Paper ID #12612

Perceptions of Students toward Utilizing Smartphone in the Classroom

Dr. Mohammadjafar Esmaeili, University of Dayton
Mohammadjafar Esmaeili received a Ph.D. degree in Technology with concentration in information security from Eastern Michigan University in 2014. He has a B.S. degree in electrical engineering and M.S.
degree in management of information systems. Dr. Esmaeili is currently working as a full time faculty in
the department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology at University of Dayton. Dr. Esmaeili
has over 4 years of experience in utilizing active learning methodologies in teaching classes. His research
interests are in interdisciplinary fields such as information security in automation, robotics and unmanned
systems. He was a vice president of IEEE students branch at Eastern Michigan University and has served
as a referee for ASEE conferences. Dr. Esmaeili can be reached at mesmaeili1@udayton.edu
Dr. Ali Eydgahi, Eastern Michigan University
Ali Eydgahi started his career in higher education as a faculty member at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1985. Since then, he has been with the State University of New York, University of Maryland
Eastern Shore, and Eastern Michigan University. During 2006-2010, he was Chair of the Department of
Engineering and Aviation Sciences, Founder and Director of the Center for 3-D Visualization and Virtual
Reality Applications, and Technical Director of the NASA funded MIST Space Vehicle Mission Planning
Laboratory at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. In 2010, he joined Eastern Michigan University
as an Associate Dean in the College of Technology and currently is a Professor in the School of Engineering Technology. He has an extensive experience in curriculum and laboratory design and development.
Dr. Eydgahi has served as a member of the Board of Directors for Tau Alpha Pi, as a member of Advisory and Editorial boards for many International Journals in Engineering and Technology, as a member of
review panel for NASA and Department of Education, as a regional and chapter chairman of IEEE, SME,
and ASEE, and as a session chair and as a member of scientific and international committees for many
international conferences.
Mr. Ilkhomjon Amanov

c
American
Society for Engineering Education, 2015

Perceptions of Students toward Utilizing Smartphone in the Classroom

ABSTRACT
The advent of contemporary devices and gadgets has made lives much easier and more
integrated with technology. Modern devices have become standard equipment in higher
education as growing number of universities are utilizing them in learning process. The
availability of new technological equipment has created a question about the use of technologies
such as laptops, PDAs, and smartphones in classrooms and their effects on students learning
process. Many researchers are debating whether using technologies such as laptops help students
to learn better. Although several studies have been done to show the impact of different
technologies on students learning, a few studies have focused on the impacts of the smartphone
on students learning in classroom environment.
This paper examines the relationship between using the smartphones and student learning to
demonstrate, from students perspectives, the benefits and adverse impacts of the smartphones
usage in classroom environments on the students academic performance. The study is based on
analysis of the data that were collected via online surveys of about 700 students at Eastern
Michigan University. The survey has shown that although students believe that smartphones can
increase their productivity and quicker task accomplishments in their daily lives, they do not
believe that smartphone utilization could improve students learning in the classrooms.
Moreover, this study has formed several hypotheses to examine the relationship of the selected
variables such as Attitude, Intention, Self-Efficacy, Anxiety, Usefulness, Ease of Use,
Facilitation Condition, Effort Expectancy, and Performance Expectancy on actual behavior of
utilizing smartphone in classrooms. This study found that all of the selected variables except
Anxiety have positive relationships with students behavior of using smartphones in classrooms.

1. Introduction
One of the main technologies that have dominated the classroom is the smartphones.
Smartphones are one of the most popular devices that allow the users to connect to the internet,

check emails, connect to social medias, etc.. Due to these functionalities, smartphones have been
widely used by new generations and college students. Many researchers are debating whether
using technologies such as laptops help students to learn better. Although several studies have
been done to show the impact of different technologies on students learning, a few studies have
focused on the impacts of the smartphone on students learning in class environment. Also, since
the impacts of using these technologies are unknown in classroom environment, educators have
adopted their own rules for usage of these technologies by students.

