CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the result of the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered from Grade
12 students of Notre Dame of Pigcawayan, Inc. The following tables contain the data, along with their
analyses and interpretations.

Respondent’s Personal Profile

Table 1. Personal Profile of the Respondents

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Average

80-83 3 10.0

84-87 3 10.0

88-91 11 36.7

92-94 6 20.0

94-97 7 23.3

98-99 0 0

Total 30 100.0

Sex

Male 14 46.7

Female 16 53.3

Total 30 30
 9

Average of the Respondents

40%
37%
35%

30%

25% 23%
20%
20%

15%
10% 10%
10%

5%
0%
0%
80-83 % 84-87 % 88-91 % 92-94 % 94-97 % 98-99 %

Personal Characteristics

Out of 30 respondents, first, most of them have 88-91 average with the frequency of 11 (36.7%),
second, followed by 94-97 average with the frequency of 7 (23.3%), next, 92-94 average with the
frequency of 6 (20.0%), then, both 80-83 and 84-87 average have the frequency of 3 (10.0%), finally, 98-
99 average has the frequency of 0.
 10

Table 2. Hours of respondents using their smartphones

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Hours of using smartphones

2 3 10.0

4 4 13.3

6 7 23.3

7 1 3.3

8 6 20.0

9 2 6.7

10 7 23.3

Total 30 100

25%
23.30% 23.30%

20.00%
20%

15%
13.30%

10.00%
10%

6.70%

5%
3.30%

0%
2 hours 4 hour 6 hours 7 hours 8 hours 9 hours 10 hours

Smartphone Hours

The table shows that from the 30 respondents, one of the two majorities spend 6 hours of their
time using smartphones while the other can spend 10 hours, both having frequency of 7 (23.3%), it is
 11

followed second by 8 hours with frequency of 6 (20.0%), then 4 hours with frequency 4 (13.3%) as third,
2 hours with frequency of 3 as fourth, 9 hours with frequency of 2 (6.7%) as fifth, and ending last with 7
hours having only a frequency of 1 (3.3%)

Table 3. Time of respondents spending on their module

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Hours

Less than 1hr 1 3.3

2 4 13.3

3 4 13.3

4 8 26.7

5 5 16.7

More than 5hrs 8 26.7

Total 30 100
30.00%
26.70% 26.70%
25.00%

20.00%
16.70%
15.00% 13.30% 13.30%

10.00%

5.00% 3.30%

0.00%
Less than 1hr 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours 5 hours more than
5hrs
 12

Modular Time

From the total of 30 respondents, one majority spend 4 hours of their time on their module and
the other majority spend >5 hours instead, both having frequency of 8 (26.7%), next is 5 hours having
frequency of 5 (16.7%), then 2 and 3 hours with frequency of 4(13.3%), and lastly, < 1 hour with
frequency 1(3.3%).

Table 4. Importance of smartphones to the respondents

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Extremely important 14 46.7

Somewhat important 12 40.0

Neutral 4 13.3

Somewhat unimportant 0 0

Unimportant 0 0

Total 30 100

50.00%
47%
45.00%
40%
40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00% 13%

10.00%

5.00%
0% 0%
0.00%
Extremely Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Unimportant
important important unimportant
 13

Essentiality

Out of 30 respondents, majority find the significance of the smartphone extremely important with
frequency of 14 (46.7%), it is followed by respondents who find it somewhat important with frequency of
12 (40.0%), and neutral with a frequency of 4(13.3%). Under the characteristics of somewhat unimportant
and unimportant there is a frequency of 0 (0%).
 14

Table 5. Level of productivity of respondents with and without smartphones

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

With smartphones

0 0 0

1 0 0

2 1 3.3

3 1 3.3

4 6 20

5 7 23.3

6 7 23.3

7 5 16.7

More than 7 3 10

Total 30 100

25% 23% 23%

20%
20%
17%
15%

10%
10%

5% 3% 3%

0% 0%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more t...

Productivity

Table 1 shows that from the number of 30 respondents, many defined their level of productivity
with smartphones on levels 6 and 7 both with frequency of 7 (23.3%), it is followed by level 4 having a
frequency of 6, then by level 7 with frequency 5 (16.7%), by more than 7 with a frequency of 3 (10%), by
levels 2 and 3 with frequency 1 (3.3%) and last by, 0 and 1 with frequency of 0 (0%).
 15

Without smartphones

0 0 0

1 1 3.3

2 1 3.3

3 5 16.7

4 4 13.3

5 8 26.7

6 4 13.3

7 3 10

More than 7 4 13.3

Total 30 100

30%
27%
25%

20%
17%
15% 13% 13% 13%

10%
10%

5% 3% 3%

0%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more than
7

Table 2 shows that out of the 30 respondents, most defined their level of productivity on level 5
when without smartphones with frequency of 8 (26.7%), it is seconded by level 3 with frequency of 5
(16.7%), levels 4, 6, and more than 7 as third, all with frequency of 4 (13.3%), and then followed as
fourth by the level 7 with frequency 3 (10%), the levels 1 and 2 as the fifth both with frequency of 1
(3.3%), and last as the sixth is the level 0 having 0 frequency (0%)
 16

Table 6: According to 1st Quarter Grades

Average Frequency P-Value Decision

80-83 3 0.33 NS

84-87 3

88-91 11

92-94 6

94-97 7

98-99 0

Total: 30

S=Significant at 0.05 level of significance

The result proves that there is no significant difference on the impact of prolonged exposure to
smartphones on the academic performance of the Grade 12 students and towards the first Quarter grades
where its 0.33 p-value is greater than the 0.05 level of significance.
 17

Table 7: According to time spent using smart phones

Hours Frequency P-Value Decision

Less than 1hr 1 0.33 NS

2 4

3 4

4 8

5 5

More than 5hrs 8

Total: 30

S=Significant at 0.05 level of significance

The table 7 concludes that there is absence of significant difference on the impact of prolonged
exposure to smartphones on the academic performance of the Grade 12 students and on the time spent on
using smartphones. It is affirmed from the 0.33 p-value that is greater than the 0.05 level of significance.