THE IMPACT OF GADGETS IN LEARNING
AMONG GRADE 11 STUDENTS
JOHANN CEASAR B. MENORCA
GIO ANGELO G. IDOS
RAFAEL JOHN M. MANANGAN
JERELYN A. PATACSIL
Urdaneta City National High School
Senior High School
Urdaneta City
November 2017
THE IMPACT OF GADGETS IN LEARNING
AMONG GRADE 11 STUDENTS
A Research Paper Presented to the Faculty of Senior High School
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Strand
Urdaneta City National High School
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Subject
Research in Daily Life 2
Johann Ceasar B. Menorca
Gio Angelo G. Idos
Rafael John M. Manangan
Jerelyn A. Patacsil
November 2017
APPROVAL SHEET
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the subject Research in Daily
Life 2, this research paper entitled “THE IMPACT OF GADGETS IN LEARNING
AMONG GRADE 11 STUDENTS” prepared and submitted by Johann Ceasar B.
Menorca, Gio Angelo G. Idos, Rafael John M. Manangan, and Jerelyn A.
Patacsil, is hereby approved and accepted.
MADONNA J. PALAGANAS LEAH L. OLUA, Ph.D.
Critic Reader Teacher
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
KATHY C. BENAVENTE
Chairman
KAREN C. CALIM BRUCE MARVIN M. RUARO
Member Member
Approved and accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
subject Research in Daily Life 2.
LEAH L. OLUA, Ph.D.
Subject Group Head, STEM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers would like to express their profound gratitude and
appreciation to the people who have extended their support, gave inspirations,
guidance and assistance for the completion of this study.
To their teacher, Dr. Leah L. Olua, for her guidance and technical support
and the golden opportunity to contribute to the society;
To the panel of examiners, Ma’am Kathy C. Benavente, Ma’am Karen C.
Calim, and Sir Bruce Marvin M. Ruaro, for their constructive criticisms and
suggestions that we need to further improve this research;
To their friends, for their kind gestures and moral support that played a
great role reminding the researchers to always have a positive mind;
To their families and relatives, for their financial support, love and
guidance that helped them in their desperate times; and
Above all, to the LORD ALMIGHTY, who’s there to always listen and give
support and love, and has given them strength to accomplish this project.
To all of them, this humble work is dedicated.
J.C.B.M.
G.A.G.I.
R.J.M.M.
J.A.P.
ABSTRACT
Researchers: Johann Ceasar B. Menorca
Gio Angelo G. Idos
Rafael John M. Manangan
Jerelyn A. Patacsil
Institution: Urdaneta City National High School
Track: Academic Track
Strand: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Adviser: Leah L. Olua, Ph.D.
Title of Study: THE IMPACT OF GADGETS IN LEARNING AMONG
GRADE 11 STUDENTS
The main objective of this study was to determine the impact of gadgets in
learning among Grade 11-STEM students at Urdaneta City National High School
during the school year 2017-2018. It looked into the frequency of use of the
gadgets in learning which are cellphones, computers, and tablets and the the
impact of gadgets in learning as perceived by the students. Further, it determined
the significant relationship between the frequency of use and the impact of
gadgets.
The study was conducted at Urdaneta City National High School,
Urdaneta City which included 70 Grade 11 student respondents who are enrolled
in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) strand during
the school year 2017-2018. This study made use of the quantitative research
design with the questionnaire as the main gathering tool.
The data were tabulated into a contingency table and treated with the
proper statistical measures.
For problem number 1 and 2, the Average Weighted Mean method was
used; a four-point scale and five-point scale Likert scale was used in the
analysis. The problem number 3 and the null hypothesis were tested for its
significance using the Pearson Product Correlation method.
Relative to the analyses and interpretation of data, it was deducted that
cellphones are always used by the students, computers are sometimes used by
the students and tablets are seldom used by the students in learning. This study
also deducted that the use of gadgets has a moderately positive impact in
learning but it also has a slightly negative impact. It was also deducted that there
was no significant correlation between the frequency of use and the impact of
gadgets.
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as an introductory chapter. It contains the Background
of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Scope and Delimitation, Significance of
the Study and Definition of Terms.
Background of the Study
In today’s generation, technology has affected and changed the way
people live. Technology has made people’s lives more proficient and at ease.