There have been a number of studies [1-4] about the use of laptops in classroom by college
students. In [1-2], the authors have developed the term ubiquitous computing to describe a
campus where all students and faculty have laptops and all buildings have access to Wi-Fi
technology. It has also been shown [3-4] that due to some negative influences caused by laptops
on student learning, some faculty ban use of laptops in their classrooms.

Similarly, uses of smartphones have become increasingly popular by college students. According
to the survey in 2013 [5], since 2009 the college student smartphone users have been raised from
23% to 73%. It is noted that some faculty support the use of smartphones in classroom and found
it as a potential learning tool for students [6]. The City University of Hong Kong has embarked
on a long-term program to develop and integrate mobile learning activities into the context of
undergraduate courses [7].

Statistics indicates that there are 91.4 million of smartphones in the United States and its demand
trend is continuing to grow in the market. It is noted that university students [8] are among the
highest contributors to the increasing number of smartphone sales. Users of these devices have
literally the power of an internet accessible computer in the palm of their hands in ways that far
exceed previous technologies such as Pocket PCs and personal digital assistants PDAs [9].

Smartphones have replaced [10] computers as the primary wireless internet access portal for
Hispanic Americans (68%), and African Americans (65%), that are far beyond Whites (33%)
who prefer to use laptops [11]. It has also been mentioned that by 2020 the primary mean for the
internet access would be mobile phones [10].

The growing prevalence of smartphones usage can be viewed with both optimism and concern in
higher education environments [12-13]. Many classroom teachers believe the use of smartphones
and handheld computers enhances their teaching and increases student engagement and
achievement [14]. Smartphones have been found to raise student achievement and retention
levels and make learning more flexible. On the other hand, use of smartphones in classroom
adversely impacts the students on their academic learning by not only distracting them but also
their classmates. Students started being dependent on their smartphones and they cannot imagine
their lives without them [15].

Due to the exponential growth of smartphone users in the present age, the smartphones have
become a profound part of some students lives and more students intent to use the smartphones
in classes. Although some studies have focused [16] on the use of other technologies in
classroom such as laptops, there are not enough studies that focus on smartphone usage in a
classroom.

Thus, this study is attempting to analyze whether use of smartphones in classroom benefits
college students or has an adverse impact on their academic lives as there is not sufficient data to
support the advantages or disadvantages of using a smartphone in classroom from students point
of view.

2. Methodology
A well-organized instrument with 12 factors and 63 questions has been developed [17] for
evaluation of user acceptance of internet technology. Other studies have shown [18] that
behavior of using smartphone could have relationship with the attitude and intention of using
smartphone; ease of use and usefulness of using the smartphone; social influences; and several
other selected variables.

The first step of this study was to design an online survey with questionnaires focused on
specific categories such as demographics, self-efficacy, anxiety, attitude toward using a
technology, social influence, facilitating condition, usefulness, ease of use, effort expectancy,
performance expectancy, intention of using a smartphone, and lastly behavior of using a

smartphone. Thus, a survey based on research in [17-19] was developed. The survey questions
are shown in table 1.

Demographic

Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Major
Academic Standing
Do you have a smartphone?
How long do you own it?
Do you use your smartphone as a primary mobile phone?

Self-Efficacy

I could complete a job or task using a smartphone.....

SE1. If there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go.
SE2. If I could call someone for help if I got stuck.
SE3. If I had a lot of time to complete the job for which a
smartphone was provided.
SE4. If I had just the built-in help facility for assistance.
SE5. I feel confident understanding different functions and
applications of smartphones.
SE6. I feel confident learning advanced skills within a specific
smartphone program.

Anxiety

ANX1. I feel apprehensive about using a smartphone.

ANX2. It scares me to think that I could lose a lot of information by
hitting a wrong key on smartphones.
ANX3. I hesitate to use a smartphone for fear of making mistakes
that I cannot correct.
ANX4. The smartphones are somewhat intimidating to me.
ANX5. I hesitate to use a smartphone for fear of losing my identity
and privacy.

