1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Smartphone by its meaning is defined a mobile phone that well equipped with most of
the function of computer (Alosaimi et al., 2016). M-learning is derived from the word of
mobile learning is aggressively mushrooming since 1990s. M-learning is declared as an
emergent or new star among university students (Hernndez & Prez, 2014). When enter into
tertiary education, university students will need huge amount of data for better knowledge
reaping. In this case, with the convenience and easiness of a smartphone that can provide, the
usage of smartphone in classroom begin to gain prevalent popularity among the universitys
student. In current study, USCI will be the target university to study.

In Malaysia, a few years past, Education Ministry would like to allow the usage of
smartphone in secondary school. Yet, the attempts move to a failure when it raises too many
issues of uncertainties and adverse effect of the misuse. Come to recent day, on 9th Aug 2017,
the Star Online reported education Minister Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid claimed that
Malaysia government allows the student in 10,000 schools to bring certain mobile devices
including smartphones and tablets to class, most probably starting on early next year. This
moves almost highlight the awareness of the government into the mobile learning using
smartphone as the people need to act corresponding with the technological era.

Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands 2014 reported an increment of mobile Internet

use via smartphones up to 20% to settle down approximately at 60% from 2010 to 2013 (voor
de Statistiek, 2014). Back to 10 years back a nationwide survey conducted in 2007 portray
the prevalence of mobile phones usage in adolescents for communication tool as 40% of
teenagers aged between 13 to 18 years old will choose phone as priority compared to those
select TV and computer are only 22.9% and 10.3% (Ishii, 2011). The advancement of
technology embarks on a tough journey for young man nowadays to strive through their
education route. However, reaching the age of new millennium, smartphone starts to replace
computers in certain area to provide unlimited access to non-boundary database system for
study and students particularly.

Alvarez and his colleagues tried to relate the integration of smartphone into the
learning process in the classroom via a paper-plus- smartphone learning environment in 2014
(CollPhoto) to replacing the current teaching method of science, technology, engineering and
 2

mathematic(Alvarez et al., 2014). However, the use of smartphone is not widely adopted in
secondary educational level, even tertiary education institution is claimed to be unofficial
smartphone consumption. As most of the smartphone implication study focus on the usage
time (Aljomaa et al., 2016), low-regulated group (J. Lee et al., 2015), gender difference (Y.-K.
Lee et al., 2014) and others. Therefore, in the current context, the objective of the study is to
correlate the usage of smartphone to its purpose as serving for learning tools or as a
distraction in the classroom as well as the smartphone assessment among UCSI students in
the rate of checking frequency. In conjunction to serve for this purpose, the relationship of
the usage time of smartphone corresponding to the academic performance is drawn.

The study of the mobile learning in tertiary education system is very crucial to the
young man particularly nowadays as these are the asset of a country to build up its
civilisation and nation. Smartphone usage in learning process can be double-edged sword. In
the current study, a few research questions are significant in solving the time amount of
accessing mobile phone to enhance learning process. How frequent use of smartphone will
lead to the degradation of study quality? How many times a student will continue to check
their smartphone in a lecture or tutorial class? This is key solution for a tutor, a teacher and a
lecturer to alert with the focus of their students in the class. What a smartphone serves for a
student during the lesson is also a parameter in fully utilize smartphone for a good sake.
 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The flow of the research is depicted as in Figure 2.1.

