Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 36

Reliability Test.

1- MU
Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 49 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 49 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the


procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.797 19

Observations:-
The result of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.797 which is greater than 0.50 its mean higher than Cronbach’s alpha the
data is more reliable.
Or we can say that the table shows the reliability of alpha is 79% reliability which is greater than the benchmark
the data is reliable as for as Cronbach Alpha.
2-Age
Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 49 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 49 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the


procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.819 19

Observations:-
The result of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.819 which is greater than 0.50 its mean higher than Cronbach’s alpha the
data is more reliable.
Or we can say that the table shows the reliability of alpha is 82% reliability which is greater than the benchmark
the data is reliable as for as Cronbach Alpha.

3-Gender

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 49 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 49 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the


procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.820 19
Observations:-
The result of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.820 which is greater than 0.50 its mean higher than Cronbach’s alpha the
data is more reliable.
Or we can say that the table shows the reliability of alpha is 82% reliability which is greater than the benchmark
the data is reliable as for as Cronbach Alpha.

4- JS

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 49 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 49 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the


procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.818 19

Observations:-
The result of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.818 which is greater than 0.50 its mean higher than Cronbach’s alpha the
data is more reliable.
Or we can say that the table shows the reliability of alpha is 82% reliability which is greater than the benchmark
the data is reliable as for as Cronbach Alpha.

Frequency
Q1: Your Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
less than 25 34 68.0 68.0 68.0
between 25 and 35 14 28.0 28.0 96.0
more than 35 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 68 % respondent of age group less than 25
 28% respondent of age group between 25and 35
 4 % respondent of age group more than 35

Results:
Majority our respondents are less than 25 years of age

Q2: Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
male 20 40.0 40.0 40.0
female 30 60.0 60.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 60 % respondents are female
 40 % respondents are male

Results:
Majority of respondents are Females
Q3: Job Status
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
employed 32 64.0 64.0 64.0
unemployed 18 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 64 %respondents are employed.
 36 % respondents are unemployed.

Results:
64% (Majority) of our respondents are employed

Q4: How many hours do you have cell phone in a day?


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
less than 1 hour 7 14.0 14.0 14.0
1 to 3 hours 18 36.0 36.0 50.0
4 to 6 hours 7 14.0 14.0 64.0
7 to 9 hours 6 12.0 12.0 76.0
more than 10 hours 12 24.0 24.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 36 % respondents have 1 to 3 hours usage of mobile phone.
 24 % respondents have a usage of mobile phone more than 10 hours.
 14 % respondents have a usage of mobile phone less than 1 hours or 4 to 6 hours.
 12% respondents have a usage of mobile phone 7 to 9 hours.

Results:
36 % respondents use 1 to 3 hours mobile phone which are the majority of the respondents

Q5: Mobile phones have great importance in improving student’s quality of


education.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
strongly agree 7 14.0 14.0 14.0
agree 24 48.0 48.0 62.0
undecided 8 16.0 16.0 78.0
disagree 8 16.0 16.0 94.0
strongly disagree 3 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 48% respondents are agreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the quality of
education.
 16 % respondents are either undecided or disagree that mobile phones have a great importance in
improving the quality of education.
 14 % respondents are strongly agreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the
quality of education.
 6% respondents are strongly disagreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the
quality of education.

Results:
Majority of our respondents are agreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the quality of
education.

Q6: Mobile phones help in enhancing student’s knowledge.


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 7 14.0 14.0 14.0
Agree 22 44.0 44.0 58.0
Undecided 8 16.0 16.0 74.0
Disagree 11 22.0 22.0 96.0
strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

 44% of respondents are agreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.
 22% of respondents are disagreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.
 16% of respondents are undecided that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.
 14% of respondents are strongly agreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s
knowledge.
 4% of respondents are strongly disagreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s
knowledge.

Results:
Majority 44% of respondents are agreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.

Q7: Approaching teachers has become more convenient with cell phones.

