2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
The Impact of Smartphones on Student
Creativity at a South African University
Ronald Kyobe, Sumarie Roodt, and Sarah Mulombo Mulaji
Department of Information Systems, University of Cape Town
Cape Town, South Africa
kybron001@myuct.ac.za, sumarie.roodt@uct.ac.za, mljsar001@myuct.ac.za
Abstract
Research indicates a general increase in
smartphone ownership, with the student
population being the leading proportion. Among
other notable effects of this change could be an
enhanced collaboration between learners and
lecturers on the one hand, and an increase in sleep
deprivation and attention deficits in students on
the other hand. Such unsettling revelations call for
the investigation of the impact of smartphones on
learning outcomes. This paper investigates the
impact of smartphones on students’ creativity.
Based on the interactions and outcomes theory,
the study assesses how smartphone-facilitated
processes, person-to-smartphone interaction, and
smartphone-enabled environment affect students’
creativity. A hundred and five (105) students at a
South African university were surveyed using
online questionnaires. General Linear Model
(GLM) MANOVA was used as the analysis
method. The results reveal that only smartphone-
facilitated processes and student-to-smartphone
interaction significantly affect student creativity.
This signals smartphones’ potential in setting a
learning environment supporting student
creativity at the individual level. Universities
could leverage this potential to design better
learning management systems that integrate
smartphones to improve learning outcomes.
Keywords: smartphone impact, students’
creativity, higher education, mobile phones use,
interactions and outcomes theory, person-to-
smartphone interaction, smartphone-facilitated
processes, smartphone-enabled environment.
1. Introduction
Despite the increase in smartphone use and
ownership (Czerniewicz & Brown, 2010), studies
about the use of mobile devices like smartphones
to foster student creativity in higher education are
still rare (Jahnke & Liebscher, 2020). In South
Africa for instance, 2017 statics reported over 20
million South Africans using smartphones, with
an expected increase beyond 25 million by 2022.
Interestingly, students are leading the adoption of
smartphones (Shakoor et al., 2021). The
International Telecommunication Union (ITU,
2021) suggest that 60 to 69% of the South African
population owns a smartphone, with student
owners as high as 98.5%. In this 21st century,
smartphones’ features attract students who have
made them an important part of their daily lives
(Shakoor et al., 2021; Singh & Samah, 2018).
Yet, there is a lack of studies that have addressed
the impact of these devices on student creativity
(Said-Metwaly et al., 2017). Most of the research
in this area focuses on the benefits of smartphones
in learning (Yusuf et al., 2015). Tan Ai Lin et al.
(2018) attribute this shortage to the complex and
multidimensional nature of creativity. Moreover,
among a limited number of studies addressing the
impact of smartphones on student creativity, the
focus is made mostly on developed countries (Wu
et al., 2012). This study addressed this gap by
particularly looking at students in developing
countries, especially in South African university
settings.
Based on the interactions and outcomes
framework, this study seeks (1) to assess the role
of smartphone-facilitated processes on student
creativity (2) to evaluate the role of the person to
smartphone interaction in nurturing student
creativity, and (3) to examine the effectiveness
smartphone-enabled environment/climate in
enhancing student creativity. This study only
focused on the impact of smartphones impact on
than focusing on all the mobile devices’ impact on
students’ creativity. The efficiency of a
smartphone differs from that of a laptop or
200
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
desktop computer in terms of enriching student
creativity.
Unlike Jahnke and Liebscher (2020) who
approached the topic from the instructor’s
perspective, this study considers the perspective
of students. It intends to investigate the impact of
smartphones on student creativity to help them
learn to optimise smartphone usage to enrich their
creativity. Nevertheless, the study could enable
instructors to understand the effectiveness of
smartphones in enabling student creativity. The
research study provided valuable insights for
decision-makers and stakeholders of universities
for better learning policies.
The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. The
next section covers related works and gives some
background to the approach as well as the research
model and hypothesis framing this study. Section
3 describes the methodology followed in
conducting the study. The results are presented
and section 4 and discussed in section 5. Section
6 concludes the paper.
2. Related Works
Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013, p. 2) are
concerned that “instructors face many challenges
as they compete for students’ attention among a
variety of communication stimuli”. Smartphones
use in classrooms is perceived as distractive to
students and their effective use for learning
purposes is still experimental (Kaimara et al.,
2019). This has sparked the interest of various
scholars to call for investigations in this area. This
research study was a response to this call.
Many studies have been conducted to investigate
the impact of smartphones on learning. Aheto and
Cronje (2018) studied the influence of laptops and
smartphone ownership and supported design
students’ learning among South African and
Ghanaian university students. The results revealed
that a “smartphone is important towards the
academic success of 94 (78%) of the participants”
surveyed (Aheto & Cronje, 2018, p. 102). Hossain
(2019) and Shakoor et al. (2021, p. 863)’s studied
smartphone impact on learning behaviour and
academic performance of students respectively in
Bangladesh and Islamabad. Shakoor et al. (2021)
showed “a positive correlation and impact of
smartphone usage on academic performance”
while Hossain (2019) revealed smartphone
negative impact on academic performance due to
inappropriate usage.
They have not been lots studies focusing
specifically on smartphones’ impact on student
creativity. The most related study found in
literature, Elphick (2018), took a capability
approach, investigating the impact of iPad usage
on students’ perceived digital capability which
included students’ creativity. In this study, the
focus is on smartphone impact specifically on
students’ creativity in the context of learning
remains rare. The term impact refers to an effect
or influence that one thing has on the other. Elfeky
and Masadeh (2016) and (Singh & Samah, 2018)
claim that smartphones influence student
creativity either positively or negatively.
A smartphone is a personal digital assistant (PDA)
with enhanced functionality. It is a mobile device
with more features and enhanced communication
capabilities enabling them to connect to the
internet and is highly multifunctional (Park &
Chen, 2007) “Smartphones can be useful in
academic settings by allowing browsing for
