypads or any other phones that are only limited to messaging

and basic functions like calculators, calendars, and voice recorder, these mobiles phones are

4
carrying Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) that can run various Operating System (OS) such as

Blackberry OS, and Palm OS, meaning, mobiles phones are now becoming a mini-computer.

According to a website "ComputerHope" (2017), Smartphones are considered computers

due to its similarities to a traditional desktop like the fact that both of them are using Central

Processing Unit (CPU), Memory, Display Functionality and uses OS that runs programs and

perform different functions, however, differences are also obvious. Computers, not like

smartphones, are more complex with its input devices such as mouse and keyboard, whereas

smartphones only use touch screen interface, also computers’ connectivity is limited to Ethernet

cable while smartphones can connect to Wi-Fi networks for internet access, not only that, but

also to mobile data network. Smartphones are lightweight, and can fit in a pocket, can be hand-

held or in short, portable, not like most of desktop computers which are not considered portable.

With the portability of these smartphones, students are finally carrying with them the

said gadget in school, thus there’s a potential that they would use it inside school premises or

even during classes. It would be logical enough to say that it would at least affect their Academic

Performance either positively or negatively depending on how it is used. “Academic

achievement or (academic) performance is the extent to which a student, teacher or institution

has achieved their short or long-term educational goals. It is commonly measured through test

assessments scores.” (“Wikipedia,” 2017) So, since students are starting to integrate technology

with learning, the researchers want to examine if technologies, especially smartphones, would

impact students’ scores through surveying, observing and analyzing.

21st Century learners are indeed wrapped with various technologies around them, making

it either a danger or an opportunity to their studies. Learners, especially teenagers are the most

5
vulnerable subject to these technological exposure, since we are on this generation between

Millennial and Generation Z, the researchers see the opportunity to determine the impact of

Smartphones on Students’ Academic Performance and its relationship to smartphone

accessibility, how it is used and the time consumption.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Generally, this study is about smartphones and the Academic Performance of Grade 12th

students of Santo Tomas Catholic School.

This also aims to answer the following questions:

1. How many students have access to smartphones?

2. Is there a relationship on how a smartphone is used to Students’ Academic Performance?

3. Is there a link between smartphone time consumption and Students’ Academic Performance?

4. Does smartphones impact students’ Grade Percentage Average (GPA)?

1.3 Significance of the Study

This study is significant to the students, parents, teachers and researchers.

Students. After this research, students will be more aware of what are the impacts of

smartphones on their academic performance and thus they could adjust on what are needed

depending on the results of the research, if it will be proven that smartphones increase one’s

ability to do work, or if it would decrease instead.

6
Parents. When conclusions are arrived, this research would let the parents understand one of the

factors of why their children get better grades or lower grades instead and they will be aware of

the impacts of smartphones on the children’s academic achievement, thus they could serve as a

watch-dog to their children so as to guide them on what are needed.

Teachers. The teachers would be more considerate about the idea that smartphones are not at all

bad to a students’ performance, but also, this research will show them to what extent does

smartphones are useful to a class and its limitations.

Researchers. This research will serve as a basis for next any other researches that are related to

the said topic or problem.

1.4 Scope and Limitation

This study focuses on the Impact Smartphones to the Academic Performance of Grade 12

students of Santo Tomas Catholic School for the Academic Year 2018-2019. The respondents of

this study will be limited to 60 Grade 12th students and will be selected through random

sampling.

1.5 Definition of Key Terms

As words may mean differently in different context, the following definitions are given as

the exact usage of those words used on this study.

STCS – Santo Tomas Catholic School

GAS – General Academic Strand

ABM – Accountancy, Business and Management

7
STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

Central Processing Unit (CPU) – commonly known as the brain of the computer, mainly to

process data.

Grade Percentage Average (GPA) – the average result of all grades achieved on a semester or

grading period.

Impact- refers to the effect of something to another thing.

Millennial- a person who was born in the 1980s or 1990s (Merriam Webster, 2017)

Mobile Addiction- is the repeated use of a substance despite the negative consequences

suffered by the addicted individual.” (Alavi, et al. 2012; Stieglitz&Brockmann, 2013 and S. & A.