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

strongly agree 17 34.0 34.0 34.0

Agree 25 50.0 50.0 84.0

Undecided 1 2.0 2.0 86.0

Disagree 5 10.0 10.0 96.0

strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 50% respondents are agreed that approaching teachers has become more convenient with cell phones.
 34% respondents are strongly agreed that approaching teachers has become more convenient with cell
phones.
 10% respondents are disagreed that approaching teachers has become more convenient with cell phones.
 4% respondents are strongly agreed that approaching teachers has become more convenient with cell
phones.
 2% respondents are neutral that approaching teachers has become more convenient with cell phones.

Results:
Majority 50% respondents are agreed that approaching teachers has become more convenient with cell phones.

Q8: The student’s academic performance has been decreased due to excess usage
of cell phones.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 26 52.0 52.0 52.0
Agree 15 30.0 30.0 82.0
Undecided 3 6.0 6.0 88.0
Disagree 6 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 52% respondents are strongly agreed that the student’s academic performance has been decreased due to
the excess usage of cell phone.
 30% respondents are agreed that the student’s academic performance has been decreased due to the
excess usage of cell phone.
 12% respondents are disagreed that the student’s academic performance has been decreased due to the
excess usage of cell phone.
 6% respondents are undecided that the student’s academic performance has been decreased due to the
excess usage of cell phone.

Results:
Majority 52% respondents are strongly agreed that the student’s academic performance has been decreased due
to the excess usage of cell phone.

Q9: The student’s waste their precious time in sending useless SMS to friend during
lectures.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 25 50.0 50.0 50.0
agree 18 36.0 36.0 86.0
undecided 4 8.0 8.0 94.0
disagree 2 4.0 4.0 98.0
strongly disagree 1 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 50% respondents are strongly agreed that the student wastes their precious time in sending useless
SMS to friends during lectures.
 36% respondents are agreed that the student wastes their precious time in sending useless SMS to
friends during lectures.
 8% respondents are undecided that the student wastes their precious time in sending useless SMS to
friends during lectures.
 4% respondents are disagreed that the student wastes their precious time in sending useless SMS to
friends during lectures.
 2% respondents are strongly disagreed that the student wastes their precious time in sending useless
SMS to friends during lectures.

Results:
Majority 50% respondents are strongly agreed that the student wastes their precious time in sending useless
SMS to friends during lectures.

Q10: Student’s punctuality level in classes is adversely affected due to use of cell
phones during late night hours.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 22 44.0 44.0 44.0
Agree 13 26.0 26.0 70.0
Undecided 4 8.0 8.0 78.0
Disagree 9 18.0 18.0 96.0
strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 44 % respondents are strongly agreed that student’s punctuality level in classes is adversely affected due
to use of cell phone during late night hours.
 26% respondents are agreed that student’s punctuality level in classes is adversely affected due to use of
cell phone during late night hours.
 18% respondents are disagreed that student’s punctuality level in classes is adversely affected due to use
of cell phone during late night hours.
 8% respondents are undecided that student’s punctuality level in classes is adversely affected due to use
of cell phone during late night hours.
 4% respondents are strongly disagreed that student’s punctuality level in classes is adversely affected
due to use of cell phone during late night hours.

Results:
Majority 44 % respondents are strongly agreed that student’s punctuality level in classes is adversely affected
due to use of cell phone during late night hours.
Q11: Student’s enjoys music and play games during class lectures.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 10 20.0 20.0 20.0
agree 23 46.0 46.0 66.0
undecided 4 8.0 8.0 74.0
disagree 9 18.0 18.0 92.0
strongly disagree 4 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 46% respondents are agreed that student enjoys music and play games on mobile phone during class
lecture.
 20% respondents are strongly agreed that student enjoys music and play games on mobile phone during
class lecture.
 18% respondents are disagreed that student enjoys music and play games on mobile phone during class
lecture.
 8% respondents are undecided or strongly disagreed that student enjoys music and play games on
mobile phone during class lecture.

Results:
Majority 46% respondents are agreed that student enjoys music and play games on mobile phone during class
lecture.