Start

Formulation of problem statement

Start

No
Using smartphone in
Start
classroom distracting?
Modeling of test specimen of aerofoil
No
NACA 0015
Yes
Are the models well- built?
Start
Pilot study using random sampling
No
Yes
Validation
Are the
Modeling and
models
of test Reliability test
well- built?
specimen of aerofoil
NACA 0015 No
Data collection by conducting
Control test using Yestunnelof
wind
questionnaire
Parametric surveying
analysis (design of experiment)
Are the models well- built?
Conducting experiment with by
Analysis andgeometry
manipulating the evaluation
Yesof shape
and result of the
Modeling
Parametric of test
analysis specimen
(design of aerofoil
dimple, angle of attack andofair
experiment)
velocity
NACA
Control test using0015
wind tunnel
End
Figure 2.1 Flow chart of methodology
Parametric analysis
Conducting (design ofwith
experiment)
Obtaining theexperiment
result of drag by
and
manipulating the geometry
lift coefficient End and shape
and streamline of of the
2.1.1 Participants dimple, angletest
of using
attackwind
and
Control
the flow comparing the air velocity
tunnel
dimple
aerofoil
The current study was conducted withuniversity
among the smooth surfaceof UCSI using random sampling
students
aerofoil
due to the convenience of data collection.End The current investigation consists of male and
Conducting experiment with by
female students as the respondents
manipulating asthe
thegeometry
quantitative
andand qualitative
shape of the surveying which are 40%
dimple, angle of attack
End ofand
and 60% respectively (Table 2.1) regardless air and
race velocity
age group. The distribution of
students is then classified into class standing to detect the significant group of the current
Obtaining the result of drag and
study (Table 2.2). lift coefficient and streamline of
the flow comparing the dimple
aerofoil with the smooth surface
aerofoil

Obtaining the result of drag and

lift coefficient and streamline of
the flow comparing the dimple
 4

Gender Number of Students

Male 20
Female 30
Table 2.1: Demography of respondents based on gender criteria

Class Standing Number of students

First year 34
Second year 12
Third year 3
Fourth year 1
Table 2.2: Demography of respondents based on class standing criteria

Measures

A self-administered questionnaire specifically designed for the study consists of three major
sections: socio-demographic information, frequency of checking smartphone in the class, and
the implication of smartphone usage for the lesson. Psychological measures are conducted to
know their purpose of using smartphone during the classes to study their tendency of using
smartphone for learning purpose or social means. Smartphone implication on mobile learning
is developed based on five-point Likert-type scale, starting from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Validation and reliability test are conducted using Cronbachs alpha internal
consistency rules for the consistency with single factor of the questionnaire is 0.842 which
lies on the good region and sufficient to provide reliable test (Noyan et al., 2015).
 5

3.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

In order to study the demography of UCSI students on the opinion of the implication
of using smartphone in the class, a few data and graph are drawn to depict the prevalence of
the smartphone usage in UCSI and how the smartphone affects their study.

Option Number of Students

Yes 44
No 6
Table 3.1: Number of students using smartphone in the classroom

Figure 3.1: The distribution of smartphone consumption of UCSI student in the classroom

The distribution of smartphone consumption

No
12%

Yes
88%

Yes No

Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 show the distribution of the smartphone utilization in the
classroom UCSI student. Majority of the student will use their smartphone during the classes.
This group of people takes up of 88% (44 students from 50 respondents) which the results
exhibits more outstanding pattern than the similar questionnaire study by Hernndez and
Prez where the study is done on 460 students at the UPCT and 75% of them use mobile
devices for studying. While out of the 75%, 91% of the UPCT students utilize smartphone as
priority part of their mobile learning process (Hernndez & Prez, 2014). The year trend also
marks the popularity of smartphone consumption in the classroom revolves from 2014 to
 6

2017. The increment up to 13% for the three years time. The possible underlying factor is
due to the advancement of technology with new learning apps, e-books and broad database
system provided on hand-grip mobile phone.

Purposes Number of students

Surfing social networks 13
Searching or learning topics related to the 18
lectures
Taking notes 10
Listening to music 5
Playing game 2
Others 2
Table 3.2: Purpose of using smartphone in the classroom

Figure 3.2: The purpose of smartphone usage in the classroom

Purpose of smartphone usage

20
18
16
Number of students

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Surfing social Searching or Taking notes Listening to Playing game Others
networks learning topics music
related to the
lectures
Purpose

It is depicted in the Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2 that highest number of UCSI students
(18 respondents) browse for lecture-related data to enhance their understanding, followed by
surfing social network (13 people) and the third ranked purpose of smartphone usage in the
class is for taking notes, which 10 participants claimed they do so. The current study shows
the smartphone usage for networking is much lower compared to the research done by Enez
 7

Darcin and his colleagues which detected 41% of them accessing their accounts as the main
contributor towards mobile usage and approximately 95% access at least one of the social
application on smartphones. Although the reasons for excessive smartphone use may differ,
both social anxiety and loneliness were found to be related to excessive smartphone use in
this study (Enez Darcin et al., 2016). On the other hands, the distraction activities of playing
games and others which score equal percentage of 4% respectively are the bottom position of
the smartphone using objectives.