Davey, 2015)

Mobile Poisoning- refers to the habitually using a smartphone without special purpose for and

showing anxiety and restlessness without a smart phone.” (Park, et al., 2014)

Operating System (OS) - the manager of a computer which is responsible for the execution of

application and the control of the system.

Research- An academic paper that is made scientifically by researchers.

Researchers- The people behind a research.

Smartphones- Are electronic devices that are considered mini-computers due to its similar

characteristic to a conventional desktop computer, but easier to use and has a lot of advantages

than computers.

8
Social Media Sites (SMS) - forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social

networking and micro blogging) through which users create online communities to share

information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos) (Merriam Webster,

2017)

Students’ Academic Performance (SAP) - Refers to the achievement of a student measured by

their assessment scores on a quiz or what particular examination it is.

Technology- any tools that enhances students’ learning and achievement; electronic device, or

machines that make work easier to perform.

Generation Z- People who are born just after the millennial; Post-millennial.

9
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21st Century people are highly exposed to the digital world, especially students of today’s

generation. With so much technological exposure, students started to integrate technology on

their learning. Since smartphone nowadays functions like a computer, it is one of the most

common gadgets that students use on their day to day lives. If not used for messaging or for

basic applications, students use it for their school works and assignments by accessing readily

available information on online websites, commonly Google, while some use it for browsing

Social Networking Sites (SNS) commonly Facebook and Twitters to chat or communicate with

different people across wide distances or whatever motives they have. With these technological

advancements, of course, there are also its corresponding effects. We may not take it seriously,

but numerous studies have been conducted to find out link between smartphones and its impacts

on students’ academic performances.

Talking about smartphones would not give us a hint on how does it affect students’

academic performance, but when we delve in more on the question “how does students use

smartphones?” we could find clues that would lead us to the resolution of our questions. So to

start, let’s raise the questions: How is a smartphones used? What applications? And in what

sense does it affect students’ academic performance? To address these sets of questions,

Grosseck, et al. (2011) & Rosen et al. (2013), conducted a study and found that the majority of

students spend significant time on Facebook more for social uses (to stay in touch with friends

and family, to share / tag photos, to engage in social activism, volunteering etc.) and less for

academic purposes, even if they take part in discussions about their assignments, lectures, study

10
notes or share information about research resources etc. So it is not uncommon that Facebook is

one of the priority lists of a student when using smartphone, but what is the significance of

Facebook to a students’ academic performance? To find out, a research was conducted by

Kirschner&Karpinski (2010) aiming to determine the relationship between academic

performance and Facebook usage. Sample were taken from population of 219 university students

and they found that Facebook users had lower Grade Percentage Averages and they were online

most of the time and utilized very less time for their studies in comparison with students who did

not use Social Networking Services (SNS). Only 26% of students reported that SNS impacted

positively and helped to grow in their lives and 74% said that it had adverse impact like

procrastination, lack of concentration or distraction and poor time management. With the results

at hand, we could not deny the fact that at some point, students’ performance is affected when

they are using Facebook most of the time as supported by another research conducted by

Tayseer, et al. (2014) titled “Social Network: Academic and Social Impact on College Students”,

found that there is a correlation between the students’ GPAs and their usage of social networks.

An interesting finding was that many of our respondents do not use social sites to look for

college-related information; however, many of them encourage the idea of having online study

groups. Another finding showed that the students tend to use social networks for social purposes

more than the academic ones. However, separate studies also took a standpoint where SNS, like

Facebook, is not bad at all in a sense that it helps students, especially the freshmen, to boost their

self-confidence through a social interaction on Facebook as stated by Barkhuus&Tashiro (2011)

“the itinerant lifestyle that students live nowadays makes them face many challenges when it

comes to separating between their schoolwork and their social daily life. Data resulted from their

study implies that Facebook is used not only to socialize with people, but also to help first year

11
students overcome their shyness factor. Some of the students may feel shy when it is related to

making new friendships. However, by using Facebook ‘event tool’, students can arrange

meetings in order to get in touch with each other even more or keep light relationships with their

mates.” In addition, according to Stollak, et al. (2011) on their study “"Getting social: The

impact of social networking usage on grades among college students", students who have smart

phones were more likely to both access social media tools and spend time engaging with others.