Attitude toward using

ATT1. Using a smartphone in class is a good idea.

technology

ATT2. The smartphones make learning in class more interesting.

ATT3. Working with a smartphone is class is fun.
ATT4. I like working with a smartphone in class.

Social influence

SI1. People who influence my behavior think that I should use a

smartphone in class.
SI2. People who are important to me think that I should use a
smartphone in class.
SI3. My professor doesnt allow us to use smartphones in class.
SI4. In general, the school doesnt support the use of smartphones in
class.

Facilitating condition

FC1. I have the resources necessary to use a smartphone.

FC2. I have the knowledge necessary to use a smartphone.
FC3. The smartphones are not compatible with other devices that I
use.
FC4. Smartphones dont have functions that I need to use in class
environment.
FC5. A specific person or group is available for assistance with
smartphone difficulties.

Usefulness

UF1. I feel I am benefiting from my smartphone in classroom.

UF2. Smartphone helps me to be more active in class.
UF3. Smartphone helps me to improve my grades in class.
UF4. I believe that the advantages of smartphone use in class
outweigh its disadvantages.
UF5. Smartphone has positive impact on my studies in class.

Ease of Use

EU1. It is easy to use a smartphone.

EU2. It is easy to work with different apps of a smartphone.
EU3. It is easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using a
smartphone.
EU4. I believe it is easy to get a smartphone do what I want it to do.
EU5. Learning to operate a smartphone is easy for me.
EU6. I believe that a smartphone is cumbersome to use.
EU7. It is easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using a
smartphone.

Effort expectancy

EE1. My interaction with a smartphone would be clear and

understandable.
EE2. It would be easy for me to become skillful in using a
smartphone.
EE3. I have found a smartphone is easy to use.
EE4. Learning to operate a smartphone is easy for me.

Performance expectancy

PE1. I have found a smartphone useful in my job.

PE2. Using a smartphone enables me to accomplish tasks more
quickly.
PE3. Using a smartphone increases my productivity.
PE4. If I use a smartphone, I will increase my chances of getting a
raise.

Intention to use smartphone

IUS1. I intend to use a smartphone in class in the next few coming

months.
IUS2. I predict I would use a smartphone in the next few months.
IUS3. I plan to use a smartphone in the next few months.
IUS4. I plan to use smartphone in class to enhance my learning.
IUS5. I intend to use my smartphone in class to record notes.
IUS6. I intent to use my smartphone in class for non-class related
purposes in the next few months.

Behavior of using smartphone

BEH1. I use my smartphone in class.

BEH2. I use my smartphone to check my email in class.
BEH3. I use my smartphone to take notes in class.
BEH4. I use my smartphone to access social networking in class.
BEH5. I use my smartphone in class for non-class related purposes.
BEH6. I use smartphone in class for class related purposes.
Table 1: The Survey Questions

Then, the survey was posted on Eastern Michigan Universitys online system in the campus
announcement section so that students are aware of the study and participate in it. Also, we sent
out emails to entire student population of the University, where about 24,000 students are
enrolled in classes. Furthermore, the survey was emailed to various classes that seem to be
interested in the study and its outcomes. By using these steps, we were able to get and collect
sufficient responses and data to test our hypotheses and to make analyses.

The data was collected via online surveys. Some of the questions were scored through 1-5
grading scales in which 1 means Strongly Disagree, 2 means Disagree, 3 means Neutral, 4
means Agree and 5 means Strongly Agree. There are some other questions which are
answered simply by Yes or No responses. This study formed new composite constructs by
summing the results of each factors (questions) within each category. For instance, the construct
of behavior has formed by using the following equation:
Behavior = BEH1+ BEH2+ BEH3+ BEH4+ BEH5+ BEH6.

This study performs an exploratory correlation analysis to find any possible relationships
between the selected variables and the actual behavior of using smartphone in classroom. The
hypotheses utilized in this study are illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1: Research Hypotheses

H1. There is a positive significant relationship between Attitude and Behavior.

