LEARNING THROUGH PANDEMIC: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

MODERN TECHNOLOGY AND ITS EFFECTS AS STUDENTS’ AID

FACING THE NEW NORMAL

Assessment of Students’ learning circumstances amidst of corona

(Ch. 4-5)
 CHAPTER 4

4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND

INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data gathering of the study along

with the interpretation of statistical analysis.
 TABLE 2

Gadget (s)/device the respondents are using.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 2 shows the device the students are
Smartphone 20 69.1
using for online classes. It shows that
majority of the respondents(20 or 69.1%)
Desktop/laptop 1 3.4
were using smartphone, seven(7) with a
Both 7 24.1 percentage of 24.1% uses both of the said
gadgets, while respondents who uses
None 1 3.4
desktop or laptop and those who don’t have
Total 29 100 neither devices both have one(1) with a
percentage of 3.4%.
 TABLE 3

Scale on how important technology is for students on their current

circumstances.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 3 presents the scale of the importance

1(not important at all) 1 3.4 of technology usage at their current
2 0 0 circumstances. It indicates that for the
3 0 0
majority of the respondents (22 or 75.9%)
the technology as of now is very important,
4 6 20.7
followed by the second highest rate which
5(Very important) 22 75.9 is 4 that consist of 6 or 20.7 of the
Total 29 100 respondents, 1 or 3.4 stated that it’s not
important at all, and 2 and 3 scale both
sitting at zero rate.
 TABLE 4

Technology in helping students for their classes.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 4 presents the statistics if the

Strongly agree 11 37.9 technology helps the students for their
Agree 14 48.3 classes. Majority (14 or 48.3%) agree that
Neutral 2 6.9
technology, 11 or 37.9% strongly agree on
the said topic, while there is both 2 or 6.9%
Disagree 0 0
each respondents that is neutral and strongly
Strongly agree 2 6.9 disagree, and there’s none on disagree.
Total 29 100
 TABLE 5

Statistics on lack of resources affecting their academic performance.

Device Frequency Percentage(%)

Table 5 presents if the lack of resources
affecting students’ academic performance.
Yes 25 86.20
The majority which is 25 or 86.20%
answered yes while the remaining 4 or
No 4 13.80
13.80% answered no.

Total 29 100
 TABLE 6

Distribution on if the transition of classes made technology more

convenient.

Device Frequency Percentage(%)

Table 6 indicates that the majority (24 or
82.8) agreed that the transition from
Yes 24 82.8
traditional classes to virtual class made the
use of technology more convenient on the
No 5 17.2
other hand 5 or 17.2% answered that it
didn’t.
Total 29 100
 TABLE 7

Distribution on if the online classes is better in any way than

traditional learning without the convenience of technology.

Device Frequency Percentage(%)

Table 7 the students perspective if the
virtual classes can par with the quality
Yes 2 6.9
traditional learning brings without the
convenience of technology. Majority (27 or
No 27 93.1
93.1%) of the respondents answered no and
the remaining 2 or 6.9% answered the
opposite.
Total 29 100
 TABLE 8

Distribution on if technology can help the in their overall academics.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 8 presents the statistics if technology

is a factor on students’ overall academic
Yes 27 93.1
performance. It shows that the majority (27
or 93.1%) of the respondents answered that
technology helps them when it comes to
No 2 6.9
their academics, while the opposite answer
have 2 or 6.9% of the respondents on the
Total 29 100
category
 TABLE 8.1

Technology in helping students for their classes.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 8.1 shows the effects of technology

when it comes to their academics. The
Grades elevated 7 24.1
majority (16 or 55.2%) stated that there’s no
No minor changes 16 55.2
minor changes on their grades, 7 or 24.1%
of the respondents answered that their
Grades declined 6 20.7 grades have elevated, and the remaining 6
or 20.7% of the respondents answered that
Total 29 100 their grades declined.
 TABLE 9

Distribution of data on effectivity of technology to academics.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 9 shows that the majority(13 or

1(not effective at all) 2 6.9 44.9%) of respondents rated the effectivity
2 0 0 of technology to education at 4, followed by
3 5 17.2
5 which have the 9 or 31% of the
respondents, 5 or 17.2% at the 3 point
4 13 44.9
rating, 2 or 6.9% on 1 being not effective,
5(very effective) 9 31 and zero respondents at 2.
Total 29 100
 TABLE 10