There is hardly anyone who has not been changed by the advances in
technology and computers of today’s society. In today’s civilization,
transportation, communication, and education have been greatly developed from
new technological advancements. Many people have lesser stress in their lives
because there are new useful hi-tech inventions created each day to help them
do things quicker and easier. Some of these helpful technologies are cell phones,
computers, and the Internet.
Technology also has negative effects in the lives of the user, and in
his/her or her immediate friends and family members. It affects the individuals’
personal health, family, social, financial, and academic life. Over using gadgets
negatively affects the mind of an individual. The individual loses focus as he/she
only concentrates on using gadgets or technology. He/she tends to forget other
aspect of life that is important, concentration reduces and the individual cannot
focus on other issues for long enough.
The use of technology in schools has opened up a new path of effective
learning. Technology plays a great role in developing everyone’s future and
professional career. Technology is becoming a major part of the world today. It
has developed and become more central to learning.
The researchers want to know the impact of gadgets in students’ learning.
It is along this rationale that this study will be conducted.
Statement of the Problem
This study determined the impact of gadgets in learning to Senior High
School students during the 1st semester, S.Y. 2017-2018.
Specifically, it answered the following sub-problems:
1. What is the students’ frequency of use on the following gadgets in
learning?
a. cellphones;
b. computers; and
c. tablets.
2. What is the impact of the use of gadgets in learning as perceived by the
students?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the frequency of use and impact
of gadgets?
Hypothesis
1. There is no significant relationship between the frequency of use of
gadgets and the impact of gadgets.
Scope and Delimitation
This study mainly focused on the impact of gadgets in learning among
students in
Significance of the Study
This study determined the impact of gadgets in students’ learning in
Urdaneta City National High School. This was significant to the following:
Students. They will know the benefits of using gadgets in learning and
help them study effectively.
Teachers. This will give awareness to teachers to allow students to use
gadgets more freely and also to guide them in using the gadgets.
School Administrator. This study may be included in school policy. Re:
The use of technology in the classroom.
Future Researchers. This study may help future researchers on their
own research. They may widen the scope of their own study or improve this
research study.
Definition of Terms
To make the study easier to understand, the following terms are defined
operationally and/ or lexically:
Gadget. This refers to an often small mechanical or electronic device with
a practical use but often thought of as a novelty. In this study, gadgets refer to
cellphones, tablets and laptops which are used by the respondents in learning.
Impact. This refers to the effect of gadgets on the respondents in their
learning.
Frequency of use. This refers to the number of times or how often the
gadgets are used by the respondents in learning.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter contains the literature and studies related to the impact of
gadgets in learning.
The world is constantly changing as it moves forward in the advancement of
technology. Many of us, particularly the young ones have really relied and
depend on using the technological gadgets to get through to the day, to do our
job, to get around, and to find certain things (Adel, et. Al., 2012). Since these
inventions are useful and can give a lot of entertainment such as games, texting,
calls, media and many more, In connection, they give more attention to their
gadgets than there studies and academic performance.
In (Olofuniyi,Fashiku,& Owombo2012) mobile phone would surely ranked
number one for this is the most used gadget has all the applications, facilities and
software that can connect them to the internet and all forms of social media
platforms, other web sites and so on, where they chat, access, stream,
download, upload, exchange and play different kinds of media contents, which
most often, are pornographic in nature.
Similarly a nationwide survey conducted in 2010 shows that mobile phones
are the most essential part of everyday lives as it functions as a means of
communication and on the contrary virtually affected the society’s accessibility,
security, safety and coordination of business and social activities and has hence
become a part of culture of the whole world.
In connection with this, Coughlan 2015 stated that the use of technology inside
the clasrrom would highly benefit the students but in contrast with this, The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD also
mentioned tinvesting heavily in school computers and classroom technology
does not improve pupils’ performance. This is where the role of teachers
becomes paramount; they have to become effective facilitators of the learning
journey. Learning is optimized when students feel engaged and enjoy the
experience. Students need to develop skills to use knowledge creatively and
critically, and not just “cut and paste prefabricated homework answers from the
Internet” as OECD Education Director Andreas Schleicher said
However Khune (2015) said However, those who use Facebook intensely were
more likely to compare themselves with others and had a negative feeling from
comparison. Along the same line Facebook usage was linked to negative social
comparison, which would lead to negative perception about person’s social
competence and physical attractiveness.