H2. There is a positive significant relationship between Intention and Behavior.
H3. There is a positive significant relationship between Social Influence and Behavior
H4. There is a positive significant relationship between Self Efficacy and Behavior
H5. There is a positive significant relationship between Anxiety and Behavior
H6. There is a positive significant relationship between Ease of Use and Behavior
H7. There is a positive significant relationship between Usefulness and Behavior
H8. There is a positive significant relationship between Facilitating Condition and Behavior
H9. There is a positive significant relationship between Effort Expectancy and Behavior
H10. There is a positive significant relationship between Performance Expectancy and Behavior

3. Results and Analysis

This research combined the collected responses under each construct to form a new constructs.
The formed constructs are Attitude, Intention, Self-Efficacy, Anxiety, Ease of Use, Usefulness,
Facilitating Condition, Effort Expectancy, Performance Expectancy, and Behavior. The
correlation analysis was performed to examine the studies hypotheses.

3.1 Participants
The survey participants are students from Eastern Michigan University, which is located in the
South-East of Michigan. There are about 24,000 students at the university and the student
population is considered very diverse. The result of preliminary descriptive analysis is illustrated
in table 2.
Descriptive Statistics
N

Minimum Maximum
19

73

Mean

Std. Deviation

25.35

9.323

Age

700

Gender

700

YearsOfEd

700

40

4.58

3.493

YearsOfUse

700

15

2.99

2.329

UseInClass

700

1 (yes)

2 (No)

Valid N (listwise)

700

1 (male) 2 (female)

Table 2: Descriptive Analysis of Demographic data

Seven hundred students participated in the survey. As shown in table 3, the participants
population was composed of 62.3% (436) females and 37.7% (264) males.
Gender

Valid

Frequency Percentage
1 (male)
264
37.7
2 (female)
436
62.3
Total
700
100.0

Valid
Percentage
37.7
62.3
100.0

Table 3: Gender Frequency

Cumulative
Percentage
37.7
100.0

According to the question of ethnicity, there was a wide range of diverse ethnic participants as it
is shown in table 4. While the majority of the participants are whites, a good mixture of different
ethnicities is presented in the survey.
Ethnicity

Valid

American Indian or
Alaska Native

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

Cumulative
Percent

0.4

0.4

0.4

37

5.3

5.3

5.7

68

9.7

9.7

15.4

Asian
Black or African
American
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Others
White

0.6

0.6

16.0

51
537

7.3
76.7

7.3
76.7

23.3
100.0

Total

700

100.0

100.0

Table 4: Ethnicity Frequency

About 10.4% of participants indicated that English is not their first language in response to one
of the survey questions as it is presented in table 5.
Language

Valid

No
Yes
Total

Frequency Percent
73
10.4
627
89.6
700

100.0

Valid
Percent
10.4
89.6

Cumulative
Percent
10.4
100.0

100.0

Table 5: English as a First Language Statistic

The response to the question of the usage of a smartphone in class is shown in table 6. The
analysis of the results shows that 57.9% of students use a smartphone in class and the rest do not
use it in class.

Use In Class

Valid

Frequency Percentage
1(Yes)
405
57.9
2 (No)
295
42.1
Total
700
100.0

Valid
Percentage
57.9
42.1
100.0

Cumulative
Percentage
57.9
100.0

Table 6: Use of Smartphone in Classrooms

All participants signed the consent forms and they were assured that their responses would be
confidential and also it would not influence their academics valuations.

3.2. Hypotheses analysis

H1. There is a positive significant relationship between Attitude and Behavior.

The correlation analysis between Attitude and Behavior is illustrated in table 7. The Pearson
Correlation was r= 0.597 and correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). It is concluded
that there is a strong positive relationship between students attitude toward using smartphone
and actual use of smartphone in classroom. For this reason, hypothesis H1 is accepted.