University’s approach on virtual learning along with the use of

technology.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 10 presents the rate of students to the

1(not satisfied) 4 13.8 University’s approach along with the help
2 5 17.2 of technology. 14 or 48.3 of the respondents
3 14 48.3
is at 3 being the average response, follow
by 5 or 17.2% at 2, while both 1 being not
4 4 13.8
satisfied and 4 next to the highest rating
5(satisfied) 2 6.9 have 4 or 13.8% respondents each, and the
Total 29 100 category with the least rating is at 5 with
only 2 or 6.9% of the respondents
 TABLE 11

Distribution of data if technology reduce student’s thinking ability.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 11 shows that all of the respondents

(29 or 100%) didn’t get their thinking
Yes 0 0
ability affected or reduced by the use
technology.
No 29 100

Total 29 100
 TABLE 12

Distribution of data if its more convenient to rely on technology when

it comes to academ.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 12 shows the statistics of what

students’ think of being more reliant to
Yes 18 62.1
technology for their academics. It shows
that majority (18 or 62.1%) of the
respondents answered yes as it’s fine to be
No 11 37.9
more reliant on technology’s convenience
when it comes to academics, while 11 or
Total 29 100
37.9% of the respondents answered the
opposite.
 TABLE 13

Rating statistics of the positive effects when using technology for

academics.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 13 shows the rating of the positive

1 0
2 0
3 3
4 9
5 17
Total 29
0 effects of technology for education. It seems
0 to have positive effects on the majority (17
10.3
or 58.6%) of the respondents when it comes
to their education, followed by 4 which is
31.1
the second highest with 9 or 31.1%, then 3
58.6 being the average rating that have 3 or
100 10.3% of the respondents, and both have
zero on the lower category.
 TABLE 14

Rating statistics of the negative effects when using technology for

academics.

Device Frequency Percentage(%) Table 14 below shows the rating statistics

1 9
2 9
3 8
4 2
5 1
Total 29
31 negative effects of technology for academic
31 use. Most of the participant seems they
27.7
don’t experience the negative aspect since
both the lower category which is 2 and 1
6.9
have both 9 or 31% each having 18 or 62%
3.4 of the respondents combined, followed by 3
100 which means average have 8 or 27.7% of
the respondents; on the other hand there’s
only 3 or 10.3% combined the higher
category with 2 or 6.9% on 4 and only 1 or
3.4% on the 5.
 TABLE 15

Distribution of data if negative factors of technology outweigh the

support it gives.

Device Frequency Percentage(%)

Table 15 presents that the negative effects
of technology doesn’t affect positive factors
Yes 4 13.8
the use of technology gives on the students
by the majority (25 or 86.2) answering no,
No 25 86.2
on the other hand it shows that 4 or 13.8%
of the respondents are somehow eclipsed by
its negative effects.
Total 29 100
 CHAPTER 5

Summary, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusions and

recommendations on the study conducted.

 5.1 Summary
The main purpose of this research is to know the significance of technology as well as its effects when it comes to

education and academic performance of the BSIT students’ from City of Malabon University.

Base on the researchers’ hypothesis, the technology forms a massive effect or factor that affects the academic

performance and education quality of the BSIT students from City of Malabon University. The major instruments

that are used on this study are survey questions which is measured with frequency and percentage, google forms to

provide the survey questions conveniently, the correlations were determined by statistical treatment using the said

measurements.
 5.2 Findings

Based on the gathered data, the following information are presented:

1. From over 29 respondents, a frequency of 12 or percentage of 20.7% were 2 nd years, followed by 3rd

years with a frequency of 7 or percentage of 24.1%, then 1st years with a frequency of 6 and

percentage of 20.7%, having 4th year as the lowest with frequency of 4 or 13.8%. Majority of the

respondents were only using a smartphone with frequency of 20 or 69.1%, desktop only users only

consist with a frequency of 1 or 3.4%, respondents who uses both devices have frequency of 7 or