From an educational standpoint, this means there may very well be a “digital divide” between

those who are making connections with others, and those who might be left behind. Similarly,

professors may have to be wary of assigning projects involving social media to students as some

may have an advantage in completing the work than others.

Using free mobile data, a student can access Facebook but with slow processing of data

that even pictures can’t be seen, how much more browsing another website? That would be

impossible. Since the digital world is not focused only on SNSs but also for digging useful

information on different online websites like Encyclopedia and Google, a smartphone must have

at least an internet connection. According to Kumar (2011), the use of the Internet has become a

part of life of every student and a mean to search for the information as and when it is needed.

These days, use of mobile phones for internet purposes has become a routine and number of

mobile consumer accessing the Internet is surpassing fixed line internet users. The Smartphone

with the capability of always connected makes it much easier for the students to avail this type of

education facility and makes the Smartphone a perfect fit device for distance learning. Putting it

in other words, Internet has been useful for a student learning for it guarantees accessibility of

information on the said online sources through the use of mobile phones. In this case, with

enough information, there can be a learning process where mobile phone played a great role on
12
the progress of students’ academic performance as quoted from Abuhassna&Admin (2014) “The

majority of students indicated that mobile learning technologies and devices have improved their

academic performance in different ways. There was higher frequency agreement that social

networking improved students’ learning and Putra LMS improved students’ satisfaction with the

courses. The overall interpretation was that mobile learning has many advantages as it can be

used anywhere, anytime while improving communication and enriching students' learning

experiences in their learning.” Having personal devices, such as smartphones would also help the

school in meeting a student’s educational need for instances like when the school can’t provide

enough facilities for the learning of the students like computers as elaborated more on the study

conducted by Krebs (2012) shows that Smartphone can have a huge impact on student

achievement. Skeptics, including some parents, worry about kids wasting time in class, but so far

the benefits of allowing personal technology in schools outweigh the risks. Students can access

the Internet even when school budgets limit the number of computers available, and small

numbers of devices can impact larger numbers of students if teachers allow group work.

How long a student browses the Internet and access to different websites refers to time. A

study of a group of undergraduate students, published in the journal Computers in Human

Behavior in 2015, found that among undergraduate students, total mobile-phone use (measured

in number of minutes per day, not limited to school time) was "a significant and negative

predictor of college students' academic performance, objectively measured as cumulative GPA."

(Lepp, et al. 2015) So, the time a student spent in front their mobile screen also played a vast role

on their academic performance, instead of using it for reading books, reviewing notes, and doing

school works, students tend to use it more for entertainment and less for education as stressed by

different researchers, for example from the observation of Nathia, et al. (2013); Nalwa&Anand,
13
(2003) states that “as mobile phones in societies increases, there is a large growth in the use of

mobile phones especially among the youth. This trend is followed by the fast growth in use of

online social networking services (SNS). Extensive use of technology can lead to addiction. This

study finds that the use of SNS mobile applications is a significant predictor of mobile

addiction.” Additionally, from researches of Gergen (2002); Halpen (2003); and Franzini (2002)

states that “researchers have discovered that the use of mobile phone in schools is problematic.

As Ling and Helmerson (2000) states, the mobile phone is ‘at cross purpose with the mission of

the school’. While in school students are supposed to take on their prescribed roles as students

with full concentration on their studies and free from contact with the outside world. However,

the mobile phone gives room to blending students’ roles with other roles thus distracting and

disrupting the students’ academic work.” Due to this sanction, three researches have all-in-one

common findings about the mobile addiction phenomenon: “an increasing reliance on cell-

phones among young adults and college students may signal the evolution of cell-phone use from

a habit to an addiction. Although the concept of addiction has multiple definitions, traditionally it

has been described as the repeated use of a substance despite the negative consequences suffered

by the addicted individual.” (Alavi, et al. 2012; Stieglitz&Brockmann, 2013 and S. & A. Davey,