additional information, organising the study
process online, and facilitating communication
between peers and instructors” (Rozgonjuk et al.,
2019). Smartphones can significantly improve the
process of information access and delivery since
they are mobile (Elfeky & Masadeh, 2016).
However, smartphone use is limited by issues
such as small screen size, short battery life and
inadequate memory (Park, 2011, p. 82).
Moreover, their use in the classroom is
controversial due to their seemingly distractive
effect on students when inappropriately used
(Kaimara et al., 2019). Indeed, “spending time on
mobile phone negative effect of mobile phone and
application usage while studying has the negative
effect on students’ academic performance”
(Hossain, 2019, p. 164). But, although it is
suggested that smartphones may contribute lower
academic achievement in some contexts, it is
unclear how smartphone usage contributes to
lower outcomes (Hartley et al., 2020).
Creativity “has proven over the years to be
difficult to define and measure due to its complex
and multidimensional nature” (Said-Metwaly et
al., 2017, p. 240). It is often defined subjectively,
but at least one of the four Ps which are process,
person, press/climate and product have to be
reflected in a good definition (Torrance, 1993).
Commonly, “creativity means to contribute to
something novel and valuable” (Jahnke &
Liebscher, 2020, p. 3). Lin and Wu (2016) defined
creativity as a process of solving problems with
201
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
creative thinking. This research will adopt
Holyoak and Morrison (2005, p. 352)’s the
Psychodynamic
definition which defines creativity as a product
i.e. the “ability to produce work that is novel (i.e.,
original, unexpected), high in quality, and
appropriate (i.e., useful, meets task constraints) ”.
In short, studies have attempted to study the
impact of mobile devices on student learning
outcomes mostly in terms of academic
Psychometr
performance, in some cases digital capability.
There have not been many studies entirely
ic
dedicated to the creative aspect of the learning
outcome of smartphone usage. This knowledge
gap is also related to the understanding the of
concept of creativity itself. The next sub-sections
Cognitive
explore how creativity could be studied and
measured in other to make sense of the study
findings later.
2.1 Approaches to Studying Creativity
This research adopted the confluence approach of
Social-personality and
borrowing approaches and ideas from various
social-cognitive
scholars about the 4Ps (process, person, product
and press) proposed by Said-Metwaly et al. (2017)
as can be seen in table 1. This enabled the
researchers to adequately gain a holistic
understanding and apply the right tools to measure
creativity.
Table 1. Approaches to studying creativity
(Holyoak & Morrison, 2005)
Approach description
Associate creativity with mystical beliefs
Evolutionary
and divine intervention. As far as this
approach is concerned, a creative person is
Mystical
an empty vessel that a divine being would
fill with inspiration which eventually
transforms them to become creative. This
transformation would enable the person to
generate divinely inspired ideas, forming
an extraordinary product
Pragmatic
Interested in understanding rather than in
testing the validity of creativity,
emphasising only practice rather than
Confluence
theory.
Claims that creativity arises from the
tension between conscious reality and
unconscious drives. Writers and artists
produce creative work as a way of
expressing their unconscious desires in a
publicly acceptable fashion. The wide
range of unconscious desires ranges from
love, wealth, power and fame among
others.
Proposed by Guilford (1950) while
addressing the American Psychological
Association, Psychometric considers the
use of everyday objects like paper and
pencil tasks to test one’s creativity
Seeks an understanding of the mental
representations and processes underlying
creative thought. It associates creativity
with perception or memory, arguing that
creativity and intelligence are related to
each other.
Emphasis is put on personality variables,
motivational variables, and the
sociocultural environment as sources of
creativity. Researchers such as Amabile
(1983) and Eysenck (1993) suggest that
certain personality traits often characterize
creative people. Through correlational
studies and research contrasting high and
low creative people, a large set of
potentially relevant traits has been
identified
Initiated by Campbell in 1960, it
comprised two basic steps in the
generation and dissemination of creative
ideas: (1) Blind variation, by which the
creator randomly generates ideas without
any assurance that the idea will be
considered worthy in the world of ideas.
(2) Selective retention, the scholar either
retains the selected ideas for the future or
lets them die out based on the assessment
Driven by the determination to capture a
holistic understanding of creativity.
Scholars have been trying to develop
reliable tools to understand and measure
creativity for a long time. The confluence
approach to creativity borrows concepts
from earlier approaches to come up with a
reliable way of studying and measuring
creativity. “Many more recent works on
creativity hypothesize that multiple
components must converge for creativity
to occur”
202
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
2.2 Approaches to Measuring Creativity
Much of the research on creativity has been done
to establish dependable approaches or instruments
to measure it. The ambiguity surrounding
creativity measurements is accredited to the lack
of consensus amongst scholars and researchers in
terms of defining creativity. The challenge is
establishing a uniform/universal definition for
creativity has compelled various researchers to
develop different instruments for measuring it.
The different instruments developed for
measuring creativity are a direct reflection of how
particular scholars conceptualise the notion of
creativity. Currently, the developed instruments
are categorised into four distinct approaches
representative of the four major categories of
activity definitions. These categories include
process, product, person and press also known as
the four Ps (Said-Metwaly et al., 2017).
Based on their analysis, Said-Metwaly et al.
(2017) suggested that creativity is mostly defined
and measured through four approaches: process,
person, product, and press (environment or
climate). These turn out to be part of the
interactions and outcomes framework developed
by Schneck (2011)’s while researching creativity
and leadership in an organisational setting. Figure
1 represents a modified model for this research.
This research assessed how students use
smartphones to enhance their creativity from
various points of view. Students can use their
smartphones to interact with each other, and
access and disseminate information. The wide
access to information exposes them to a range of
creative possibilities illustrated rate by the model
in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Interactions and outcomes framework -
adapted from (Schneck, 2011)
The following subsections elaborate on each of