Q12: Viewing adult contents via cell phones have negative on moral values of
students.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 26 52.0 52.0 52.0
Agree 16 32.0 32.0 84.0
Undecided 4 8.0 8.0 92.0
Disagree 2 4.0 4.0 96.0
strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 52% respondents are strongly agreed that viewing adult contents via cell phones have negative on moral
values of student.
 32% respondents are agreed that viewing adult contents via cell phones have negative on moral values
of student.
 8% respondents are undecided that viewing adult contents via cell phones have negative on moral values
of student.
 4% respondents are disagreed that viewing adult contents via cell phones have negative on moral values
of student.
 4% respondents are strongly disagreed that viewing adult contents via cell phones have negative on
moral values of student.
Results:
Majority 52% respondents are strongly agreed that viewing adult contents via cell phones have negative on
moral values of student.

Q13: The students uses mobile phones for cheating purpose during exams.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 9 18.0 18.0 18.0
Agree 17 34.0 34.0 52.0
Undecided 12 24.0 24.0 76.0
Disagree 7 14.0 14.0 90.0
strongly disagree 5 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 34% respondents are agreed that the student uses mobile phones for cheating purpose during exams.
 24% respondents are undecided that the student uses mobile phones for cheating purpose during exams.
 18% respondents are strongly agreed that the student uses mobile phones for cheating purpose during
exams.
 14% respondents are disagreed that the student uses mobile phones for cheating purpose during exams.
 10% respondents are strongly disagreed that the student uses mobile phones for cheating purpose during
exams.

Results:
Majority 34% respondents are agreed that the student uses mobile phones for cheating purpose during exams.

Q14: During the class lectures, student teases other fellows by sending missed calls
from unknown numbers.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 14 28.0 28.0 28.0
Agree 18 36.0 36.0 64.0
Undecided 5 10.0 10.0 74.0
Disagree 10 20.0 20.0 94.0
strongly disagree 3 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 36% respondents are agreed that during the class lectures, students tease other class fellows by sending
missed calls through unknown numbers.
 28% respondents are strongly agreed that during the class lectures, students tease other class fellows by
sending missed calls through unknown numbers.
 20% respondents are disagreed that during the class lectures, students tease other class fellows by
sending missed calls through unknown numbers.
 10% respondents are undecided that during the class lectures, students tease other class fellows by
sending missed calls through unknown numbers.
 6% respondents are strongly agreed that during the class lectures, students tease other class fellows by
sending missed calls through unknown numbers.
Results:
Majority 36% respondents are agreed that during the class lectures, students tease other class fellows by sending
missed calls through unknown numbers.

Q15: Parents can be directly connected to the teachers via cell phones and student’s
performance.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 16 32.0 32.0 32.0
Agree 14 28.0 28.0 60.0
Undecided 10 20.0 20.0 80.0
Disagree 7 14.0 14.0 94.0
strongly disagree 3 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 32% respondents are strongly agreed that parents can be directly connected to the teachers via cell
phone& access student’s performance.
 28% respondents are agreed that parents can be directly connected to the teachers via cell phone&
access student’s performance.
 20% respondents are undecided that parents can be directly connected to the teachers via cell phone&
access student’s performance.
 14% respondents are disagreed that parents can be directly connected to the teachers via cell phone&
access student’s performance.
 6% respondents are strongly disagreed that parents can be directly connected to the teachers via cell
phone& access student’s performance.

Results:
Majority 32% respondents are strongly agreed that parents can be directly connected to the teachers via cell
phone& access student’s performance.

Q16: Class announcements and deadlines can be announced via cell phones.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 26 52.0 52.0 52.0
Agree 18 36.0 36.0 88.0
Undecided 3 6.0 6.0 94.0
Disagree 2 4.0 4.0 98.0

strongly disagree 1 2.0 2.0 100.0


Total 50 100.0 100.0
Observations:-
 52% respondents arestrongly agreed that the class announcements and deadlines can be announced via
cell phones.
 36% respondents are agreed that the class announcements and deadlines can be announced via cell
phones.
 6% respondents are undecided that the class announcements and deadlines can be announced via cell
phones.
 4% respondents are disagreed that the class announcements and deadlines can be announced via cell
phones.
 2% respondents are strongly disagreed that the class announcements and deadlines can be announced via
cell phones.