In addition, Hampton, et al. (2011) on his research presented the following
results concerning social networks users, such as
- Facebook users are more trusting than others.
- Facebook users have more close relations.
- Facebook users get more social support than other people.
- Facebook users are much more politically engaged than most people.
- Facebook revives “dormant” relations.
- Social networking sites are increasingly used to keep up with close social ties.
At this juncture, The digital revolution has profoundly affected daily lives of many
people as evident in the most number of mobile devices and the seamless
integration of technology into common tasks such as shopping, reading, and
finding directions (Anderson, 2016; Smith & Anderson, 2016; Zickuhr & Raine,
2014).Integrating technology into teaching and learning is not a new challenge
for universities. Since the 1900s, administrators and faculty have grappled with
how to effectively use technical innovations such as video and audio recordings,
email, and teleconferencing to augment or replace traditional instructional
delivery methods (Kaware & Sain, 2015; Westera, 2015). Within the past two
decades, however, this challenge has been much more difficult due to the sheer
volume of new technologies on the market. For example, in the span of 7 years
(from 2008 to 2015), the number of active apps in Apple’s App Store increased
from 5000 to 1.75 million. Over the next 4 years, the number of apps is projected
to rise by 73%, totaling over 5 million (Nelson, 2016). Further compounding this
challenge is the limited shelf life of new devices and software combined with
significant internal organizational barriers that hinder universities from efficiently
and effectively integrating new technologies (Amirault, 2012; Kinchin, 2012;
Linder-VanBerschot & Summers 2015; Westera, 2015).
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methodology which includes the
research design used in conducting the study. It also includes the sources of
data, locale of the study, population/sampling, and the instrumentation and data
collection.
Research Design
This study used the quantitative research design. Quantitative research
design was used to collect and gather information about the impact of gadgets in
learning. Quantitative research design was used to describe and to test
relationships between objects. It was also presented in numerical form, and
analyzed through the use of statistics. It focused on gathering numerical data and
generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon.
This research design was used by giving questionnaires to the respondents of
this study.
Sources of Data
The data were gathered from eighty-nine (89) students of the Science,
Technology & Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) strand of the Urdaneta City
National High School.
Locale of the Study
The locale of the study was in the Senior High School of Urdaneta City
National High School (UCNHS).
Population/ Sampling
The study was conducted on the total population of Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) students who were enrolled in the S.Y.
2017-2018 which is equivalent to eighty-nine (89).
Table 1: Distribution of Respondents
Sections of STEM Number of Actual Number of
Strand Students Respondents
Descartes 45 45
Tesla 44 44
Total 89 89
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The instrument used in gathering the data was a questionnaire. The
questionnaire was prepared by the researchers. Quantitative research
questionnaire was used to gather the data and information about the impact of
gadgets in learning.
Statistical Tool
Different statistical tools were used to determine the impact of gadgets in
learning. The frequency of use of gadgets and the impact of gadgets in learning
were determined using the Average Weighted Mean method (AWM). In
interpreting the computed AWM point obtained, the formula is as follows,
AWM = FX / N
where AWM = Average Weighted Mean
F = Frequency
X = Weighted Value
N = total number of respondents’
For the Frequency of Use of Gadgets, this was the scale:
Scale Average Weighted Mean Descriptive Interpretation
5 4.21- 5.00 Always
4 3.41- 4.20 Very Often
3 2.61- 3.40 Sometimes
2 1.81- 2.60 Seldom
1 1.00- 1.80 Never
For the Impact of Gadgets in Students’ Learning, this was the scale:
Scale Average Weighted Mean Descriptive Interpretation
4 3.26- 4.00 High Impact
3 2.51- 3.25 Moderate Impact
2 1.76- 2.50 Slight Impact
1 1.00- 1.75 Low Impact
For the relationship between the frequency of use and impact of gadgets
in learning, Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used. The computed value was
interpreted using the scale below.
Value Descriptive Value
Interpretation
-0.80 to -1.00 Strong Correlation 0.80 to 1.00
-0.50 to -0.79 Moderate Correlation 0.50 to 0.79
-0.20 to -0.49 Weak Correlation 0.20 to 0.49
0 to -0.19 No Correlation 0 to 0.19
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter describes the analysis of data followed by the discussion of
the research findings. The finding can relate to the research questions that
guided the study.