Correlations
Attitude Behavior
Attitude

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.597**
.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.597**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7: Correlation Analysis between Attitude and Behavior

From H1, it is concluded that if students have more positive attitude toward using a smartphone,
they are more willing to use the smartphone in classrooms.

H2. There is a positive significant relationship between Intention and Behavior.

The result of correlation analysis between Intention to use smartphone and actual use of
smartphone in classroom shows that Pearsons r correlation is 0.750 with a p<0.01 as illustrated
in table 8. In other words, hypothesis H2 is accepted and we can conclude that there is very
strong and positive relationship between Intention and Behavior.

Correlations
Intention Behavior
Intention

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.759**
.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.759**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 8: Correlation Analysis between Intention and Behavior

H3. There is a positive significant relationship between Social Influence and Behavior

In order to examine the relationship between social influence and behavior, this study performs
the correlation analysis. As presented in table 9, the Pearson correlation coefficient value is
0.272 and p value is less than 0.01, which confirms a weak positive relationship between Social
Influence and Behavior. For these reasons, hypothesis H3 is accepted.

Correlations
Social Influence Behavior
Social Influence

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.270**
.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.270**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 9: Correlation Analysis between Social Influence and Behavior

Social Influence represents the influences of external factors such as peers, families, and people
who are important to the subjects. Although the Pearsons r value is weak but it has a significant
impacts on utilizing smartphone in classrooms.

H4. There is a positive significant relationship between Self Efficacy and Behavior

To examine this hypothesis, we performed the correlation analysis and the result is illustrated in
table 10. The value of the Pearsons r coefficient is 0.244 and the p value meets the required
threshold of p<0.01 to accept hypothesis H4.

Correlations

Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy

Behavior

.244**

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.244**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 10: Correlation Analysis between Self Efficacy and Behavior

From the results of the correlation analysis, we can conclude that there is a weak positive
relationship between Self-Efficacy and Behavior of using smartphone in classrooms.

H5. There is a positive significant relationship between Anxiety and Behavior

Anxiety is an internal perception of the students toward using smartphone and this hypothesis
aimed to examine the relationship between anxiety toward using smartphone and actual usage of
smartphone in classroom. As presented in table 11, the p value is not less than 0.01 and doesnt
meet the critical threshold.
Correlations
Anxiety Behavior
Anxiety

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

-.051
.174

700

700

Pearson Correlation

-.051

Sig. (2-tailed)

.174

700

700

Table 11: Correlation Analysis between Anxiety and Behavior

For these reasons, hypothesis H5 is rejected and we can conclude that this study could not find
any possible relationship between anxiety and usage of smartphone in classroom.

H6. There is a positive significant relationship between Ease of Use and Behavior

Ease of use intents to examine the internal perception of the students toward the easiness of using
smartphone and this hypothesis aimed to find if there is any positive significant relationship
between Ease of Use and actual use of smartphone in classrooms.
The results of hypothesis testing that is illustrated in table 12, shows that the Pearsons r
correlation is 0.342 and the p-value meets the threshold of p<0.01.

Correlations

Ease of Use

Ease of Use

Behavior

.342**

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.342**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 12: Correlation Analysis between Ease of Use and Behavior

From the results of the correlation analysis, it is concluded that there is moderate positive
relationship between the variable of Ease of Use and Behavior. In other words, if students find
the usage of a smartphone is easy, they are more willing to use a smartphone in classroom.

H7. There is a positive significant relationship between Usefulness and Behavior

The perception of Ease of Use is another internal factor that reflects the individual willingness to
adapt or perform a task if the person feels performing that specific task is easy. Table 13 presents
the results of the correlation analysis between two factors of perceived Usefulness and Behavior.

Correlations

Usefulness

Pearson Correlation

Usefulness

Behavior

.540**

Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.540**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 13: Correlation Analysis between Ease of Use and Behavior

The value of Pearsons r is equal 0.540 with a p-value less than 0.01, which meets the minimum
threshold. For these reasons, this study concludes that there is a strong positive relationship
between perception of Usefulness and Behavior. In other words, students are more willing to use
smartphones in classroom if they feel that the usage of smartphone is easy.

