CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

Chapter Four presents the study’s data profile and the interpretive framework used to
examine lifestyle changes associated with screen time among college students. It begins by
outlining the structure of the dataset, the sampling design, and the key socio-economic and
academic characteristics of respondents that condition digital media use. The chapter then
operationalizes the central constructs—screen time intensity and lifestyle outcomes such as
sleep patterns, physical activity, dietary routines, study habits, and psychosocial wellbeing—
so that empirical relationships can be consistently assessed.

Descriptive statistics are employed to map distributions and identify salient patterns
across subgroups, establishing a baseline for inference. Subsequently, the analysis proceeds
to test associations between screen exposure and lifestyle indicators using appropriate
econometric techniques aligned with the study objectives. Particular attention is paid to
potential confounders (e.g., gender, residence, income proxy, academic workload) to
strengthen internal validity. The interpretation of results is anchored in behavioural
economics and health-economics perspectives on time allocation, habit formation, and
opportunity costs. Findings are discussed not merely as correlations, but as evidence situated
within the broader literature on digital consumption and human capital formation. The
chapter also reflects on measurement constraints and model assumptions to ensure
transparency and scholarly rigor. Overall, it provides the empirical foundation upon which
Chapter Five builds conclusions and policy-relevant implications.

4.2 Demographic profile of the Sample Respondents

The demographic profile of the sample respondents indicates a balanced representation across
key socio-economic and academic categories. Most participants fall within the typical
college-age cohort (late teens to early twenties), reflecting the population under study. The
sample includes respondents of different genders and years of study, enabling meaningful
subgroup comparisons in screen-time behaviour. Students from both rural and urban
backgrounds are represented, capturing variations in digital access and lifestyle contexts.
Parental education and household income suggest moderate diversity in socio-economic
status among respondents. Overall, the demographic composition provides an adequate base
for analysing how screen time relates to lifestyle outcomes across distinct student groups.

TABLE 4.1

Age of the Respondents

Age No. of Respondents Percentage

Below 20 19 15.0

21 - 24 78 61.4

Above 24 30 23.6

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table shows 4.1 shows the age distribution of 127 respondents included in the
study. The respondent pool is strongly youth-centred, with 61.4 percent of the participants
belonging to the 21–24 age group, and this dominant segment largely shapes the overall
trends and interpretations. Respondents above 24 constitute 23.6 percent, adding
demographic diversity and suggesting comparatively higher maturity and wider life exposure.
The below 20 group forms 15.0 percent, the smallest proportion in the sample; hence, late-
adolescent perspectives have a limited influence on the aggregate results. Overall, the
distribution indicates a clear concentration in early adulthood, and the findings are most
generalizable to the 21–24 age category..

Table 4.2

Gender of Respondents

Gender No. of Respondents Percentage

Male 49 38.6

Female 78 61.4

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data
The table 4.2 presents the gender distribution of the respondents and indicates a clear
predominance of female participants. Females constitute 61.4 percent of the sample,
suggesting that the overall patterns and conclusions of the study are likely to reflect female
perspectives more strongly. Male respondents account for 38.6 percent, representing a
substantial minority that still contributes meaningful comparative insight, but with relatively
less influence on the aggregate trends. Overall, the composition reveals a moderately
imbalanced gender profile, and interpretations of the findings should be contextualised in
light of the higher representation of female respondents.

Table 4.3

Academic Stream/Disciplines

Academic Stream No. of Respondents Percentage

Arts/Humanities 45 34.6

Science 30 23.6

Commerce/Management 24 18.9

Engineering/Technology 27 21.3

Other 1 0.8

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.3 outlines the academic stream distribution of the respondents and reflects
a broadly heterogeneous sample with a noticeable concentration in Arts/Humanities.
Arts/Humanities constitute 34.6 percent, emerging as the largest disciplinary cluster and
therefore carrying the greatest weight in shaping the study’s aggregate perspectives. Science
accounts for 23.6 percent, while Engineering/Technology represents 21.3 percent, together
indicating strong participation from empirically and technically oriented domains that can
introduce complementary ways of thinking, problem-solving, and evaluative judgement.
Commerce/Management forms 18.9 percent, suggesting a meaningful representation of
respondents likely attuned to organisational, market, and decision-oriented frameworks. The
“Other” category is minimal at 0.8 percent, signifying negligible influence on overall trends.
Overall, the distribution points to a multi-disciplinary respondent base, though interpretations
should remain alert to the relatively stronger presence of Arts/Humanities respondents.