2015) In other words, mobile addiction then is a conscious action of mobile addicts, but they

tend to see it on different perspective than referring it as “addiction” as explained by a study of

Chakraborty, et al. (2010), that although various etiological theories could be used to explain

which cell-phone activities are most likely to lead to addiction (e.g., Escape Theory), Learning

Theory seems particularly appropriate. Learning Theory emphasizes, among other things, the

rewards gained from various cell-phone activities. So as stated, there are possible theories of

mobile addiction, the Escape and Learning Theory. Escape Theory which literally means “to get

14
away” from this reality and be present somewhere at the world of smartphone and Learning

Theory in which a mobile-user gains satisfaction to the rewards he/she gain from different

mobile applications. Another research mentioned the term “smartphone poisoning” which means

“connection to poisoning phenomena habitually using a smartphone without special purpose for

and showing anxiety and restlessness without a smart phone.” (Park, et al., 2014) which is an

obvious effect of smartphone addiction. Moving on from citing theories to observing

experiments of different conducted related studies regarding addiction. A recent study entitled

“Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress, academic performance, and satisfaction with

life” Samaha&Hawi (2016) is aiming to investigate the relationship between risk of smartphone

addiction and satisfaction with life mediated by stress and academic performance. The other aim

was to explore whether satisfaction with life mediated by stress and academic performance

facilitates smartphone addiction. To identify test subjects, systematic random sampling was

implemented. A total of 300 university students completed an online survey questionnaire that

was posted to the student information system. The survey questionnaire collected demographic

information and responses to scales including the Smartphone Addiction Scale - Short Version,

the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Data analyses included Pearson

correlations between the main variables and multivariate analysis of variances. The results

showed that smartphone addiction risk was positively related to perceived stress, but the latter

was negatively related to satisfaction with life. Additionally, a smartphone addiction risk was

negatively related to academic performance, but the latter was positively related to satisfaction

with life. The findings on the said study then sealed the notion that smartphone addiction has

negatively impacted students’ academic performance, in a sense that “learners are constantly

interrupted by the other applications on the phones when they are studying, and does not have

15
enough control over their Smartphone learning plan and its process.” (Lee et al., 2017) and that

the presence of mobile phone during a class lecture would only distract the student to the lessons,

as supported by an experimental study of Kuznekoff&Titsworth (2013), where participants in

three different study groups (control, low-distraction, and high-distraction) watched a video

lecture, took notes on that lecture, and took two learning assessments after watching the lecture.

Students who were not using their mobile phones wrote down 62% more information in their

notes, took more detailed notes, were able to recall more detailed information from the lecture,

and scored a full letter grade and a half higher on a multiple choice test than those students who

were actively using their mobile phones.

But even how wide the scope of mobile addiction and its effects on students’ academic

performance, it is still not the natural tendency of all smartphone-user. There are still cases

where smartphones, if used in a way that is relevant to the content of the discussed topics of a

class, would positively impact students’ academic performance like the experimental study titled

“Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Examining the Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message

Content on Student Learning” of Kuznekoff&Titsworth (2013), is designed to examined mobile

phone use in the classroom by using an experimental design to study how message content

(related or unrelated to class lecture) and message creation (responding to or creating a message)

impact student learning. Participants in eight experimental groups and a control group watched a

video lecture, took notes, and completed tests of student learning. The control and relevant

message groups earned a 10–17% higher letter grade, scored 70% higher on recalling

information, and scored 50% higher on note-taking than students who composed tweets or

responded to irrelevant messages. Sending/receiving messages unrelated to class content

negatively impacted learning and note-taking, while related messages did not appear to have a
16
significant negative impact. So it means that the impact from the usage of a smartphone on

students’ academic performance depends upon how it is used. Furthermore, In a study of Sykes

(2014), found that with a mixed method design that students using a smartphone application

enjoyed and performed very well in a course, so they exceeded their performance of a

comparison group (traditional course) with statistically significant differences. In addition to this,

a related study by Tosta (2013) concluded that, smartphones are a phenomenon that has changed

daily life and learning styles of students, has forced changes in teaching strategies for teachers,

and has changed the rules and policies of educational institutions. Since these technological

devices have all in one, it have become popular among the educational community of almost

every country around the world.