the four components of the model, three of which
represent the studies’ independent variables
(Smartphone-facilitated process, person-to-
smartphone interactions, and smartphone-enabled
climate/ press) and one representing the
dependent variable (Product/ creativity). This
elaboration generates three hypotheses (H1, H2,
and H3) which are further tested in this study.
2.2.1 Smartphone facilitated Processes
Campbell (1960)’s proposed an evolutionary
approach to creativity arguing that the generation
of creative outcomes happens systematically and
through continuous assessments. claims that
individuals come up with a collection of ideas
which are presented to go through the elimination
process referred to as ‘survival for the fittest
(Campbell, 1960). In his argument, weaker ideas
are eliminated while those that are considered
worthy are promoted to the subsequent steps until
the most creative idea is selected.
Similarly, Torrance (1993) suggests that creativity
can be assessed by carefully following and
evaluating the process that leads to the creation of
a creative product. While analysing the process,
creativity can be detected in learning, thinking,
teaching, problem-solving, development and
other processes (Kim, 2017; Torrance, 1993). In
the context of this research, smartphone facilitated
processes are those processes enhancing learning,
thinking, problem-solving and other processes
made possible through the aid of a smartphone.
As an educational psychologist, Torrance (1993)
acknowledges that there are other aspects of
looking at creativity, but he prefers the process
perspective. While commenting on Eysenck
(1993)’s view of creativity from the person’s
perspective, Torrance (1993, p. 232) argues that
“Just as it was natural and useful for Eysenck
(1993) to choose to start with personality as a
focus, it was natural and useful for me to begin
with a process focus”.
Considering all these insights, we contextualize
and group these measurements into a Smartphone-
facilitated process construct and posit that
Smartphone-facilitated process influences
product/creativity (H1)
2.2.2 Person to Smartphone interaction
In the context of this research study, scholars like
Kipling (1985) who subscribe to the mystical
approach to creativity supported the “person to
smartphone interaction” perspective. Kipling
(1985) argues that creativity is attributed to a
203
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
mysterious force or daemon that takes over the
individual enabling them to produce creative
outcomes. While elaborating on this, (Kipling,
1985) accredits his creative writing to the
“Daemon” that lives in the writer’s pen. “My
Daemon was with me in the Jungle Books, Kim,
and both Puck books, and good care I took to walk
delicately, lest he should withdraw. When your
Daemon is in charge, do not think consciously.
Drift, wait and obey” (Kipling, 1985, p. 162).
In the same way, social-personality and social-
cognitive scholars argue that creativity can be
understood from the personality point of view.
They claim that it is crucial to understand the
person’s profile, how they behave and the
information they have access to. Among the
scholars who cherish this approach is (Amabile,
1983), Eysenck (1993) and Sternberg (1985).
Amabile (1983) explained that the information
available to a person does not constitute creativity.
However, personal traits, skills and other factors
in the person domain can result in creative
outcomes. Eysenck (1993), a personality
psychologist from the Institute of Psychiatry of
the University of London, also believes creativity
should be studied from a person’s perspective.
Given their specialisation, Eysenck (1993) chose
to develop a theory of creativity with the person
or personality view approach (Torrance, 1993).
Scholars who subscribe to this view believe that
creative people behave in a certain way and can
be identified by their behaviour/character traits.
Sternberg (1985) associates creativity with many
characteristics such as easily connecting ideas,
detecting differences and similarities, questioning
social norms and flexibility among others.
(Holyoak & Morrison, 2005) pointed out that
various research contrasting high and low creative
individuals has been carried out over time. He
argues that a creative person should show
independence of judgment, self-confidence,
attraction to complexity, openness to experience
and risk-taking abilities (Holyoak & Morrison,
2005).
In the context of this research, person-to-
smartphone interaction was concerned with those
personalities or traits that can be associated with
smartphone use and lead to the creation of active
products at the same time (Said-Metwaly et al.,
2017). Thus, it could be hypothesised that Person-
to-smartphone interaction influences product/
creativity (H2)
2.2.3 Smartphone enabled Climate / Press
Some scholars believe that creativity is boosted by
the environment in which one resides or operates.
Simonton (2008) conducted numerous studies in
diverse cultures and realised a statistical link
between creativity and environmental variables.
These variables included cultural diversity, war,
availability of role models, availability of
resources such as financial support, and several
competitors among others (Simonton, 2008).
According to Hashemi (2011, p. 2477)
smartphones enable “the acquisition of any
knowledge or skill through using mobile
technology, anywhere, anytime”. He believes that
the ability of smartphones to bridge gaps plays a
role in creativity.
In the context of this research, a smartphone-
enabled climate/press refers to the smartphone-
induced environmental effects influencing the
creation of a creative product (Said-Metwaly et
al., 2017). The focus will be put on several
indicators including the availability of resources.
Hence, it is hypothesized that Smartphone-
enabled climate/press influences creativity/
product (H3)
2.2.4 Products / Creativity
In their articles, Guilford (1950) and (Torrance et
al., 1974) opted for the approach of assessing
creative products to detect creativity. Guilford
(1950) proposed that without an outcome
(product), it is challenging to assess and
acknowledge the presence of creativity. He
suggested that creativity can be studied using
usual/ordinary materials like paper and pencil
tasks. In this endeavour, Guilford (1950) came up
with the Unusual Uses Test, requiring one to think
of as many uses for a common object as possible.
While Guilford (1950)’s unusual uses test focuses
on the number of alternative uses, Torrance et al.
(1974) developed the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking that searches for particular
characteristics in an outcome before it can be
declared to be creative. According to Guilford
(1950), creative abilities are present when a
creative outcome is produced, however, the level
of creativity is determined by product “fluency
(total number of relevant responses), flexibility
(number of different categories of relevant
responses), originality (the statistical rarity of the
responses), and elaboration (amount of detail in
the responses) ” (Holyoak & Morrison, 2005, p.
354).
204
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2