Table 2: Frequency of Use of Gadgets in Students’ Learning
Gadget Average Weighted Mean Descriptive Interpretation
Cellphone 4.56 Always
Computer 3.18 Sometimes
Tablet 2.18 Seldom
The results of the survey conducted showed that Cellphones were always
used by the students in learning with an Average Weighted Mean of 4.56.
Computers were sometimes used by students with an Average Weighted Mean
of 3.18 and Tablets were seldom used by students with an Average Weighted
Mean of 2.18.
Table 3 and 4 presented the tabulation of the impact of use of gadgets in
learning among Grade 11-STEM students with the corresponding weighted mean
(WM) and the descriptive interpretation (DI) of each indicators including the
average weighted mean (AWM) of each area.
Table 3: Positive Impact of Gadgets in Students’ Learning
Indicators WM DI
1. I am able to stimulate my senses and imagination better. 3.01 MI
2. I am encouraged to develop my analytical skills. 2.99 MI
3. I am more creative. 2.88 MI
4. I am more knowledgeable in using computers. 3.00 MI
5. I am able to relieve stress and use it for entertainment
3.09 MI
purposes.
6. My hand – eye coordination improved. 2.62 MI
7. My mathematical skills improved. 2.30 SI
8. I am having more fun learning. 3.20 MI
9. I can research topics easier. 3.51 HI
10. I can search for information anywhere. 3.57 HI
AWM 3.02 MI
The positive indicators arranged in order according to their weighted mean
and descriptive interpretation are as follows: “I can search for information
anywhere” (WM = 3.57, DI = HI), “I can research topics easier” (WM = 3.51, DI =
HI), “I am having more fun learning” (WM = 3.20, DI = MI), “I am able to relieve
stress and use it for entertainment purposes” (WM = 3.09, DI = MI), “I am able to
stimulate my senses and imagination better” (WM = 3.01, DI = MI), “I am more
knowledgeable in using computers” (WM = 3.00, DI = MI), “I am encouraged to
develop my analytical skills” (WM = 2.99, DI = MI), “I am more creative” (WM =
2.88, DI = MI), “My hand – eye coordination improved” (WM = 2.62, DI = MI), and
“My mathematical skills improved” (WM = 2.30, DI = SI).
This indicates that the use of gadgets extends the ability of students to
search information, develop and entertain their selves with its features like the
internet, student-friendly websites and educational applications.
Table 4: Negative Impact of Gadgets in Students’ Learning
Indicators WM DI
1. I am more likely to procrastinate. 2.63 MI
2. I am spending less time outdoors. 2.74 MI
3. I am more short-tempered towards my classmates and
2.01 SI
teachers.
4. I am having difficulty concentrating on my studies. 2.35 SI
5. I am having problems socializing with my friends and
1.94 SI
classmates.
6. I am more reliant to plagiarism. 1.73 LI
7. My hand writing became worse. 1.78 SI
8. I am too lazy to go to school. 1.66 LI
9. I am having trouble falling asleep. 2.26 SI
10. I sleep less than usual. 2.57 MI
AWM 2.17 SI
The negative indicators arranged in order according to their weighted
mean and descriptive interpretation are as follows: “I am spending less time
outdoors” (WM = 2.74, DI = MI), “I am more likely to procrastinate” (WM = 2.63,
DI = MI), “I sleep less than usual” (WM = 2.57, DI = MI), “I am having difficulty
concentrating on my studies” (WM = 2.35, DI = 2.35), “I am having trouble falling
asleep” (WM = 2.26, DI = SI), “I am more short-tempered towards my classmates
and teachers” (WM = 2.01, DI = SI), “I am having problems socializing with my
friends and classmates” (WM = 1.94, DI = SI), “My hand writing became worse”
(WM = 1.78, DI = SI), “I am more reliant to plagiarism” (WM = 1.73, DI = LI), and
“I am too lazy to go to school” (WM = 1.66, DI = LI).
This indicates that the students often get distracted by gadgets instead of
doing such things much important and more beneficial to them and on their
studies.
Table 5: Impact of Gadgets in Students’ Learning
Impact Average Weighted Mean Descriptive Interpretation
Positive 3.02 Moderate Impact
Negative 2.17 Slight Impact
Based on the survey conducted by the researchers, the results showed
that the use of gadgets in learning has a Moderately Positive Impact in the
students’ learning with an Average Weighted Mean of 3.02. It also shows that the
use of gadgets in learning has a Slightly Negative Impact with an Average
Weighted Mean of 2.17.