Results:
Majority 52% respondents are strongly agreed that the class announcements and deadlines can be announced
via cell phones.

Q17: Mobile phones abbreviations adversely affect the writing composition of


students.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 24 48.0 48.0 48.0
Agree 18 36.0 36.0 84.0
Undecided 4 8.0 8.0 92.0
Disagree 4 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-

 48% respondents are strongly agreed that mobile phone abbreviations adversely affect the writing
composition of students.
 36% respondents are agreed that mobile phone abbreviations adversely affect the writing
composition of students.
 8% respondents are undecided that mobile phone abbreviations adversely affect the writing
composition of students.
 8% respondents are disagreed that mobile phone abbreviations adversely affect the writing
composition of students.

Results:
Majority 48% respondents are strongly agreed that mobile phone abbreviations adversely affect the writing
composition of students.
Q18: Excess usage of cell phones will have less interaction among family members.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 23 46.0 46.0 46.0
Agree 15 30.0 30.0 76.0
Undecided 2 4.0 4.0 80.0
Disagree 8 16.0 16.0 96.0
strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 46% respondents are strongly agreed that excess usage of cell phone decrease the interaction between
the family members.
 30% respondents are agreed that excess usage of cell phone decrease the interaction between the family
members.
 16% respondents are disagreed that excess usage of cell phone decrease the interaction between the
family members.
 4% respondents are undecided or strongly disagreed that excess usage of cell phone decrease the
interaction between the family members.

Results:
Majority 46% of respondent are strongly agreed that excess usage of cell phone decrease the interaction
between the family members.

Q19: In cell phones, internet option helps the student to submit online assignment
with ease.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 16 32.0 32.0 32.0
Agree 17 34.0 34.0 66.0
Undecided 10 20.0 20.0 86.0
Disagree 6 12.0 12.0 98.0
strongly disagree 1 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 34% respondents are agreed that in cell phone, internet option helps the students to online submit the
assignment with ease.
 32% respondents are strongly agreed that in cell phone, internet option helps the students to online
submit the assignment with ease.
 20% respondents are undecided that in cell phone, internet option helps the students to online submit the
assignment with ease.
 12% respondents are disagreed that in cell phone, internet option helps the students to online submit the
assignment with ease.
 2% respondents are strongly disagreed that in cell phone, internet option helps the students to online
submit the assignment with ease.
Results:
Majority 34% respondents are agreed that in cell phone, internet option
helps the students to online submit the assignment with ease.

Q20: In cell phone, reminder option helps the student to actively perform their tasks
on time.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 14 28.0 28.0 28.0
agree 21 42.0 42.0 70.0
undecided 6 12.0 12.0 82.0
disagree 9 18.0 18.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 42% respondents are agreed that in cell phone, reminder option helps the students to actively perform
their tasks on time.
 28% respondents are strongly agreed that in cell phone, reminder option helps the students to actively
perform their tasks on time.
 18% respondents are disagreed that in cell phone, reminder option helps the students to actively perform
their tasks on time.
 12% respondents are undecided that in cell phone, reminder option helps the students to actively
perform their tasks on time.

Results:
Majority 42% respondents are agreed that in cell phone, reminder option helps the students to actively perform
their tasks on time.

Q21: The mobile phones features help the students to share material with other
classmates.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 16 32.0 32.0 32.0
Agree 23 46.0 46.0 78.0
Undecided 3 6.0 6.0 84.0
Disagree 6 12.0 12.0 96.0
strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 46% respondents are agreed that the mobile phone features helps the students to share materials among
other class mates.
 32% respondents are strongly agreed that the mobile phone features helps the students to share materials
among other class mates.
 12% respondents are disagreed that the mobile phone features helps the students to share materials
among other class mates.
 6% respondents are undecided that the mobile phone features helps the students to share materials
among other class mates.
 4% respondents are strongly disagreed that the mobile phone features helps the students to share
materials among other class mates.