Frequency of checking smartphone during lecture/ tutorial Number of students

Not at all 3
1 to 3 times 24
4 to 6 times 15
7 to 9 times 4
Above 10 times 4
Table 3.3: Frequency of checking smartphone in a lecture/tutorial class

Figure 3.3: Frequency of checking smartphone in the class

Frequency of checking smartphone

30

25
Number of students

20

15

10

0
Not at all 1 to 3 times 4 to 6 times 7 to 9 times Above 10 times
Frequency
 8

Nearly half of the 50 respondents check their phone one to 3 times during a lesson,
this consume around 48%. While there is about 15 students attach to four to six times of
repetitive smartphone browsing action. It is suggested the high number of checking
smartphone may related to the use of mobile social networking applications as Salehan &
Negahban proclaimed high mobile social networking usage is a signicant precursor of
mobile phone addiction (Salehan & Negahban, 2013). It is then presumed that young people
may always check their phone for this reason, also as depicted in Figure 3.3 that moderately
high number of UCSI students lured into social networking as social smartphone application
such as Whatsapp, Wechat. Line, Facebook and so on. Despite of this reason, a small group
of three respondents does not view their phone at all.

Level of agree Number of students

Strongly agree 4
Agree 13
Neutral 29
Disagree 4
Strongly disagree 0
Table 3.4: Will using smartphone improve learning?

Figure 3.4: Agreement level of students on learning improvement with smartphone

Agreement level of student on learning

improvement with smartphone
35

30
Number of students

25

20

15

10

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
Level of agree
 9

According to Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4, about 58% of the participant population hold
neutral and unbiased that smartphone usage in the class will help to improve learning process.
In light of this, the result of integration of smartphone into tutorial class is still controversial

Option Number of students

Yes 39
No 11
Table 3.5: Smartphone is distracting in the classtoom?

Figure 3.5: The agreement distribution of student on smartphone-resultant distraction in

classroom

Agreement distribution of student on

smartphone-resultant distraction
No
22%

Yes
78%

Yes No

Table 3.5 and Figure 3.5 delineate the distraction in the caused by the usage of
smartphone up to 78% while only 22% students claimed they have no effect on it. These
results aligned with the results by Gkearslan et. al. (Gkearslan et al., 2016) which
showed high percentage of student will prefer cyber loafing which sway them away from
their proper lessons.
 10

Level of agree Number of students

Strongly agree 9
Agree 20
Neutral 16
Disagree 3
Strongly disagree 2
Table 3.6: Will using smartphone negatively affect academic results?

Figure 3.6: Agreement level of students on the impact of using smartphone on academic
performance

Level of agree on using smartphone will

negatively affect academic results
25
Number of students

20

15

10

0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
Level of agree

With the results on Figure 3.6, it is obviously viewed that the distraction of student
from the lesson will contribute to the consequence of the degradation of academic
performance as 20 students agree to the fact while 9 of 50 respondents strongly agree to the
point that smartphone consumption affecting their curriculum result. Only two students
strong disagree the statement which they claimed they seldom use phone in the class.
 11

Frequency of checking smartphone in a lecture or tutorial class (times)

Range of Not at all 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 Above 10 Total
CGPA
0 to 1.99 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.00 to 2.49 0 0 1 0 2 3
2.50 to 2.99 0 2 2 2 2 8
3.00 to 3.49 0 15 7 2 0 24
3.50 to 4.00 3 7 5 0 0 15
Total 3 24 15 4 4 50
Table 3.7: Contingency table of the frequency of checking smartphone corresponding to
students CGPA with the variation of usage frequency

Figure 3.7: The frequency of checking smartphone corresponding to students CGPA with the
variation of usage frequency