Table 4.4

Type of Institution

Type Of Institution No. of Respondents Percentage

Government 42 33.1

Private 56 44.1

Aided 29 22.8

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.4 presents the institutional profile of the respondents and indicates that the sample
is drawn predominantly from privately managed institutions. Private institutions account for
44.1 percent, suggesting that the study’s overall trends may be more closely aligned with
experiences and conditions typical of the private educational sector. Government institutions
constitute 33.1 percent, representing a substantial segment that can provide a strong
comparative baseline shaped by public-sector structures and policies. Aided institutions form
22.8 percent, adding further diversity by reflecting a hybrid institutional context that often
combines public support with private administration. Overall, the distribution shows a
moderately varied institutional representation, though interpretations should remain attentive
to the relatively higher contribution from private institutions.

Table 4.5

Place of Residence

Place of Residence No. of Respondents Percentage

Rural 48 37.8

Urban 79 62.2
 Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.5 portrays the residential background of the respondents and suggests that the
sample is predominantly urban in character. Urban respondents constitute 62.2 percent,
indicating that the study’s overall patterns are likely to be shaped more strongly by
experiences, facilities, and socio-cultural exposures typically associated with urban settings.
Rural respondents account for 37.8 percent, forming a substantial minority that introduces
important contextual variation, especially in relation to access, infrastructure, and opportunity
structures that may differ from urban environments.

Table 4.6

Academic Performance (Most Recent Result)

Academic performance No. of Respondents Percentage

Below 59 Per Cent 12 9.5

60 – 69 Per Cent 42 33.1

70 – 79 Per Cent 51 40.2

80 Per Cent and Above 22 17.3

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.6 depicts the respondents’ most recent academic performance and indicates a
clear clustering in the mid-to-high achievement bands. The largest proportion of respondents
fall within the 70–79 per cent category 40.2 percent, suggesting that the sample is
predominantly composed of learners demonstrating consistently strong academic outcomes.
The 60–69 per cent band accounts for 33.1 percent, representing a substantial segment with
moderate-to-good performance and reinforcing the overall concentration around average-to-
above-average attainment. High achievers scoring 80 per cent and above constitute 17.3
percent, indicating a meaningful presence of top performers, though not large enough to
dominate aggregate trends. By contrast, respondents below 59 per cent form only 9.5 percent,
implying limited representation of comparatively lower academic attainment. Overall, the
distribution suggests that the study’s findings are likely to reflect the perspectives and
experiences of students with predominantly satisfactory to strong academic performance,
with the centre of gravity located in the 60–79 per cent range.

Table 4.7

Ownership of Personal Smartphone

Smartphone
No. of Respondents Percentage
Ownership Status
Yes 121 95.3

No 6 4.7

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.7 presents the ownership status of personal smartphones and demonstrates near-
universal access among the respondents. A substantial 95.3 percent report owning a personal
smartphone, indicating that smartphone use is a normative feature of everyday life for the
sample and that most respondents are likely to engage routinely with mobile-based
communication, information access, and digital services. Only 4.7 percent report not owning
a smartphone, forming a very small minority whose experiences may reflect constraints
related to affordability, access, or personal preference. Overall, this distribution suggests that
the study’s subsequent findings particularly those involving digital practices or technology-
mediated behaviour can reasonably be interpreted within a context of widespread smartphone
availability.

Table 4.8

Study Device Access

Study Device Access No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 83 65.4

No 44 34.6

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.8 reports respondents’ access to a dedicated study device and indicates a
generally favourable, though not uniform, level of digital access for academic purposes. A
majority of 65.4 percent report having study device access, suggesting that for most
participants, academic engagement is supported by the availability of appropriate technology
for learning, research, and coursework. However, a sizeable 34.6 percent report no such
access, pointing to a significant digital-access gap within the sample that may shape learning
practices, study efficiency, and the ability to participate fully in technology-mediated
academic tasks. Overall, the distribution highlights that while study-related device access is
common, inequalities in access remain substantial enough to warrant careful consideration in
interpreting educational outcomes and technology-dependent behaviours.