3. Methodology questions were intended to data-mine the

This section discusses and justified the variables in the research model and the
methodology used to conduct this research, from questionnaire guide made sure that this was
philosophy to data collection and analysis achieved. The major constructs in the model
techniques. This study adopted a positivist included person, process, press/climate and
philosophy and epistemology that proposes that product. Each of the questions in the questionnaire
only observable and measurable phenomena can was testing one or more of these constructs. Table
2 summarises the constructs, corresponding
be accepted to provide credible information that
questions and references.
can constitute acceptable knowledge (Wahyuni,
2012). Data Analysis
Data was analysed quantitatively since this
The study was deductive since it was guided by approach provides an objective perspective on the
the interaction outcome theory and therefore study. The research employed SPSS for
adopted a deductive approach. The research quantitative analysis to test the hypotheses and
findings provide a firm ground to prove or assess the strength of relationships. This involved
disprove this some concept of the theory. The identifying relationships between variables. The
study was cross-sectional In adherence to the researcher used the MANOVA tests to test the
hypotheses. Visual representation of the data
ethical standards, the researcher obtained the
included graphs, charts and tables.
required ethics approval from the University’s
Ethics Committee. The researcher secured the 4. Results
required permission before engaging with the This section reports the study’s findings. The
participants. Research participants were fully initial section gives some demographic
informed about what the research entailed, information to understand the sample background.
making it clear that their participation was Next is the analysis prerequisite including validity
voluntary. The participants could drop the study and reliability testing and factor analysis. The
at any time they felt like. The survey was main analysis and findings are presented in the
anonymous to preserve respondent privacy. last three sections representing the testing of the
three null hypotheses associated with the study’s
3.2. Data Collection
hypothesis discussed earlier.
This study targeted university students to collect
primary data to study the phenomena under 4.1 Demographic information
investigation. The sample was randomly selected
among students at one South African university. Table 3. Sample background
What is your gender?
The researcher used an online questionnaire, Cumulative
designed using Qualtrics software. Frequency Percent Percent
Male 33 31.4 31.4
Table 2. Questionnaire guide Female 70 66.7 98.1
Construct Questions Reference Prefer not to answer 2 1.9 100.0
Person 5-19 Total 105 100.0
(Holmes, 1970; Kumar &
Process 20-27 What is your age group?
Holman, 2014; Moultrie
Press/Climate 28-47 & Young, 2009; Sundgren <20 25 23.8 23.8
Product 48-55 & Dimena, 2005) 20-29 69 65.7 89.5
Open-ended 56-57 30-39 6 5.7 95.2
40-49 4 3.8 99.0
The questionnaire predominantly comprised >50 1 1.0 100.0
close-ended questions supplemented by two open- Total 105 100.0
ended questions to limit the respondent to the Do you own a smartphone?
available options while open-ended questions Yes 105 100.0 100.0
How many smartphone applications do you use on
allowed the respondents to express their views
average per day
without being limited to a range of options. The 1-3 27 25.7 25.7
responses were rated on the Likert scale: (1) 4-6 51 48.6 74.3
Strongly agree, (2) Agree, (3) Somewhat agree, 7-10 16 15.2 89.5
(4) Neither agree nor disagree, (5) Somewhat 10+ 11 10.5 100.0
disagree (6) Disagree (7) Strongly disagree. The Total 105 100.0

205
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2

The study’s targeted population was students at a
South African university. All none responses and
partially answered questions were excluded from
the research study. A total of 192 responses were
collected through questionnaires and only 150
responses were retained after the data cleaning
process. Of the 105 students who took part in the
study, 33 were male, 70 were female and two
students preferred not to disclose their gender, as
reflected in Table 3. Most of the respondents were
20 years old-old. All respondents declared to own
a smartphone, with about half of them using four
to six applications on average per day.
4.2 Validity and reliability tests
As a prerequisite of any quantitative analysis,
validity and reliability tests were performed. The
KMO and Bartler’s tests were used to determine
if the data collected was sufficient as shown in
Table 4. In addition to this, Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity reflected a chi-square of 2631.553 at df
= 1275 and a significance level of 0.000 which is
less than 0.001 (p < .001). Table 4 indicates that
the correlations are not near zero laying the
foundation for confidence in the final factor
analysis outcomes (Leech et al., 2015).
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett's Test
Before hypothesis testing, dependent variables
should be tested to see if they are correlated to
confirm that they are moderately correlated. If r is
0, it reflects no relationship at all among the data
sets making it unnecessary to proceed with the
MANOVA. Output in Table 5 from the results
reflects r=-0.013, r=-0.109 and r=0.319 for
product evaluation, product creation and product
assessment respectively. These are ideal results to
proceed with hypothesis testing through
MANOVA tests.