Results:
46% respondents are agreed that the mobile phone features helps the students to share materials among other
class mates.

Q22: The disturbance substantially decreases when the cell phone is switched to
silent mode.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
strongly agree 25 50.0 50.0 50.0
Agree 19 38.0 38.0 88.0
Undecided 1 2.0 2.0 90.0
Disagree 3 6.0 6.0 96.0
strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Observations:-
 50% respondents are strongly agreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.
 38% respondents are agreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is switched
to silent mode.
 6% respondents are disagreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.
 4% respondents are strongly disagreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.
 2% respondents are undecided that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.

Results:
Majority 50% of respondents are strongly agreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.
5- Cross Tabs (Contingency Tabs)

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

MU * Gender 49 100.0% 0 .0% 49 100.0%

MU * Gender Crosstabulation

Gender

Male Female Total

MU Less than 1 hour Count 4 3 7

% within MU 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

1 to 3 hours Count 6 12 18

% within MU 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

4 to 6 hours Count 3 4 7

% within MU 42.9% 57.1% 100.0%

7 to 9 hours Count 1 4 5

% within MU 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

More than 10 hours Count 5 7 12

% within MU 41.7% 58.3% 100.0%

Total Count 19 30 49

% within MU 38.8% 61.2% 100.0%

Observations:-
 61.2 % respondents are total numbers of female
 38.8 % respondents are total numbers of male
 57.1 % respondents are male (Less than 1 hour)
 80.0 % respondents are female (7 to 9 hours)

Results:
Majority of respondents are Females (61.2% out off 100%)
Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

MU * Gender 49 100.0% 0 .0% 49 100.0%

MU * JS Crosstabulation

JS

Employed Unemployed Total

MU Less than 1 hour Count 5 2 7

% within MU 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

1 to 3 hours Count 9 9 18

% within MU 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

4 to 6 hours Count 3 4 7

% within MU 42.9% 57.1% 100.0%

7 to 9 hours Count 3 2 5

% within MU 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

More than 10 hours Count 11 1 12

% within MU 91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

Total Count 31 18 49

% within MU 63.3% 36.7% 100.0%

Observations:-
 63.3 % respondents are employed.
 36.7 % respondents are unemployed.

Results:
63.3 % (Majority) of our respondents are Employed

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

MU * Age 49 100.0% 0 .0% 49 100.0%


MU * Age Crosstabulation

Age

Between 25 and
Less than 25 35 More than 35 Total

MU Less than 1 hour Count 3 3 1 7

% within MU 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0%

1 to 3 hours Count 15 3 0 18

% within MU 83.3% 16.7% .0% 100.0%

4 to 6 hours Count 5 2 0 7

% within MU 71.4% 28.6% .0% 100.0%

7 to 9 hours Count 4 1 0 5

% within MU 80.0% 20.0% .0% 100.0%

More than 10 hours Count 6 5 1 12

% within MU 50.0% 41.7% 8.3% 100.0%

Total Count 33 14 2 49

% within MU 67.3% 28.6% 4.1% 100.0%

Observations:-
 67.3 % respondent of age group less than 25
 28.6 % respondent of age group between 25and 35
 4.1 % respondent of age group more than 35

Results:
(67.3% of respondent in majority are less than 25 years of age

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

MU * Q5 49 100.0% 0 .0% 49 100.0%


MU * Q5 Crosstabulation

Q5

Strongly
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Total

MU Less than 1 hour Count 1 2 0 2 2 7

% within MU 14.3% 28.6% .0% 28.6% 28.6% 100.0%

1 to 3 hours Count 1 8 7 1 1 18

% within MU 5.6% 44.4% 38.9% 5.6% 5.6% 100.0%

4 to 6 hours Count 0 5 1 1 0 7

% within MU .0% 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% .0% 100.0%