With the above discussion of related studies, the common link between those researches

and this current research is the aim to determine the impacts of smartphones on Students’

Academic Performance, how it was used, how long it was used and it’s affect to students’ Grade

Percentage Average (GPA).

17
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research design, area of the study, population and samples,

instrument for data collection, validation and reliability of research instrument, administration of

instrument, data collection method and data analysis technique.

3.1 Research Design

The method used in the study is descriptive research. It combines two research methods:

gathering information to ascertain the significance of having a smartphone to a Students’

Academic Performance and evaluating how smartphones impacts Students’ Academic

Performance.

3.2 Area of the Study

This study was carried out in Santo Tomas Catholic School in Mangaldan, Pangasinan.

3.3 Population and Samples

The population of the study was taken randomly and only from Santo Tomas Catholic

School with 60 selected students of Grade 12 section: GAS, ABM and STEM.

18
Table 1: Distribution of Respondents as to Grade 12th

Section Population Sample

GAS 33 28
ABM 22 19
STEM 16 13
Total 71 60

It can be gleaned from this table that the population of Grade 12th in GAS is 33 while the

ABM is composed of 22 students and the STEM is 16 students. Over all they are in total of 71

and the researcher only choose 60 respondents through random sampling.

3.4 Research Instrument for Data Collection

Structured questionnaire was used to gather information from the respondents. The

questionnaires were designed in 3 sections. Section ‘A’ consist of the respondents’ socio-

demography, section ‘B’ contain questions based on the set objectives and the research

hypothesis and section ‘C’ contain records of students’ General Percentage Average (GPA) from

their last school year. The questionnaire is a close ended one, whereby respondents were only

allowed to choose their answers from the boxes provided. (Akinwale, 2016)

3.5 Validation of Research Instrument

The questionnaire was adapted from Olanrewaju M Akinwale, 2016 due to its relevance

to our current study and was validated by our research teacher who made face validation and also

ascertained the stability of the instrument.

3.6 Administration of Instrument and Method of Data Collection

19
 Sixty (60) copies of the questionnaires were produced and administered by the researcher

to the random sample students from Santo Tomas Catholic School. To minimize errors in the

completion of the questionnaire, difficult items on the questionnaires were explained by the

researchers to the respondents. The filled copies were collected immediately and kept saved to

avoid loss in transit.

3.7 Data analysis Technique

The research data were analyzed through manual computations. The results of the survey

were analyzed by using average mean and percentage scoring.

20
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Interpretation of Results

Table 4.1: Test responses based on socio demography of respondents and set objectives.

SEX Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 28 46.67
Female 32 53.33
Total 60 100.0
AGE
13-15years 0 0
16-18years 58 96.67
Above 19years 2 3.33
Total 60 100.0
Do you have access to mobile phones?
Yes 60 100.0
No 0 0
Total 60 100.0

If yes, how do you get access to it?

Through;

Parents 17 28.33
Friends 4 6.67
Personal 39 65.0
Total 60 100.0
Do you use mobile phones frequently?
Yes 60 100.0
No 0 0
Total 60 100.0

21
 What do you use it for?
Texting and Calling
Often 18 35.0
Rarely 34 55.0
Not often 8 10.0
Total 60 100.0
Browsing
Often 42 70.0
Rarely 15 25.0
Not often 3 5.0
Total 60 100.0
Social Networking Sites (i.e. Face booking)
Often 51 85.0
Rarely 6 10.0
Not often 3 5.0
Total 60 100.0
Gaming
Often 27 45.0
Rarely 26 43.33
Not often 7 11.67
Total 60 100.0
How much time did you consume on using
your Smartphone per day?
1-3 Hrs. 30 50.0
4-7 Hrs. 21 35.0
Above 7 Hrs. 9 15.0
Total 60 100.0
How long have you been using mobile
phone?
1-6 months 11 18.33
22
 6-12 months 15 25.0
1 year and above 34 56.67
Total 60 100.0
Does using Smartphone help you do school
works?
Yes 60 100.0
No 0 0
Total 60 100.0
Are smartphones prohibited during
classes?
Yes 33 55.0
No 27 45.0
Total 60 100.0
Are you using your smartphone during
classes?
Yes 33 55.0
No 27 45.0
Total 60 100.0

The table above can also be shown in figures that follow:

Figure 4.1: The respondents’ gender frequency chart.