H8. There is a positive significant relationship between Facilitating Condition and

Behavior

Facilitating conditions refers to availability of the external resources to perform a certain tasks.
In this hypothesis, this study attempts to find out if availability of external resources could
impact using a smartphone in classrooms. In order to examine this hypothesis, this study
performed Pearsons r correlation that is illustrated in table 14. The Pearsons r is 0.199 and the
p-value meets the minimum threshold of 0.01. Although the correlation coefficient is small but
still there is slight relationship between Facilitating Condition and Behavior.

Correlations

Facilitating Condition

Facilitating Condition

Behavior

.199**

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.199**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 14: Correlation Analysis between Facilitating Condition and Behavior

H9. There is a positive significant relationship between Effort Expectancy and Behavior

Effort Expectancy explains that an individual is willing to perform or adapt a certain behavior if
the person feels the action is effortless and easy. The result of correlation analysis between Effort
Expectancy to use smartphone and actual use of smartphone in classroom shows that Pearsons r

correlation is 0.287 with a p<0.01 as illustrated in table 15. In other words, hypothesis H9 is
accepted and we can conclude that there is weak positive relationship between Effort Expectancy
and usage of smartphone in classrooms.

Correlations

Effort Expectancy

Effort Expectancy

Behavior

.287**

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.287**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 15: Correlation Analysis between Effort Expectancy and Behavior

H10. There is a positive significant relationship between Performance Expectancy and

Behavior

This hypothesis aims to determine whether students are willing to utilize smartphones in
classroom if they feel that utilizing the smartphone could improve their learning outcomes.

Correlations

Performance Expectancy

Performance Expectancy

Behavior

.523**

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Behavior

.000

700

700

Pearson Correlation

.523**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

700

700

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 16: Correlation Analysis between Performance Expectancy and Behavior

According to table 16, the Pearsons r coefficient is 0.52s with an acceptable p-value less than
0.01. For these reasons, hypothesis 10 is accepted and we can conclude that there is a strong
positive relationship between Performance Expectance and usage of smartphone in classroom. In
other words, students who feel that usage of smartphone will improve their learning are more
willing to use smartphone in classroom.

3.3 Level of Smartphone Usage

Out of the total 700 participants, 89% responded to the question of Do you have a smartphone
indicating that they own a smartphone, while the remaining 11% mentioned that they dont have
a smartphone, which reflects majority of the participants own a smartphone. This shows how
popular smartphones are among the college students. About 381 (57%) of smartphone owners
responded to the question of Do you use a smartphone in the classroom? by stating that they
use their smartphones in classroom, whereas 43% said that they dont use their smartphones
during the class.

To examine the actual usage of smartphone by male and female, this study formed two cases and
performed the descriptive analysis. The first case is the results of the male usage in the classroom
as illustrated in table 17. The results show that 59.5% males use the smartphone in class and the
rest do not use smartphone in classroom.
Use In Class

Valid

Frequency Percentage
1(Yes)
157
59.5
2(No)
107
40.5
Total

264

100.0

Valid
Percentage
59.5
40.5

Cumulative
Percentage
59.5
100.0

100.0

Table 17: Smartphone Usage in Classroom by Males

Similar analysis for the group of females, illustrated that 56.9% use smartphone in classroom,
which is not significantly different from males group.

Use In Class
Frequency
Valid
1
248
2
188
Total
436

Percentage
56.9
43.1
100.0

Valid
Percentage
56.9
43.1
100.0

Cumulative
Percentage
56.9
100.0

Table 18: Smartphone Usage in Classroom by Females

The analysis of the survey shows how the students are using their smartphones both in and
outside of classrooms. It should be noted that the majority of the smartphone owners indicated
that they utilize their smartphones in the classroom. This is the major factor of our research, and
it shows how smartphones are becoming a prominent part of our daily lives, especially in
academics. There were about 544 (81%) of the total participants who agreed with the statement
of I feel confident using a different apps and functions of a smartphone.