7 to 9 hours Count 2 1 0 2 0 5

% within MU 40.0% 20.0% .0% 40.0% .0% 100.0%

More than 10 hours Count 3 8 0 1 0 12

% within MU 25.0% 66.7% .0% 8.3% .0% 100.0%

Total Count 7 24 8 7 3 49

% within MU 14.3% 49.0% 16.3% 14.3% 6.1% 100.0%

Observations:-
 49.0% respondents are agreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the quality of
education.
 16.3 % respondents are either undecided that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the
quality of education.
 14.3 % respondents are strongly agreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the
quality of education.
 14.3% respondents are strongly disagreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the
quality of education.
 6.1% respondents are strongly disagreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the
quality of education.

Results:
Majority of our respondents are agreed that mobile phones have a great importance in improving the quality of
education.

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

MU * Q6 49 100.0% 0 .0% 49 100.0%


MU * Q6 Crosstabulation

Q6

Strongly
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Total

MU Less than 1 hour Count 1 2 1 2 1 7

% within MU 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0%

1 to 3 hours Count 2 7 3 5 1 18

% within MU 11.1% 38.9% 16.7% 27.8% 5.6% 100.0%

4 to 6 hours Count 0 6 1 0 0 7

% within MU .0% 85.7% 14.3% .0% .0% 100.0%

7 to 9 hours Count 2 1 0 2 0 5

% within MU 40.0% 20.0% .0% 40.0% .0% 100.0%

More than 10 hours Count 2 6 3 1 0 12

% within MU 16.7% 50.0% 25.0% 8.3% .0% 100.0%

Total Count 7 22 8 10 2 49

% within MU 14.3% 44.9% 16.3% 20.4% 4.1% 100.0%

 44.9% of respondents are agreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.
 20.4% of respondents are disagreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.
 16.3% of respondents are undecided that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.
 14.3% of respondents are strongly agreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s
knowledge.
 4.1% of respondents are strongly disagreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s
knowledge.

Results:
Majority 44.9% of respondents are agreed that mobile phones help in enhancing the student’s knowledge.

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

MU * Q22 49 100.0% 0 .0% 49 100.0%


MU * Q22 Crosstabulation

Q22

Strongly
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Total

MU Less than 1 hour Count 5 1 0 0 1 7

% within MU 71.4% 14.3% .0% .0% 14.3% 100.0%

1 to 3 hours Count 10 6 0 2 0 18

% within MU 55.6% 33.3% .0% 11.1% .0% 100.0%

4 to 6 hours Count 2 4 0 1 0 7

% within MU 28.6% 57.1% .0% 14.3% .0% 100.0%

7 to 9 hours Count 2 2 0 0 1 5

% within MU 40.0% 40.0% .0% .0% 20.0% 100.0%

More than 10 hours Count 5 6 1 0 0 12

% within MU 41.7% 50.0% 8.3% .0% .0% 100.0%

Total Count 24 19 1 3 2 49

% within MU 49.0% 38.8% 2.0% 6.1% 4.1% 100.0%

Observations:-
 49.0% respondents are strongly agreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.
 38.8% respondents are agreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.
 6.1% respondents are disagreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.
 4.1% respondents are strongly disagreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone
is switched to silent mode.
 2.0% respondents are undecided that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone is
switched to silent mode.