Table 5. Dependent variables correlations

When am generating new I enjoy the process of I think a final product that
ideas, I do not tend to creating new ideas is not readily observable
evaluate them until I have whether they lead to through the senses can
generated many ideas a product or not emerge in a creative act.
When I am generating new Pearson
1 -.013 -.109
ideas, I do not tend to Correlation
evaluate them until I have Sig. (2-tailed) .897 .267
generated many ideas N 105 105 105
I enjoy the process of Pearson
-.013 1 .319**
creating new ideas whether Correlation
they lead to a product Sig. (2-tailed) .897 .001
or not N 105 105 105
I think a final product that is Pearson
-.109 .319** 1
not readily observable Correlation
through the senses can Sig. (2-tailed) .267 .001
emerge in a creative act. N 105 105 105
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.3. Factor Analysis questions loads onto the identified components

A data reduction technique known as factor
analysis was used to reduce data while
maintaining the credibility of the model variables,
leading to hypothesis testing. Specifically,
exploratory factor analysis was performed, using
the component factor analysis (CFA) technique to
reduce the data while upholding the impact of the
variables in a given model (Denis, 2018). CFA
operates by extracting components/factors
detected from the questions testing the model and
revealing the strength with which each of the
through Pearson’s correlation (Aldrich, 2018).
Questions loading highly on the same component
are assumed to be measuring the same factor and
therefore should be aggregated to reduce the
number of questions while maintaining the effect
of the key variables.
The eigenvalues for the 51 new components were
displayed. The initial eigenvalues showed 8.364
for Component 1. equivalent to 16.400%
(8.364/51 × 100) of the total variance when all 51

206
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2

variables are considered. Next was an eigenvalue
of 4.084 for Component 2, which means that it
accounts for 8.008% of the total variance for all
variables. This percentage is not related to the
variance of the first component; therefore, the two
taken together (16.400 +8.008) can be said to
account for 24.408% of the variance for all
variables. Following this same trend, the first 15
components account for up to 70.914% of the
variance for all 51 variables.
This was visualised in the scree plot in Figure 2,
which graphs the eigenvalues on the y-axis and
the 51 components on the x-axis. Components
above the “elbow” portion are those that are
selected (Aldrich, 2018). In the case of this
research, Components 1 to 15 are above the
“elbow, accounting for 70.914 of variance in all
51 variables. The scree plot provides extra
evidence supporting the 15 components solution
for this factor analysis problem. This means that
the first 15 components can explain 70% of the
relationships in the interaction and dependant
variable, outcomes part of the model.
4.1 Assessing the role of smartphones in
facilitating creative processes
A between-subjects MANOVA was conducted on
three dependent variables in the “product”
construct (evaluation, creation, observation). This
statistic tests the null hypothesis that the variance-
covariance matrices are the same in all three
groups. If the matrices are equal indicating that
the assumption of homogeneity is met, this
statistic (P-value) should be non-significant.
Table 6 indicated that for this data, p = .335
(which is greater than .05); hence, the covariance
matrices are roughly equal, and the assumption is
defensible (Leech et al., 2015). Therefore, all the
MANOVA tests (Pillal’s Trace, Wilks’s Lambda,
Hotelling’s Trace and Roy’s Largest Root) used
in Table 6 below are delivering credible results
that can be based on to either accept or reject the
hypothesis but Nancy (2015) recommends Wilk’s
lambda which is the dominant test used in this
research study.
The four MANOVA multivariate tests in Table 7
examine whether the two smartphones facilitated
process variables differ on a linear combination of
the dependent product/creativity variables:
evaluation, creation, and observation. The last raw
tells us whether Smartphone facilitated
(processQ20And26) had an effect on any of our
dependent variables. Four different types of
multivariate test results are given and Wilks’

Figure 2. Scree plot

Table 7. Smartphone facilitated processes Multivariate Tests

Multivariate Testsa
Hypothes Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
Effect Value F is df Error df Sig. Squared Parameter Powerd
Intercept Pillai's Trace .941 482.730b 3.000 91.000 .000 .941 1448.190 1.000
Wilks' Lambda .059 482.730b 3.000 91.000 .000 .941 1448.190 1.000
Hotelling's Trace 15.914 482.730b 3.000 91.000 .000 .941 1448.190 1.000
Roy's Largest Root 15.914 482.730b 3.000 91.000 .000 .941 1448.190 1.000
processQ20 Pillai's Trace .329 1.043 33.000 279.000 .409 .110 34.417 .903
And26 Wilks' Lambda .704 1.029 33.000 268.807 .430 .110 33.298 .888
Hotelling's Trace .373 1.014 33.000 269.000 .452 .111 33.461 .890
Roy's Largest Root .169 1.429c 11.000 93.000 .173 .145 15.714 .712
a. Design: Intercept + processQ20And26
b. Exact statistic
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
d. Computed using alpha = .05

207
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2

Table 9. Person to smartphone multivariate tests

Multivariate Testsa
Hypothes Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
Effect Value F is df Error df Sig. Squared Parameter Powerd
Intercept Pillai's Trace .807 125.325b 3.000 90.000 .000 .807 375.974 1.000
Wilks' Lambda .193 125.325b 3.000 90.000 .000 .807 375.974 1.000
Hotelling's Trace 4.177 125.325b 3.000 90.000 .000 .807 375.974 1.000
Roy's Largest
4.177 125.325b 3.000 90.000 .000 .807 375.974 1.000
Root
personQ8And Pillai's Trace .438 1.311 36.000 276.000 .119 .146 47.189 .976
9 Wilks' Lambda .620 1.300 36.000 266.643 .127 .147 46.021 .971
Hotelling's Trace .523 1.287 36.000 266.000 .136 .148 46.343 .973
Roy's Largest
.252 1.934c 12.000 92.000 .040 .201 23.210 .882
Root
a. Design: Intercept + personQ8And9
b. Exact statistic
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
d. Computed using alpha = .05