24.1% and those who uses neither of the said devices only have a frequency of 1 or 3.4%.
2. Concerning the importance of technology usage at their current
circumstances. Majority of the respondents with a frequency of 22 or 75.9% the
technology as of now is very important, followed by the second highest rate
which is 4 that consist with a frequency of 6 or 20.7%, a frequency of 1 or 3.4
stated that it’s not important at all, and 2 and 3 scale both sitting at zero rate. In
view of whether the technology helps the students for their classes. Majority
with a frequency 14 or 48.3% agreed that technology gives support, a frequency
of 11 or 37.9% strongly agree on the said topic, while there is both with a
frequency of 2 or 6.9% each that is neutral and strongly disagree, and there’s
none on disagree.
3. In regard to lack of resources affecting students’ academic performance. The majority which is a
frequency of 25 or 86.20% thinks that lack of resources will affect the students’ performance, on the
other hand the remaining with a frequency 4 or 13.80% answered the opposite. The majority with a
frequency of 24 or 82.8% agreed that the transition from traditional classes to virtual class made the
use of technology more convenient, by contrast a frequency 5 or 17.2% answered that it didn’t
became more convenient. In view of the student’ perspective if the virtual classes can par with the
quality traditional learning brings without the convenience of technology. A frequency of 27 or 93.1%
responds that without the use of technology virtual classes can’t par match the quality of traditional
classes, while the remaining with a frequency of 2 or 6.9% answered that even without the use of
technology online classes can give the same quality education the traditional classes provide.
4. In regards to technology’s help on their overall academics. The majority
with a frequency of 27 or 93.1% answered that technology helps them when
it comes to their academics, while the opposite with a frequency of 2 or 6.9%
of the responds that technology isn’t much of a help when it comes to their
education. In view of the technology’s effects on their grades technology
when it comes to their academics. A frequency of 16 or 55.2% stated that
there’s no minor changes on their grades, a frequency 7 or 24.1% of the
answered that their grades have elevated, and the remaining with a frequency
6 or 20.7% have their grades declined.
5. In terms of the effectiveness of technology when it comes to academics.
Majority with a frequency of 13 or 44.9% of rated the effectivity of
technology to education at 4, followed by 5 which have a frequency 9 or
31%, a frequency of 5 or 17.2% at the 3 point rating, frequency of 2 or
6.9% on 1 being not effective, and zero respondents. Concerning with the
University’s approach along with the help of technology. A frequency of
14 or 48.3% is at 3 being the average response, follow by a frequency of 5
or 17.2% at 2, while both 1 being not satisfied and 4 next to the highest
rating have a frequency of 4 or 13.8% each, and the category with the least
rating is at 5 with only consist with a frequency of 2 or 6.9%.
6. Pertaining to the matter if the use of technology reduces the respondents' thinking ability.

All of the respondents (29 or 100%) responds that they didn’t get their thinking ability affected

or reduced by the use technology. In concerns of being more reliant on technology when it

comes to education. The majority with a frequency of 18 or 62.1% answered yes as it’s fine to

be more reliant on technology’s convenience when it comes to academics, while a frequency of

11 or 37.9% of the respondents answered that we shouldn’t rely on technology for academics.
7. On students’ perspective and experience about the positive effects of technology usage, it
seems to have positive effects on the majority with a frequency of 17 or 58.6% of the
respondents when it comes to their education, followed by 4 which is the second highest
with frequency of 9 or 31.1%, then 3 being the average rating that have a frequency of 3 or
10.3%, and both have zero on the lower category. In perspective of the negative effects of
technology for education the respondents seems that they don’t experience the negative
aspect since both the lower category which is 2 And 1 have both a frequency of 9 or 31%
each having a frequency of 18 or 62% of the respondents combined, followed by 3 which
means average have a frequency of 8 or 27.7% of the respondents; on the other hand,
there’s only 3 or 10.3% combined the higher category with 2 or 6.9% on 4 and only 1 or
3.4% on the 5. In regard if the negative effects outweigh the positive factors the technology
provide, the majority with a frequency of 25 or 86.2% doesn’t seem to be affected by the
negative effects, on the other hand a frequency of 4 or 13.8% of the respondents are
somehow eclipsed by its negative effects.