Table 4.9

Type of Network Connection

Type of Network No. of Respondents Percentage

Mobile Data 66 52.0

Home Wi-Fi 15 11.8

Both 44 34.6

No Regular Access 2 1.6

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.9 outlines the respondents’ modes of network connectivity and indicates
that internet access is predominantly mediated through mobile infrastructure. A slight
majority rely primarily on mobile data (52.0 percent), suggesting that connectivity for many
respondents may be shaped by factors such as data limits, fluctuating speeds, and variable
signal strength—conditions that can influence the consistency and quality of online academic
engagement. In contrast, home Wi-Fi alone accounts for 11.8 percent, reflecting a
comparatively smaller segment with potentially more stable, continuous connectivity.
Notably, 34.6 percent report access to both mobile data and home Wi-Fi, signalling a
substantial group with more flexible and resilient connectivity options, which may support
smoother participation in bandwidth-intensive activities such as video lectures, downloads,
and synchronous learning. Only 1.6 percent indicate no regular access, a minimal proportion,
yet still important as it points to a marginal but real risk of exclusion from digitally mediated
learning and communication. Overall, the distribution suggests high overall connectivity, but
with clear differences in the stability and reliability of access depending on the primary
network type.

Table 4.10

Quality of Network Connection

Network Quality No. of Respondents Percentage

Very Good 49 38.6

Good 39 30.7

Average 30 23.6

Poor 9 7.1

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.10 presents respondents’ perceived quality of network connection and suggests a
generally favourable connectivity environment with limited but notable constraints. A
substantial 38.6 percent rate their network as very good, while 30.7 percent describe it as
good, indicating that 69.3 percent experience above-average connectivity conducive to stable
access for routine digital activities, including academic tasks. At the same time, 23.6 percent
report average quality, implying that nearly one-quarter may encounter intermittent
disruptions or moderate speed limitations that could affect bandwidth-intensive activities
such as video conferencing and streaming lectures. Only 7.1 percent perceive their
connection as poor, representing a relatively small group but one that may face consistent
barriers to effective online participation. Overall, the distribution indicates that while network
quality is largely supportive for most respondents, a non-trivial minority experiences
conditions that may shape the reliability and equity of technology-mediated learning and
engagement.

TABLE 4.11
 Weekday Screen Time

Weekday Screen Time

No. of Respondents Percentage
(Hours)

Less than 1 Hour 6 4.7

1-2 23 18.1

2-4 23 18.1

4-6 37 29.1

More than 6 Hours 38 29.9

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.11 profiles respondents’ weekday screen-time patterns and reveals a markedly
high level of daily digital engagement. Only 4.7 percent report spending less than 1 hour on
screens, indicating that minimal weekday exposure is rare within the sample. Moderate-use
categories—1–2 hours and 2–4 hours—each account for 18.1 percent, together comprising
36.2 percent and suggesting that just over one-third maintain screen time within a
comparatively controlled range. The distribution, however, is decisively weighted toward
higher exposure: 29.1 percent spend 4–6 hours per day, and 29.9 percent report more than 6
hours, meaning 59.0 percent exceed 4 hours of weekday screen time. Overall, the pattern
signals that extended screen engagement is the norm rather than the exception, with potential
implications for study habits, attention patterns, digital dependency, and wellbeing,
depending on whether this screen time is primarily academic, social, or entertainment-
oriented.
 Table 4.12

Purpose of Usage

Purpose of Smartphone Usage No. of Respondents Percentage

Academic Learning 9 7.1

Social Media 25 19.7

Entertainment
17 13.4
(You Tube/OTT/Games)
Mixed Use 76 59.9

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.12 delineates the primary purpose of smartphone usage and indicates that
respondents’ engagement is overwhelmingly multi-functional rather than single-purpose. The
largest share, 59.9 percent, report mixed use, suggesting that smartphones operate as
convergent platforms where academic tasks, communication, information seeking, and leisure
practices overlap within the same daily routine. Social media constitutes 19.7 percent,
marking it as the most prominent single-category purpose and underscoring the centrality of
networked social interaction in respondents’ digital lives. Entertainment usage (YouTube,
OTT, and games) accounts for 13.4 percent, indicating a notable orientation toward
audiovisual consumption and recreational engagement. In contrast, academic learning alone
is reported by only 7.1 percent, implying that while educational use exists, it is rarely isolated
from other forms of usage. Overall, the distribution suggests that smartphone practices among
respondents are best understood through the lens of blended, integrated digital behaviour
rather than compartmentalized academic or leisure use.