Table 6: Relationship between Frequency of Use and Impact of Gadgets
positive negative
frequency Pearson Correlation .139 .162
Sig. (2-tailed) .194 .130
N 89 89
The result of the Pearson Correlation showed that there was no
correlation on both positive impact with 0.139 and negative impact with 0.162
between the frequency of use and the impact of gadgets in learning.
Graph 1: Pearson Correlation between Frequency of Use and Positive Impact
Graph 2: Pearson Correlation between Frequency of Use and Negative Impact
This indicates that the frequency of use does not affect the impact of
gadgets in students’ learning.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based from the findings undertaken by the researchers from
the study entitled “The Impact of Gadgets in Leaning among Grade 11 Students”.
Summary
The main purpose of the study was to determine the impact of gadgets in
learning among Grade 11-STEM students at Urdaneta City National High School
during the school year 2017-2018. It sought answers to the following problems:
1. the frequency of use of the following gadgets in learning: cellphone, computer,
and tablet; 2. the impact of gadgets in learning as perceived by the students; 3.
the significant relationship between the frequency of use and the impact of
gadgets.
The study was conducted at Urdaneta City National High School,
Urdaneta City which included 70 Grade 11 student respondents who are enrolled
in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) strand during
the school year 2017-2018. This study made use of the quantitative research
design with the questionnaire as the main gathering tool.
The data were tabulated into a contingency table and treated with the
proper statistical measures.
For problem number 1 and 2, the Average Weighted Mean method was
used; a four-point scale and five-point scale Likert scale was used in the
analysis. The problem number 3 and the null hypothesis were tested for its
significance using the Pearson Product Correlation method.
Conclusions
Relative to the analyses and interpretation of data, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. Cellphones were always used by the students, computers were
sometimes used by the students and tablets were seldom used by the
students in learning.
2. The use of gadgets has a moderately positive impact in learning because
of its features that extend the ability of the students to do more things but
it also has a slightly negative impact because students are most likely to
be distracted by it.
3. There was no significant correlation between the frequency of use and the
impact of gadgets which means the frequency of the use of gadgets does
not affect its impact but instead, it was based on how we use it.
Recommendations
With all of the foregoing analysis, interpretation, and conclusions of this
study, the following are strongly recommended for possible course of action.
1. Future researchers can conduct a similar study and improve some flaws.
2. Another research should be conducted as follow-up study to investigate
further the impact of gadgets in learning.
3. Future researchers can use this study for references
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Bell, P., & Winn, W. (2000). Distributed cognitions, by nature and by design. In D.
Jonassen, & L. S. M., Thoretical Foundations of Learning
Environment (pp. 123-145). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Coffey, G. (2012). Literacy and Technology: Integrating Technology with Small
Group, Peer-led Discussions of Literature. International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education, 4(2), 395-405.
Lin, W., & Yang, S. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki
technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88-103.
B. INTERNET SOURCES
Abdullayev, Orxan. Introduction of Essay about Technology. Retrieved from:
[Link] on
February 17, 2017.
Emerging Theories of Learning and the Role of Technology. Retrieved
from:[Link]
ging-theories-of-learning-and-the-role-of-technology on February 24,
2017.
Essay on Modern Technology. Retrieved from: [Link]
essays/[Link] on February 17, 2017.
Gammuac, Heidi. Classroom Gadgets – Using Technology to Enhance
Learning. Retrieved from: [Link]
gadgets-using-technology-to-enhance-learning on February 17, 2017.
Impact of Modern Technologies on Youngsters. Retrieved from:
[Link] on March 11, 2017.
Koper, Hendrik, Drachsler, Manouselis, Vuorikari, Hammel. Retrieved from:
[Link] on March 16, 2017.
Macasaet, Rufino. Uplifting Education in the Philippines Through
Technology. Retrieved from: [Link]
Uplifting_Education_in_the_Philippines_Through_Technology_Report on
March 16, 2017.
Vega, Vanessa. Technology Integration Research Review: Annotated
Bibliography. Retrieved from: [Link]
integration-research-annotated-bibliography#meansh on October 21, 2017