23
 According to Figure 4.1 above, it can be easily concluded that female students 32

(53.33%) from Grade 12 students of Santo Tomas Catholic School use smartphones more than

male students.

Figure 4.2: The respondents’ age frequency chart.

The information above showed that the age group between 16-18 which is 58 (96.67%)

are more active in smartphones usage than the age group of above 19 years old which is 2

(3.33%).

Figure 4.3: The respondents’ frequency chart showing the accessibility of respondents on

smartphones.

Referring to the figure 4.3 above, it can be seen that 60 (100%) of the respondents have

access to smartphones which revealed that all of the respondents are indeed accessing

24
smartphones.

Figure 4.4: The respondents’ frequency chart showing on how they have access to

smartphones.

It has been revealed on figure 4.3 that 100% of the respondents do have access to

smartphones, but the figure above showed on how they got access to it. 39 (65%) showed that

they access it personally, while the 17 (28.33%) showed that they access in on their parents and

the remaining 4 (6.67%) showed that they access on their friends. From that point, it can be

easily determined that majority of the respondents are indeed having personal smartphones.

Figure 4.5: The respondents’ frequency chart showing if they frequently use smartphones.
25
 The information above show that 60 (100%) of the respondents are frequently using on

their smartphones on certain applications. With that, frequent use only means that they are really

exposed to smartphones.

Figure 4.6: The respondents’ frequency chart showing their smartphone’s usage.

The above figure shows the distribution of how the respondents use their smartphones.

As we can see, 34 (55%) rarely use their smartphones for Texting and calling, 42 (70%)

Frequently use their smartphones for Browsing, 51 (85%) frequently use their smartphones for

SNS like Facebook, while 27 (45%) showed that they use frequently use it for gaming. A

conclusion can be drawn from these percentages which revealed that most of the respondents are

using their smartphones more for SNS like Facebook and less for the rest.

26
 Figure 4.7: The respondents’ frequency chart showing their time consumption on using

smartphones.

On the figure above, it has been revealed that 30 (50%) of the respondents are using their

smartphones for about 1-3 hours per day, while 21 (35%) use it for 4-7 hours while the

remaining 9 (15%) use it at above 7 hours. This means, 50% (gathered from 4-7 hours and 7

hours above respondents) are overly using their smartphones on a day, leading them to

distraction and less concentration.

Figure 4.8: The respondents’ frequency chart showing on how long they have been using

their smartphones.
27
 The above figure, showed that 34 (56.67%) of the respondents are already using their

smartphones for more than a year, while 15 (25%) are using their smartphones for 6-12 months

and the remaining 11 (18.33%) are still using on for about 1-6 months. This revealed that they

are already accustomed to smartphones and hence it has been part of their daily life.

Figure 4.9: The respondents’ frequency chart showing if smartphones help them do schools

works.

According to the Figure 4.9 above, respondents showed a strong affirmation that

smartphones indeed help them do school works, which means, they see smartphones not as a tool

that distracts them on their studies, but as a tool for helping them do task.

Figure 4.10: The respondents’ frequency chart showing if smartphones are prohibited during

classes.
28
 Referring to the figure above, it can be determined that 33 (55%) of the students believe

that smartphones are prohibited during classes, but 27 (45%) believe it was not. This revealed

that 55% of them feel free to use their smartphones on their classroom during classes.

Figure 4.11: The respondents’ frequency chart showing if they still use their smartphones

during classes.

The information above affirmed the findings on figure 4.10. This figure also showed that

33 (55%) of the respondents are using their smartphones during classes while 27 (45%) are not.