Table 4.13

Time Spent on Online Learning

Time Spent on Online

No. of Respondents Percentage
Learning (Hours)

None 9 7.1

Less than 1 Hour 56 44.1

 1 – 2 Hours 45 35.4

2 – 4 Hours 14 11.0

More Than 4 Hours 3 2.4

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.13 presents the distribution of time devoted to online learning and indicates that
respondents’ engagement is largely concentrated at low-to-moderate levels. The largest
proportion, 44.1 percent, spend less than 1 hour on online learning, suggesting that for many
respondents digital learning functions as a supplementary activity rather than a primary mode
of study. A further 35.4 percent report spending 1–2 hours, indicating that a sizable segment
maintains a regular but time-bounded online learning routine. Together, these two categories
account for 79.5 percent, highlighting that the dominant pattern is limited daily engagement
within two hours. Higher-duration learning is comparatively rare: 11.0 percent spend 2–4
hours and only 2.4 percent exceed 4 hours, implying that intensive online learning is confined
to a small minority. Notably, 7.1 percent report no online learning, pointing to a segment that
may rely entirely on offline resources or face motivational, infrastructural, or access-related
constraints. Overall, the distribution suggests that while online learning is widely present, it is
typically practiced in short, manageable durations rather than extended study sessions.

Table 4.14

Time Spent on Social Media

Time Spent on Social

No. of Respondents Percentage
Media (Hours)

None 3 2.4

Less than 1 Hour 17 13.4

1 – 2 Hours 38 29.9

2 – 4 Hours 39 30.7

More Than 4 Hours 30 23.6

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data
The table 4.14 illustrates respondents’ time investment in social media and indicates that
social networking constitutes a substantial component of their daily digital routine. Minimal
engagement is uncommon: only 2.4 percent report no use, and 13.4 percent spend less than 1
hour, together suggesting that the vast majority participate in social media regularly. The
distribution is concentrated in the moderate-to-high range, with 29.9 percent spending 1–2
hours and 30.7 percent spending 2–4 hours; collectively, 60.6 percent devote between 1 and 4
hours daily, signalling sustained and routine involvement. Notably, 23.6 percent spend more
than 4 hours, indicating a sizeable segment with intensive social media exposure that may
shape attention patterns, time allocation, and psychosocial engagement. Overall, the pattern
suggests that social media use is normative and often extended, with most respondents
reporting moderate durations and nearly one-quarter engaging at high levels.

Table 4.15

Screen Time Use Helps Beyond Textbooks

Perception on Screen Use

No. of Respondents Percentage
for Academic Support

None 15 11.8

Less than 1 Hour 54 42.5

1 – 2 Hours 38 29.9

2 – 4 Hours 20 15.7

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.15 assesses respondents’ perception of how screen-time use supports learning
beyond textbooks and indicates that such academic supplementation is generally present but
typically limited in duration. The largest share of respondents, 42.5 percent, report spending
less than 1 hour using screens for academic support beyond textbooks, suggesting that digital
resources are most often used for brief reinforcement—such as quick reference checks, short
video explanations, or concise note support—rather than extended study. A further 29.9
percent spend 1–2 hours, indicating that nearly one-third engage in a more sustained form of
supplementary learning, potentially involving longer explanations, practice activities, or
guided online materials. Another 15.7 percent spend 2–4 hours, reflecting a smaller yet
meaningful group for whom digital academic support plays a more intensive role.
Importantly, 11.8 percent report none, pointing to a segment that either relies primarily on
conventional learning materials or encounters constraints that limit the perceived usefulness
or accessibility of screen-based academic support. Overall, the distribution suggests that
screen-mediated learning beyond textbooks is widely acknowledged, but it is most commonly
practiced in short to moderate time blocks rather than prolonged durations.

Table 4.16

Academic Distraction

Study Distraction No. of Respondents Percentage

Strongly Agree 39 30.7

Agree 55 43.3

Neutral 26 20.5

Disagree 7 5.5

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The t able 4.16 captures respondents’ perceptions of academic distraction and reveals
a pronounced consensus that distraction is a significant issue. A combined 74.0 percent of
respondents endorse the statement, with 43.3 percent agreeing and 30.7 percent strongly
agreeing, indicating that for nearly three-quarters of the sample, distraction meaningfully
interferes with study routines and academic focus. The neutral category accounts for 20.5
percent, suggesting that about one-fifth experience distraction inconsistently, perceive it as
situational, or remain uncertain about its extent and impact. Only 5.5 percent disagree,
forming a very small minority who do not perceive distraction as a notable academic concern.
Overall, the distribution underscores that academic distraction is widely experienced and
strongly acknowledged among respondents, warranting careful attention in interpreting
learning behaviours and academic performance outcomes.
 Table 4.17