3.4 Smartphone Use in classroom

The survey showed 35% of the participants stayed in neutral position about usefulness of using
smartphones as a learning tool in class environments. The next highest percentage of
respondents, which was 33% disagreed that the smartphone use in classrooms is beneficial, while
only 32% of the participants agreed that the smartphone use in classroom is a valuable idea.
These results are very close to each other, as the majority of the participants decided to choose a
neutral option. There is only one percent difference between those who consider a use of
smartphone in classroom detrimental and those who deem it advantageous.
However, according to another question of the survey Smartphone makes learning more
interesting, 36% of participants believe that smartphone usage in classrooms makes learning
more interesting, whereas 34% disagreed with that statement. From these two questions, it can be
noted that even though smartphone use in classroom might be detrimental in student learning,
but it adds some different flavor to learning by making it more interesting.

Additionally, it is very controversial whether the students utilize their devices such as
smartphones in classes for class related purposes. Based on the survey, it is discovered that 42%
of the student participants indicated that they use their smartphones in classrooms for non-class
related purposes, whereas 38% responded that they use their smartphones only for class related
purposes.

Other information gathered from the survey indicates 53% stated they use their smartphones
during class to check their emails and 60% mentioned they dont take notes in class on their
smartphones. Also, we found that some of the students use their smartphones for non-class
related purposes as 261 students (39%) stated they use their smartphones in class to access social
networks, whereas 48% said they dont use their smartphones in class for social networking
purposes.

3.5 The effects of smartphone use on learning

In spite of the popularity of the smartphones by college students, the majority of the institutions
would not like to see smartphone usage in classes for variety of reasons. Out of the 700
participants in this study, 59% agreed with a statement that the institution does not support the
usage of smartphones by students in classes. The question UF2 (Smartphone helps me to be
more active in class) examines the students perceptions toward the usefulness of the smartphone
in classrooms. As illustrated in table 19, only 25% of the students believe that smartphones
could be useful and 44.2 % disagree that utilizing smartphone is beneficial and the rest were
neutral.

Valid

Strongly Disagree

Frequency
158

Percentage
22.6

Valid
Percentage
22.6

Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

151
216
94
81

21.6
30.9
13.4
11.6

21.6
30.9
13.4
11.6

Total

700

100.0

100.0

Table 19: Frequency analysis of UF2

Cumulative
Percentage
22.6
44.1
75.0
88.4
100.0

One of the significant questions in the survey was whether the students consider the advantages
of smartphone usage in the classroom outweigh its disadvantages. According to the responses to
this question, 37% stated the drawbacks of the in-class use of smartphones outweigh its benefits,
while 31% stated the advantages heavily weigh more than the disadvantages. In light of these
percentages, we can see how the majority consider in-class use of smartphones more detrimental
than beneficial.

3.6 Smartphone Ease of use

There were some questions in the survey about the ease of smartphone usage. Results show 86%
of survey participants agreed with the statement of It is easy for me to use a smartphone and
84% similarly said that it is easy for them to become skillful with using a smartphone. We can
see how smartphone use has become easy for most students. Technology has been advancing and
more and more people are adapting contemporary devices as they are being integrated into our
daily activities.

One of the questions in the survey was about whether the professors allow the students to use
smartphones in classrooms. The result for this question was about 60% stated that their
professors banned smartphone usage during the class.

Conclusion
In this study, we developed ten hypotheses to examine the relationship between formed variables
and actual usage of smartphones in classroom. Analysis of the hypothesis shows that except
hypothesis five, all of the hypotheses are accepted. This research shows that the variables of
Attitude, Intention, Usefulness, and Performance Expectancy have positive significant
relationships with adaptation and usage of smartphones in classrooms. For the rest of the
constructs, this research found weak to mid significant relationship with usage of smartphones in
classrooms. In other words, if students find that using the smartphone is useful and could benefit
them in process of learning, they are more willing to utilize it in the classroom.