55% of the respondents are more to distraction while the classes were going on, but they are also

benefited is used in an appropriate way.

Table 4.2: Shows the respondents’ final GPA.

Respondent # Final GPA Respondent # Final GPA Respondent # Final GPA

1 89 21 77 41 77

2 92 22 76 42 76

3 93 23 79 43 78

29
4 86 24 83 44 79

5 87 25 90 45 85

6 78 26 88 46 90

7 83 27 84 47 92

8 87 28 83 48 91

9 88 29 88 49 85

10 89 30 87 50 86

11 90 31 84 51 86

12 85 32 82 52 87

13 91 33 82 53 83

14 87 34 82 54 85

15 91 35 79 55 85

16 90 36 78 56 85

17 90 37 84 57 87

18 81 38 84 58 89

19 82 39 82 59 85

20 80 40 85 60 86

30
The table above can also be shown in figure that follows:

Figure 4.12: The respondents’ final Grade Percentage Average (GPA)

According to the figure above, a conclusion can be easily drawn that majority of the

students achieved high average grade as 24 (40%) got a final grade of 85-89 which is considered

as proficient, 11 (18.33%) achieved 90+ grades which is above proficient or excellent, while 15

(25%) got 80-84 which is approaching proficient and only 10 (16.675%) got a final grade

ranging from 75-79. With that, it revealed that smartphones have a positive correlation on the

student’s academic performance.

4.2 Discussion of the Findings

Based on the above Table 4.1, it showed that, 32 (53.33%) respondents were female

while 28 (46.67%) were male. 58 respondents were between 16-18years, while just 2 were above

19 years old. 60 (100%) students have access to mobile phones and 39 of them responded that

they access it on their personal smartphone while o17 responded they access it on their parent’s

31
smartphone and the remaining responded they access on their friends. Then, all of the

respondents agreed that they make use of their phones frequently.

It was recorded that, 51 (85%) respondents frequently use their smartphone for specific

functions like accessing Social Networking Sites, specifically, Facebook. And, 60 (100%) said

that smartphone helped them perform school tasks. 30 (50%) of the respondents responded that

they use their smartphones for about 1-3 hours per day for more than a year. Then, 33 (55%)

responded that, the use of mobile phones in the school premises is prohibited. However, that 33

also responded that they still use their smartphone during classes even when there is smartphone

prohibition during classes.

32
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary of the Principal Findings

This study focused on smartphones and the academic performance of Grade 12 students

of Santo Tomas Catholic School for the academic year 2018-2019. However, the following

findings were made from the study:

1. One-hundred percent (100 %) of the grade 12 students have access to mobile phones either

through their parents, friends or personal.

2. There is a positive relationship on how a smartphone is used to Student’s Academic

Performance.

3. There is a positive link between smartphone time consumption and Students’ Academic

Performance.

4. Smartphones positively impacted student’s Grade Percentage Average (GPA).

5.2 Suggestions for Further Research

This study enclosed only the Grade 12th students of Santo Tomas Catholic School.

Therefore, repetition of the study could still be conceded out on a broader scope.

5.3 Conclusion

In conclusion, smartphones are essential gadgets possessed by an average Grade 12th

student. This research concluded strongly that smartphones have positive impact on students’

academic performance.
33
5.4 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this work, the following recommendations were formulated:

1. Not only the Grade 12th students, but all High School and Senior High School students,

must have a proper orientation on how to set priorities in using smartphones. This highly

needed orientation must be headed by the school management and shouldered by the

parents of the students. Since the use of smartphone inside school campuses and even

during classes cannot be totally banned as it has been part of a students’ habit, they must

be informed from time to time on the possible outcomes of their acts and the possible

problems they may encounter when they go beyond their limitations which may lead to

smartphone addiction and unmindful use of their smartphones which may lead to another

bigger problem.

2. Likewise, the school management, specially the advisers, must be more active to their

responsibilities by guaranteeing the implementation to the laid down school rules and

regulations on student’s use of smartphones device during class session.