Procrastination Due to Screen Usage

Procrastination Due to
No. of Respondents Percentage
Screen Usage

Always 22 17.3

Often 35 27.6

Sometimes 52 40.9

Rarely 14 11.3

Never 4 3.1

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.17 examines procrastination attributable to screen usage and

indicates that delay in academic or task-oriented activity is a prevalent, though variably
experienced, outcome of digital engagement. The largest share of respondents report
procrastinating sometimes (40.9 percent), suggesting that screen-related delay is episodic for
many—occurring in specific contexts such as fatigue, boredom, or heightened social-media
and entertainment cues. More frequent procrastination is also substantial: 27.6 percent report
it often, and 17.3 percent report it always, meaning that 44.9 percent experience
procrastination as a regular or persistent pattern rather than an occasional lapse. By contrast,
11.3 percent report procrastinating rarely, and only 3.1 percent report never, indicating that
resistance to screen-induced delay is limited to a small minority. Overall, the distribution
suggests that screen usage functions as a significant behavioural trigger for postponement,
with most respondents acknowledging at least intermittent procrastination and nearly half
experiencing it with notable frequency.
 Table 4.18

Impact on Sleep Quality

Impact on Sleep Quality No. of Respondents Percentage

Strongly Agree 53 41.7

Agree 47 37.0

Neutral 20 15.7

Disagree 7 5.5

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.18 indicates a strong consensus that screen use adversely affects sleep
quality. A combined 78.7 percent of respondents affirm this impact, with 41.7 percent
strongly agreeing and 37.0 percent agreeing, suggesting that sleep disruption is widely
experienced and clearly recognized within the sample. Neutral responses account for 15.7
percent, implying that a notable minority perceive the effect as situational, inconsistent, or
difficult to evaluate. Only 5.5 percent disagree, representing a very small segment who do not
associate screen exposure with diminished sleep quality. Overall, the distribution underscores
sleep disturbance as a prominent perceived consequence of screen-related behaviour among
respondents.

Table 4.19

Duration of Sleep Per Day

Sleep Duration (Hours

No. of Respondents Percentage
per Day)

Less than 5 hours 31 24.4

5 – 6 hours 47 37.0

6 – 7 hours 30 23.6

7 – 8 hours 15 11.8

More than 8 hours 4 3.1

 Total 127 100
Source: Primary Data

The table 4.19 profiles respondents’ daily sleep duration and indicates that sleep is
largely clustered in the lower-to-mid range rather than within longer, restorative bands. The
most common duration is 5–6 hours, reported by 37.0 percent, suggesting that over one-third
of the sample routinely sleeps for a relatively limited period. A further 24.4 percent sleep less
than 5 hours, signalling that nearly one-quarter experience markedly short sleep, which may
carry implications for alertness, cognitive functioning, and academic productivity. Sleep
durations of 6–7 hours account for 23.6 percent, representing a sizeable group closer to
moderate sleep. By contrast, only 11.8 percent report 7–8 hours, and a minimal 3.1 percent
exceed 8 hours, indicating that longer sleep durations are comparatively uncommon. Overall,
the distribution suggests that 61.4 percent of respondents sleep 6 hours or less per day,
highlighting a general tendency toward curtailed sleep within the sample.

Table 4.20

Digital Skill Improvements

Digital Skill
No. of Respondents Percentage
Improvements

Strongly Agree 19 15.0

Agree 49 38.6

Neutral 40 31.5

Disagree 18 14.2

Strongly Disagree 1 0.8

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.20 evaluates respondents’ perceptions of whether their digital skills
have improved and shows a generally positive, though not unequivocal, orientation toward
skill development. A combined 53.6 percent express agreement, with 38.6 percent agreeing
and 15.0 percent strongly agreeing, indicating that over half of the sample perceive
measurable enhancement in their digital competence through continued technology use. At
the same time, 31.5 percent remain neutral, suggesting a sizeable group that either
experiences only marginal improvement, is uncertain about benchmarking their skills, or
views skill gains as context-dependent rather than consistent. Negative perceptions are
comparatively limited but still meaningful: 14.2 percent disagree and 0.8 percent strongly
disagree, together forming 15.0 percent who do not perceive improvement. Overall, the
distribution implies that digital engagement is more often associated with perceived skill
gains than stagnation, yet the large neutral segment points to uneven or non-universal
experiences of digital upskilling across respondents.