It was shown that although smartphones can increase students productivity and provide quicker
task accomplishments in their daily activities, they do not increase their learning in the
classroom. Some students admitted that they use their smartphones in the classroom for nonclass related purposes such as checking emails, social networking, and the majority of them
stated they dont take notes on their smartphones. Some of the participants mentioned the use of
smartphones can be distracting in class, while others indicated using a smartphone in classes is
more interesting and fun.

Considering the results and analyses of this study, it is concluded that the use of smartphones has
both advantages and disadvantages on student learning and participation in class. But, as
presented in previous sections, from students perspectives the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
Future studies could focus on the instructors point of view of the role of smartphones in
classrooms and how instructors perceive the influences of smartphones on students learning and
performances to determine why many instructors are banning the use of smartphones in
classrooms.

References
[1]

Brown, D. G., Burg, J. J., & Dominick, J. L.; A strategic plan for ubiquitous
laptop computing, Communications of the ACM, 41, pp. 26-35, 1998.

[2]

Brown D.G., & Petitto, K. R.; The status of ubiquitous computing, Educase Week, 38, pp.
25-33, 2003.

[3]

Melerdiercks, K.; The dark side of the laptop university, Journal of Ethics, 14, pp. 9-11,
2005.

[4]

Young, J. R.; The fight for classroom attention: professor vs laptop, Chronicle of Higher
Education, June 2, A27-29, 2006.

[5]

Ransford, M.; Majority of College Students own smartphones, but dislike those ads. Ball
State University News Center, 2013.
(http://cms.bsu.edu/news/articles/2013/2/students-embrace-their-smartphones)

[6]

Frydenberg, M., Ceccucci, W. & Sendall, P.; Smartphone: Teaching tool or Brain candy?,
Campus Technology, 2012.
(http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2012/02/01/Smartphones-Teaching-Tool-orBrain-Candy.aspx?Page=4)

[7]

Vogel, D., Kennedy, D. M., Kuan, K., Kwok, R., & Lai, J.; Do mobile device
applications affect learning?, 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 2007.

[8]

Jacob, S. M., & Issac, B.; The mobile devices and its mobile learning usage
analysis, Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer
Scientists, Vol. I, 19-21 March, Hong Kong, 2008.

[9]

Giurgiu, L., & Barsan, G.; The Impact of iPhone in education; BulletinScientific, 13(2),
2008.

[10]

Caverly, D., Ward, A., & Caverly, M.; Techtalk: mobile learning and access. Journal of
Developmental Education, 33 (1), pp. 38-39, 2009.

[11]

Yu, F., & Conway, A. R.; Mobile/Smartphone use in higher education. Proceedings of
the 2012 Southwest Decision Sciences Institute, pp. 831-839, 2012.

[12]

Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., & Dye, M. W.; Children, wired: for better and for
worse, Neuron, 67(5), pp. 692-701, 2010.

[13]

Cummiskey, M.; There is an app for that smartphone use in health and physical
education: How many healthful apps does smartphone have?, The Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, & Dance, 2010.

[14]

Norris, C., Hossain, A., & Soloway, E.; Using Smartphones as Essential Tools for
Learning. Educational Technology, 18, 2011.

[15]

Lytle, R.; Smartphone Use among College Students Concerns Some Professors. US
News, 2012.

[16]

Fried, C.; In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computer
and Education, Vol. 50, Issue 3, 2012.

[17]

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis. F. D.; User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 425478, 2003.

[18]

Esmaeili, M.; Assessment of users' information security behavior in smartphone

networks, PhD Dissertation, Eastern Michigan University, 2014.

[19]

Esmaeili, M., & Eydgahi, A.; The Effects of Undergraduate Project-Based Courses on
Student Attitudes Toward STEM Classes, International Journal of Engineering Research
and Innovation, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 66-72, 2014.