34
REFERENCES:

Andrew Lepp; Jacob E. Barkley; Aryn C. Karpinski. "The Relationship Between Cell Phone Use

and Academic Performance in a Sample of U.S. College Students". Computers in Human

Behavior. 31 (1): 343–350. doi:10.1177/2158244015573169

M. Tayseer, F. Zoghieb, I. Alcheikh, and M. N. Awadallah, "Social Network: Academic and

Social Impact on College Students."

J. H. Kuznekoff and S. Titsworth, "The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning,"

Communication Education, vol. 62, pp. 233-252, 2013.

P. A. Kirschner and A. C. Karpinski, "Facebook® and academic performance," Computers in

human behavior, vol. 26, pp. 1237-1245, 2010.

G. Grosseck, R. Bran, and L. Tiru, "Dear teacher, what should I write on my wall? A case study

on academic uses of Facebook," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15, pp. 1425-

1430, 2011.

L. D. Rosen, L. M. Carrier, and N. A. Cheever, "Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-

induced task-switching while studying," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, pp. 948-958,

2013.

J. H. Kuznekoff and S. Titsworth, "The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning,"

Communication Education, vol. 62, pp. 233-252, 2013.

35
H. Rabiu,A. I.Muhammed, Y.Umaru& H.T. Ahmed, “Impact Of Mobile Phone Usage On

Academic Performance Among Secondary School Students In Taraba State, Nigeria” European

Scientific Journal, vol.12, No.1 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431, 2016

N. Lathia, V. Pejovic, K. K. Rachuri, C. Mascolo, M. Musolesi, and P. J. Rentfrow,

"Smartphones for large-scale behavior change interventions," IEEE Pervasive Computing, pp.

66-73, 2013.

K. Nalwa and A. P. Anand, "Internet addiction in students: a cause of concern,"

CyberPsychology& Behavior, vol. 6, pp. 653-656, 2003.

H. M. Abuhassna1 & i. M. H. Amin, “students feedback and perception regarding mobile phone

applications at the faculty of education in-upm” Impact Journals, Vol. 2, Issue 9, 73-80, 2014.

L. Barkhuus& J. Tashiro, “Student Socialization in the Age of Facebook”, University of

California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA, 2010.

http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~barkhuus/barkhuuschi2010.pdf [Accessed: 2nd of September 2011].

G.-R. Park, G.-W. Moon, and D.-H. Yang, "The Moderation Effect of Smart Phone Addiction in

Relationship between Self-Leadership and Innovative Behavior."

E. R. Sykes, "New Methods of Mobile Computing: From Smartphones to Smart Education,"

TechTrends, vol. 58, pp. 26-37, 2014.

M. R. Tosta, "Smartphones and their impact in education."

36
J. Lee, B. Cho, Y. Kim, and J. Noh, "Smartphone Addiction in University Students and its

Implication for Learning," in Emerging Issues in Smart Learning, ed: Springer, 2015, pp. 297-

305.

Smartphones can have a huge impact on student achievement. Gretchen Krebs, 2012.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865566925 /Smartphones-smarter-students.html?pg=all.

S. S. Alavi, M. Ferdosi, F. Jannatifard, M. Eslami, H. Alaghemandan, and M. Setare,

"Behavioral addiction versus substance addiction: Correspondence of psychiatric and

psychological views," International journal of preventive medicine, vol. 3, p. 290, 2012.

S. Stieglitz and T. Brockmann, "The impact of Smartphones on E-participation," in System

Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on, 2013, pp. 1734-1742.

S. Davey and A. Davey, "Assessment of Smartphone Addiction in Indian Adolescents: A Mixed

Method Study by Systematic- review and Meta- analysis Approach," International Journal of

Preventive Medicine, vol. 1, 2015.

Lynn Sonya. December 07, 2015. How technology started?.https://www.quora.com/How-did-

technology-started.

M. Samaha and Z. S. Hawi. “Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress, academic

performance, and satisfaction with life,” 2016.

Olanrewaju M Akinwale. “The Effect of Mobiles Phones on Academic Performance,” 2016.

37