Results:
Majority 49.0% of respondents are strongly agreed that the disturbance substantially decreases when the phone
is switched to silent mode.
Testing Of Hypotheses. (One single T-Test)

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

MU 49 2.94 1.435 .205

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

MU 14.337 48 .000 2.939 2.53 3.35

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000s less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

MU 49 2.94 1.435 .205

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 2.5

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

MU 2.141 48 .037 .439 .03 .85

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.037 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

MU 49 2.94 1.435 .205


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

MU -.299 48 .766 -.061 -.47 .35

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.766 Greater than 0.05 we Accepted Ho

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

MU 49 2.94 1.435 .205

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3.5

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

MU -2.738 48 .009 -.561 -.97 -.15

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.009 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Testing of Hypotheses (Different of two population mean)

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Age 1.37 49 .566 .081

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Age 49 .080 .587


Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Age 1.571 1.500 .214 1.141 2.002 7.333 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Gender 1.61 49 .492 .070

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Gender 49 .054 .712

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference
Std. Error
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Gender 1.327 1.491 .213 .898 1.755 6.226 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

JS 1.37 49 .487 .070


Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & JS 49 -.235 .103

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference
Std. Error
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - JS 1.571 1.620 .231 1.106 2.037 6.789 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q5 2.49 49 1.102 .157

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q5 49 -.363 .010

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q5 .449 2.102 .300 -.155 1.053 1.495 48 .141

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.141 Greater than 0.05 we Accepted Ho


Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q6 2.55 49 1.100 .157

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q6 49 -.242 .094

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q6 .388 2.008 .287 -.189 .965 1.351 48 .183

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.183 Greater than 0.05 we Accepted Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q7 2.00 49 1.080 .154

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q7 49 -.175 .230


Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q7 .939 1.941 .277 .381 1.496 3.386 48 .001

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.001 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q8 1.80 49 1.020 .146

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q8 49 .062 .670

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q8 1.143 1.708 .244 .652 1.633 4.684 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q9 1.73 49 .930 .133


Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q9 49 -.012 .932

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference
Std. Error
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q9 1.204 1.720 .246 .710 1.698 4.901 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q10 2.12 49 1.285 .184

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q10 49 .185 .203

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q10 .816 1.740 .249 .317 1.316 3.284 48 .002

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.002 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho


Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q11 2.49 49 1.244 .178

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q11 49 -.100 .496

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q11 .449 1.990 .284 -.123 1.021 1.579 48 .121

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.121 Greater than 0.05 we Accepted Ho


Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q12 1.78 49 1.046 .149

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q12 49 -.148 .310

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q12 1.163 1.897 .271 .618 1.708 4.293 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q13 2.67 49 1.214 .173

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q13 49 -.060 .684

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q13 .265 1.934 .276 -.290 .821 .960 48 .342

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.342 Greater than 0.05 we Accepted Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q14 2.43 49 1.258 .180


Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q14 49 .003 .982

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q14 .510 1.905 .272 -.037 1.057 1.874 48 .067

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.067 Greater than 0.05 we Accepted Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q14 2.43 49 1.258 .180

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q14 49 .003 .982

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q14 .510 1.905 .272 -.037 1.057 1.874 48 .067

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.067 Greater than 0.05 we Accepted Ho


Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q16 1.69 49 .918 .131

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q16 49 .001 .993

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q16 1.245 1.702 .243 .756 1.734 5.120 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q17 1.78 49 .919 .131

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q17 49 -.058 .692


Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q17 1.163 1.748 .250 .661 1.665 4.658 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.000 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q18 2.02 49 1.250 .179

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q18 49 .024 .870

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q18 .918 1.880 .269 .378 1.458 3.419 48 .001

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.001 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q19 2.20 49 1.080 .154


Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q19 49 -.288 .045

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q19 .735 2.029 .290 .152 1.317 2.535 48 .015

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.015 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q20 2.22 49 1.046 .149

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q20 49 .023 .874

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q20 .714 1.756 .251 .210 1.219 2.847 48 .006

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.006 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho


Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q21 2.12 49 1.111 .159

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q21 49 -.270 .061

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q21 .816 2.038 .291 .231 1.402 2.804 48 .007

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.007 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 MU 2.94 49 1.435 .205

Q22 1.78 49 1.046 .149

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 MU & Q22 49 .032 .826


Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the


Difference
Std. Error
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 MU - Q22 1.163 1.748 .250 .661 1.665 4.658 48 .000

Result: Probability value is equal to 0.00 less than 0.05 we rejected Ho