Table 4.21

Skill Development Via Online Platforms

Skill Development
No. of Respondents Percentage
Through Online Platforms

Regularly 14 11.0

Sometimes 56 44.1

Rarely 47 37.0

Never 10 7.9

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.21 highlights respondents’ engagement with online platforms for
skill development and indicates that such learning is more intermittent than routine. The
largest proportion, 44.1 percent, report using online platforms sometimes, suggesting that
skill-building through digital resources is generally occasional and likely driven by
immediate academic or personal needs rather than sustained practice. A further 37.0 percent
engage rarely, reinforcing the pattern that for many respondents, online skill development
remains peripheral rather than embedded in regular learning habits. Only 11.0 percent report
using these platforms regularly, indicating that consistent, structured online upskilling is
limited to a small segment of the sample. Meanwhile, 7.9 percent report never, pointing to a
minority who may rely on offline avenues, lack motivation, face access barriers, or remain
unconvinced of the value of online platforms for skill acquisition. Overall, the distribution
suggests that while most respondents have at least some exposure to online skill
development, it is predominantly sporadic, with comparatively few adopting it as a regular
developmental strategy.

Table 4.22

Academic Progress

Academic Progress No. of Respondents Percentage

Improved significantly 18 14.2

Improved slightly 48 37.8

Remained the same 40 31.5

Reduced slightly 18 14.2

Reduced significantly 3 2.5

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.22 portrays respondents’ self-reported academic

progress and suggests an overall tendency toward improvement, though
often incremental rather than dramatic. The largest proportion, 37.8
percent, report that academic progress has improved slightly, indicating
that for many respondents gains are present but gradual. A further 14.2
percent report improvement at a significant level, implying that marked
advancement is experienced by a smaller segment. Together, 52.0
percent indicate some degree of improvement, establishing a modestly
positive overall direction.

At the same time, 31.5 percent report that progress has remained the same,
reflecting a sizeable group for whom learning outcomes appear stable, with no perceived
upward or downward shift. In contrast, 14.2 percent report reduced slightly and 2.5 percent
reduced significantly; cumulatively, 16.7 percent perceive a decline, suggesting that a notable
minority experience setbacks or constraints affecting performance. Overall, the distribution
indicates a predominantly positive academic trajectory within the sample, but with substantial
stability and a smaller yet meaningful proportion reporting decline.

Table 4.23

Perception of Screen Time Management

Perception of Screen
No. of Respondents Percentage
Time Management

Strongly Agree 61 48.0

Agree 43 33.9

Neutral 20 15.7

Disagree 3 2.4

Total 127 100

Source: Primary Data

The table 4.23 reflects respondents’ perception of their ability to manage screen time
and reveals a strong sense of self-reported control. A combined 81.9 percent express
agreement, with 48.0 percent strongly agreeing and 33.9 percent agreeing, indicating that the
overwhelming majority believe they regulate their screen engagement effectively. Neutral
responses account for 15.7 percent, suggesting that a notable minority are uncertain about
their level of control or experience inconsistent management depending on academic
workload, mood, or situational demands. Only 2.4 percent disagree, representing a very small
segment who acknowledge difficulty in managing screen time. Overall, the distribution
suggests high perceived competence in screen time regulation; however, this self-assessment
should be interpreted alongside earlier evidence of distraction, procrastination, and sleep
impact, which may point to a gap between perceived control and lived digital behaviour for
some respondents.

Wellbeing.
4.24 Conclusion

Overall, the findings show that digital access is widespread among the respondents, with
near-universal smartphone ownership and generally adequate network availability and
quality. Screen engagement is high on weekdays, and usage is largely blended, combining
academic, social, and entertainment purposes rather than remaining strictly study-oriented.
Although online learning time is typically limited, social media consumption is substantial,
indicating a clear imbalance in how digital time is distributed. Most respondents
acknowledge that screen exposure contributes to distraction and procrastination, and a large
majority also perceive a negative impact on sleep quality alongside generally shorter sleep
durations. At the same time, more than half report improvements in digital skills, even though
structured skill development through online platforms remains largely occasional or rare.
Taken together, the data suggest that while digital technologies support learning and
competence-building, effective self-regulation is crucial to minimise academic disruption and
protect sleep and wellbeing.