Table 12. Smartphone-enabled climate multivariate tests

Multivariate Testsa
Hypothesis Partial Eta Noncent. Observed
Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared Parameter Powerd
Intercept Pillai's Trace .978 237.494b 3.000 16.000 .000 .978 712.483 1.000
Wilks' Lambda .022 237.494b 3.000 16.000 .000 .978 712.483 1.000
Hotelling's Trace 44.530 237.494b 3.000 16.000 .000 .978 712.483 1.000
Roy's Largest Root 44.530 237.494b 3.000 16.000 .000 .978 712.483 1.000
ClimateQ3 Pillai's Trace 1.523 .843 66.000 54.000 .747 .508 55.651 .768
2To34And Wilks' Lambda .089 .918 66.000 48.630 .630 .553 60.210 .788
Q35To37 Hotelling's Trace 4.488 .997 66.000 44.000 .511 .599 65.825 .813
Roy's Largest Root 3.144 2.572c 22.000 18.000 .023 .759 56.588 .912
climateQ40 Pillai's Trace 1.494 .939 57.000 54.000 .593 .498 53.536 .807
To43 Wilks' Lambda .109 .941 57.000 48.533 .590 .523 53.179 .779
Hotelling's Trace 3.602 .927 57.000 44.000 .610 .546 52.826 .752
Roy's Largest Root 2.016 1.910c 19.000 18.000 .088 .668 36.292 .763
ClimateQ3 Pillai's Trace 1.994 .810 132.000 54.000 .832 .665 106.973 .827
2To34And Wilks' Lambda .026 .875 132.000 48.869 .727 .702 115.283 .839
Q35To37 * Hotelling's Trace 8.171 .908 132.000 44.000 .668 .731 119.844 .830
climateQ40 Roy's Largest Root
4.444 1.818c 44.000 18.000 .085 .816 79.984 .830
To43
a. Design: Intercept + ClimateQ32To34AndQ35To37 + climateQ40To43 + ClimateQ32To34AndQ35To37 * climateQ40To43
b. Exact statistic
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

lambda provides a good and commonly used
multivariate F (in this case F = 1.029, df = 33, 268,
p = .430) (Nancy L. et al., 2015). This F is
significant since P<0.5 indicates that there are
statistically significant differences among the
smartphone facilitated process variables on a
linear combination of the three dependent
variables.
Since the smartphone facilitated processes
(processQ20And26) reflect a significant effect on
the dependent variables (product evaluation,
product creation and product observation). It
could be confidently confirmed that smartphone-
facilitated processes influence creativity/product.
The associated null hypothesis (H01) which states
that Smartphone facilitated processes do not
influence product/creativity is rejected.
Table 6. Box's Test of Covariance Matrices
Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matricesa
Box's M 89.616
F 1.067
df1 66
df2 3142.499
Sig. .335
Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance
matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups.a
a. Design: Intercept + processQ20And26

208
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2

5.2 Assessing the role of smartphones in 5.3 Examining the effectiveness of smartphones
facilitating creative processes in creating a conducive climate/press for
creativity.
Table 8 shows a between-subjects MANOVA that
was conducted on three dependent variables in the Unlike the first two hypotheses, GLM two-factor
“product” construct (product evaluation, product multivariate analysis of variance was used to test
creation and product observation). This statistic this hypothesis since it contains two independent
tests the null hypothesis that the variance- variables and multiple dependent variables (Leech
covariance matrices are the same in all three et al., 2015). There are many independent
groups. Therefore, if the matrices are equal variables in the “climate” construct that needs to
indicating that the assumption of homogeneity is be reduced before proceeding to hypothesis
met, the (P-value) should be non-significant. For analysis. A sig (2-Tailed) value greater than 0.05
this data p = .740 (which is greater than .05); reveals no statistically significant correlation
hence, the covariance matrices are roughly equal, between the two variables. A Sig (2-Tailed) value
and the assumption is defensible (Leech et al., is less than or equal to 0.05 reflecting a
2015). statistically significant correlation between two
variables (Field, 2009). From the outcome in
Table 8. Box's Test of Covariance Matrices Table 10, climate32to34 and climate35to37 are
very statistically significant with a sig(2-tailed)
Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matricesa
value of 0.000. They have therefore aggregated
Box's M 41.859
F .851
before testing the hypothesis. Due to the nature of
df1 42 the data having multiple dependant and
df2 4200.042 independent variables, a Two-Way Multivariate
Sig. .740 Analysis of Variance GLM was selected for
Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance hypothesis analysis. The four MANOVA
matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups.a
multivariate tests in Table 11 examine whether the
a. Design: Intercept + personQ8And9
“smartphone-enabled climate” variables differ on
The four MANOVA multivariate tests in Table 9 a linear combination of the dependent creativity/
examine whether the two “person to smartphone product variables: evaluation, creation, and
interaction” variables differ on a linear observation.
combination of the dependent output/product
Table 10. Climate variables correlation
variables: evaluation, creation, and observation. Correlations
Results in the last row show that if “person to climate climate climate climate
smartphone interaction” personQ8And9 affected Q28An Q32To Q35To Q40To
d29 34 37 43
any of our dependent variables. Four different climateQ2 Pearson Correlation 1 .112 .180 .051
types of multivariate test results are given, and 8And29 Sig. (2-tailed) .255 .066 .608
Wilks’ lambda provides a good and widely used N
climateQ3 Pearson Correlation
105
.112
105 105
1 -.391**
105
-.031
multivariate F (in this case F = 1.300, df = 36, 266, 2To34 Sig. (2-tailed) .255 .000 .754
p = .127) (Leech et al., 2015). This F is significant N 105 105 105 105
climateQ3 Pearson Correlation .180 -.391** 1 .125
since P<0.5 indicates that there are statistically 5To37 Sig. (2-tailed) .066 .000 .204
significant differences among the “person to N 105 105 105 105
smartphone interaction” variables on a linear climateQ4 Pearson Correlation
0To43 Sig. (2-tailed)
.051
.608
-.031
.754
.125
.204
1