Frequency of checking smartphone and

range of CGPA
3.50 to 4.00
Range of CGPA

3.00 to 3.49 Above 10

7 to 9

2.50 to 2.99 4 to 6
1 to 3
Not at all
2.00 to 2.49

0 to 1.99

0 5 10 15 20
Number of students
 12

In order to have better picture of how the frequency of checking the smartphone
resulting in the student CGPA which is the indicator of their academic performance, Table
3.7 and Figure 3.7 are drawn to correlate the relationship. It is noted that with the adequate
and proper usage of smartphone, the CGPA is surprisingly striking high from most of them
score three pointers and above (39 students), compared to the highest checking rate of
smartphone causing the students to have three pointers and below (four respondents). In this
case, the mobile learning still can suggest to the current educational system with the proper
guidance from the educators. As the result obtained by ad & Gkta study found that
preservice teacher still prefers the laptop as the teaching media as compared to the mobile
learning which limit the growth of the mobile learning while in a strictly disallowed condition
leading to rebellion sense of students to abuse the smartphone (ad & Gkta, 2014).
Therefore, proper guidance must be given and monitor thoroughly by the educator. Reap the
benefit, control the uncertainties.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The new era marking the opening page of the smartphone to the tertiary education
institution and the prevalence starts to bud off among the youngsters throughout their
learning process. Up to 88% of the university students take up smartphone to ease their
leaning process in the smartphone as nowadays, smartphone serves as multi-purpose devices;
not only for internet surfing for information (36%), social (26%) as well as note-taking (20%).
The mobile learning using smartphone does not change the pedagogical methodology of the
university but add up a pinch of handheld technology sense in the access to the big database
system where they can access to data anywhere and anytime without the boundaries. This
also provides the students to adequate knowledge with proven academic performance beyond
pointer 3 with reasonable amount of usage frequency from one to three times as shown in the
current study.
 13

REFERENCE

Aljomaa, S. S., Qudah, M. F. A., Albursan, I. S., Bakhiet, S. F., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016).
Smartphone addiction among university students in the light of some variables.
Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 155-164.
Alosaimi, F. D., Alyahya, H., Alshahwan, H., Al Mahyijari, N., & Shaik, S. A. (2016).
Smartphone addiction among university students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi
medical journal, 37(6), 675.
Alvarez, C., Milrad, M., Borie, F., & Luna, M. (2014). Collphoto: A paper+ smartphone
problem solving environment for science and engineering lectures. Paper presented at
the International Conference on Collaboration Technologies.
Enez Darcin, A., Kose, S., Noyan, C. O., Nurmedov, S., Ylmaz, O., & Dilbaz, N. (2016).
Smartphone addiction and its relationship with social anxiety and loneliness.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(7), 520-525.
Gkearslan, ., Mumcu, F. K., Halaman, T., & evik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smartphone
addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and
cyberloafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639-649.
Hernndez, F. A. L., & Prez, M. M. S. (2014). M-learning patterns in the virtual classroom.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 11(1), 208-
221.
Ishii, K. (2011). Examining the adverse effects of mobile phone use among Japanese
adolescents. Keio Communication Review, 33, 69-83.
Lee, J., Cho, B., Kim, Y., & Noh, J. (2015). Smartphone addiction in university students and
its implication for learning Emerging issues in smart learning (pp. 297-305): Springer.
Lee, Y.-K., Chang, C.-T., Lin, Y., & Cheng, Z.-H. (2014). The dark side of smartphone usage:
Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human
Behavior, 31, 373-383.
Noyan, C. O., Darn, A. E., Nurmedov, S., Ylmaz, O., & Dilbaz, N. (2015). Validity and
reliability of the Turkish version of the Smartphone Addiction Scale-Short Version
among university students. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 16, 73-81.
ad, S. N., & Gkta, . (2014). Preservice teachers' perceptions about using mobile phones
and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 45(4), 606-618.
Salehan, M., & Negahban, A. (2013). Social networking on smartphones: When mobile
phones become addictive. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2632-2639.
voor de Statistiek, C. B. (2014). Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands 2014.