combination of the three dependent variables. N 105 105 105 105

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The “person to smartphone interaction” reflects a d. Computed using alpha = .05

significant “effect” on the dependent variables

Based on Wilk’s Lambda test results, smartphone-
(product evaluation, product creation, and product
enabled climate variables ClimateQ32To34 And
observation). Thus “person to smartphone
Q35To37, and climate40To43 have P values of
interaction” significantly influences creativity/
P=0.630 and P=0.590 respectively all of which are
product. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H02)
greater than 0.5. As a result, the effects of a
which states that smartphone-to-person
smartphone-enabled climate (ClimateQ32To34
interaction does not influence creativity/product is
And Q35To37 and climateQ40To43) on a linear
rejected.
combination of dependant variables are not
statistically significant and so is the interaction
which is 0.727.

209
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
Therefore, the smartphone-enabled climate has no
significant effect on the dependent variables
(product evaluation, product creation, and product
observation). Thus smartphone-enables climate
does not significantly influence creativity/
product. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H03)
which states that Smartphone enabled
environment/climate does not influence
creativity/product is supported. Table 13
summarise the hypothesis testing activities.
Table 13. Hypothesis testing summary
Hypothesis Outcome
H01: Smartphone-facilitated processes
Rejected
do not influence product/creativity.
H1: Smartphone-facilitated process
influences product/creativity.
Supported
H02: Person-to-smartphone interaction
Rejected
does not influence product/creativity.
H2: Person-to-smartphone interaction
Supported
influences product/creativity.
H03: Smartphone-enabled climate/press
does not influence creativity/product.
Supported
H3: Smartphone-enabled climate/press
Rejected
influences creativity/product
5. Discussion
Based on the interactions and outcome theory, this
study assumed that students’ use of smartphones
could enhance their creativity from various points
of view. Students could use their smartphones to
interact with each other and access and
disseminate information. The wide access to
information exposes them to a range of creative
possibilities.
Considering insights from Campbell (1960),
Torrance (1993), and Eysenck (1993),
measurements were contextualized and group into
Smartphone-facilitated process which was
hypothesized to influences product/creativity.
The data supported this hypothesis aligns with
literature suggesting that the smartphones-based
process can be useful in academic settings
because it would allow “browsing for additional
information, organizing the study process online
(Rozgonjuk et al., 2019). An additional
smartphone-facilitated process highlighted in the
literature was around the improvement of the
process of information access and delivery since
they are mobile (Elfeky & Masadeh, 2016). In this
way, smartphone usage may enhance creative
learning and better outcome.
Person-to-smartphone interaction was concerned
with those personalities or traits that could be
associated with smartphone use and could lead to
the creation of active products at the same time
(Said-Metwaly et al., 2017). Thus, it was
hypothesised that Person-to-smartphone
interaction influences product/ creativity. Which
was supported by data. This support means that
smartphones could be seen as somehow upskilling
a student at a personal level. Smartphone is mobile
devices with more features and enhanced
communication capabilities enabling a student to
connect to the internet and is highly
multifunctional (Park & Chen, 2007). The
significance of Person-to-smartphone leads to
student creativity in some ways.
Smartphone-enabled climate/press referred to the
smartphone-induced environment bringing
student creativity (Said-Metwaly et al., 2017).
The focus was on several indicators including the
availability of resources. Hence, it was
hypothesized that Smartphone-enabled climate/
press influences creativity/ product. The rejection
of this hypothesis means smartphone facilitating
communication between peers and instructors
(Rozgonjuk et al., 2019) does not significantly
affect student creativity. The environment or
climate within a student operating via a
smartphone may not affect the outcome of them
being more creative than if they used traditional
social interconnection in their learning
environment.
Overall, the significance of these results means
that smartphones are not just a distractive tool for
students as perceived when used in classrooms
(Kaimara et al., 2019). It has the potential to
enhance students’ learning outcomes. It was noted
that the literature mostly studied the impact of
smartphones on academic performance.
Assuming that creativity could be one aspect of
academic performance in a certain setting, its
significance echoes Aheto and Cronje (2018)’s
and Shakoor et al. (2021) study finding of
smartphones being “important towards the
academic success. However, Hossain (2019) and
Kaimara et al. (2019) revealed that smartphones
negatively impact academic performance due to
inappropriate usage. This warning still resonates
with this study’s result which only suggested
some aspects of creativity that is significant. It is
not yet clear which aspects of academic
performance creativity would affect. Elphick
(2018) capability approach tends to suggest that
creativity relates to students perceived digital
capability. But future research could explore this
area further to offer a better explanation.
210
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
6. Conclusions
The findings are that two of the three alternative
hypotheses were supported by data. Findings
reflected that smartphone-facilitated processes
have a significant influence on creativity. It was
also discovered that student to smartphone
interaction had a significant influence on
nurturing creativity. However, there was no
sufficient evidence from the tests to confirm that
a smartphone-enabled climate has a significant
influence on creativity. Digital communication
tools, like smartphones, will still influence
practices of teaching and learning in many ways.
Scientists should enact intensify experiments to
understand how these tools impact classroom
communication and subsequent learning
outcomes. There is a potential for smartphones’
role in setting a learning environment supporting
student creativity at the individual level.
Universities should consider the role of
smartphones in designing better learning
management systems that integrate them for better
learning outcomes. This study’s result only
concerned two aspects of creativity that is
significant. It is not clear which aspects of
academic performance creativity would affect yet.
Future research could explore this area further to
offer a better explanation. Further research is
conducted to investigate the impact of
smartphones on students’ learning outcome
aspects such as communication skills.
7. References
Aheto, S.-P. K., & Cronje, J. (2018). Digital
device ownership and learning environment
preferences of students in South Africa and
Ghana. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 19(3), 93-111.
Aldrich, J. O. (2018). Using IBM SPSS statistics:
An interactive hands-on approach. Sage
Publications.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of
creativity: A componential
conceptualization. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and
selective retentions in creative thought as in
other knowledge processes. Psychological
review, 67(6), 380.
Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2010). Born into
the Digital Age in the south of Africa: the
reconfiguration of the ‘digital citizen’.
Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Networked Learning,
Denis, D. J. (2018). SPSS data analysis for
univariate, bivariate, and multivariate
statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
Elfeky, A. I. M., & Masadeh, T. S. Y. (2016). The
Effect of Mobile Learning on Students'
Achievement and Conversational Skills.
International Journal of higher education,
5(3), 20-31.
Elphick, M. (2018). The impact of embedded iPad
use on student perceptions of their digital
capabilities. Education Sciences, 8(3), 102.
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality:
Suggestions for a theory. Psychological
inquiry, 4(3), 147-178.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American
Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Hartley, K., Bendixen, L. D., Gianoutsos, D., &
Shreve, E. (2020). The smartphone in self-
regulated learning and student success:
clarifying relationships and testing an
intervention. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 17(1), 1-14.
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2005). The
Cambridge handbook of thinking and
reasoning (Vol. 137). Cambridge University
Press Cambridge.
Hossain, M. (2019). Impact of mobile phone
usage on academic performance. World
Scientific News, 118, 164-180.
ITU. (2021). Measuring digital development:
Facts and Figures 2021.
https://www.itu.int/itu-
d/reports/statistics/facts-figures-2021/
Jahnke, I., & Liebscher, J. (2020). Three types of
integrated course designs for using mobile
technologies to support creativity in higher
education. Computers & Education, 146,
103782.
Kaimara, P., Poulimenou, S. M., Oikonomou, A.,
Deliyannis, I., & Plerou, A. (2019).
Smartphones at schools? Yes, why not?
European Journal of Engineering and
Technology Research, 1-6.
211
2022 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications
ISBN: 978-99949-0-888-2
Kim, K. H. (2017). The torrance tests of creative
thinking-figural or verbal: Which one should
we use? Creativity. Theories–Research-
Applications, 4(2), 302-321.
Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The
impact of mobile phone usage on student
learning. Communication Education, 62(3),
233-252.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A.
(2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics:
Use and interpretation, 5th ed.
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Lin, C.-S., & Wu, R. Y.-W. (2016). Effects of
web-based creative thinking teaching on
students’ creativity and learning outcome.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 12(6), 1675-
1684.
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for
mobile learning: Categorizing educational
applications of mobile technologies into four
types. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78-
102.
Park, Y., & Chen, J. V. (2007). Acceptance and
adoption of the innovative use of
smartphone. Industrial management & data
systems, 107(9), 1349-1365.
Rozgonjuk, D., Elhai, J. D., Ryan, T., & Scott, G.
G. (2019). Fear of missing out is associated
with disrupted activities from receiving
smartphone notifications and surface
learning in college students. Computers &
Education, 140, 103590.
Said-Metwaly, S., Van den Noortgate, W., &
Kyndt, E. (2017). Approaches to measuring
creativity: A systematic literature review.
Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications,
4(2), 238-275.
Schneck, R. (2011). The Organizational Creativity
Actualization Model: A Book Proposal.
Shakoor, F., Fakhar, A., & Abbas, J. (2021).
Impact of smartphones usage on the learning
behaviour and academic performance of
students: empirical evidence from Pakistan.
Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci, 11, 862-881.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Genius, creativity and
leadership. In The Routledge companion to
creativity (pp. 247-255). Routledge.
Singh, M. K. K., & Samah, N. A. (2018). Impact
of smartphone: A review on positive and
negative effects on students. Asian Social
Science, 14(11), 83-89.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of
intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3),
607.
Tan Ai Lin, D., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M.
(2018). Kahoot! It: Gamification in Higher
Education. Pertanika Journal of Social
Sciences & Humanities, 26(1).
Torrance, E. P. (1993). Understanding creativity:
where to start? Psychological inquiry, 4(3),
232-234.
Torrance, E. P., Ball, O., & Safter, H. (1974).
Torrance tests of creative thinking.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
In: Inc.
Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze:
Understanding paradigms, cases, methods
and methodologies. Journal of applied
management accounting research, 10(1), 69-
80.
Wu, W.-H., Wu, Y.-C. J., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-
Y., Lin, C.-H., & Huang, S.-H. (2012).
Review of trends from mobile learning
studies: A meta-analysis. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 817-827.
Yusuf, O. M., Lawal, B. I., & Oyewusi, M. B.
(2015). Effectiveness of Using Mobile
Technologies in Teaching and Learning. In
Promoting Active Learning through the
Integration of Mobile and Ubiquitous
Technologies (pp. 155-166). IGI Global.
212