Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15


Faculty of Economics and International Business


Student ID
Phm Th Hnh 1201017091
Nguyn Ngc Huy 1201017131
inh Tin Ph 1201017261
Trn Bch Phng 1201017283
Nguyn Ngc Thy Qunh 1201017300
Nguyn Th Bch Trm 1201017394

Ho Chi Minh City April, 2014
List of members
No Full Name Student ID
1 Phm Th Hnh 1201017091
2 Nguyn Ngc Huy 1201017131
3 inh Tin Ph 1201017261
4 Trn Bch Phng 1201017283
5 Nguyn Ngc Thy Qunh 1201017300
6 Nguyn Th Bch Trm 1201017394

In this digitization world, media is constantly improved day by day. From the laptop
to the cell phone, especially smart phone. Using modern technology to serve for the
purpose of learning is really a powerful tool. However, beside the good side, it still
has some downsides surround the use of phone. Almost student use smart phone more
than 2 hours each day. Spending too much time using phone may be the reason makes
scores student feel lack of concentration, lacking of sleeping or even though it can
makes student live in digital world and live far away from people around them. So
how about student of Foreign Trade University II? Using smart phone too much make
effect on learning outcomes? Isnt it? Thus, our group researched, reviewed and
analyzed the relationship between the time using smart phone of student at FTU2 in
Ho Chi Minh City and their learning outcomes. Purposes of researching is
understanding clearly the degree of influence of time using smart phone to the result
of learning and review that if spending lots of times on using smart phone, Will they
really effect to your learning outcomes? If yes, we will show some ways to surmount
this situation. Through the using of factor ANOVA variance methods from the direct
survey 245 students, we have a conclusion that using smart phone too much can effect
to students results. Finally, our group will expose some ways to restrict using smart
phone excessively and how to use efficiently to promote the learning outcomes of
each student.
KEY WORDS: Learning outcome, time of using, analysis of variance, foreign trade
university 2, students, one-way ANOVA, Tukey's HSD test
1. Introduction
Nowadays, along with the evolution of Information Technology, telephones are not
only for texting and calling purposes, but they also help us to connect with each other
via social networks, email and other online services... These smartphones are
becoming more modern and helpful day after day. However, overusing smartphone
may cause many negative effects on everyone especially college students. These
effects include decline in health, waste of time and decrease in study result... The
decrease in study result is the most serious consequence when smartphones are getting
commoner among the students.
The phenomenon that smartphones are addictive and affect many respects of life is no
new problem. It has appeared so many times on the media. This is an unsolvable
problem for the students as well as a deep concern for the parents. Therefore we
decide to carry on the topic The effect of smartphone on the study result of the
student in Foreign Trade University branch II by analyzing One - factor ANOVA.
We find down how the percentage, scale and usage of smartphone of the second-year
student of Foreign Trade University branch II in HCMC change their study result as
well as propose some solution to overcome this worrying problem.
2. Theory and research methodology
2.1. Theoretical basis and Analysis framework
While the analysis of variance succeeded in the 20th century, antecedents extend
centuries into the past according to Stigler. These include hypothesis testing, the
partitioning of sums of squares, experimental techniques and the additive model.
Laplace was performing hypothesis testing in the 1770s. The development of least-
squares methods by Laplace and Gauss circa 1800 provided an improved method of
squares. By 1827, Laplace was using least squares methods to address ANOVA
problems regarding measurements of atmospheric tides.
The phrase analysis of variance was coined by Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, a
statistician of the twentieth century, who defined it as the separation of variance
ascribable to one group of causes from the variance ascribable to the other groups.
Tests hypotheses are made about differences between two or more means. If
independent estimates of variance can be obtained from the data, ANOVA compares
the means of different groups by analyzing comparisons of variance estimates. There
are two models for ANOVA, the fixed effects model, and the random effects model
(in the latter, the treatments are not fixed).
The purpose of analysis of variance is to see if there is any difference between groups
on some variable. In research, analysis of variance is used as a way to consider the
effect of a cause factor to the results factor.
The method contains:
Supposing we have k groups 1, 2, 3 k (may be different from size). Calling
Xij: observation j of group i
Group 1 Group 2 Group k




Hypothesis: Ho 1=2=k
H1: 1differnt 2different k
Step 1 : Find the average each group : =

Find the average each group: ): =

Step 2 : Find total sum of squares
SSW- Within groups sum of squares:

SSG Between group sum of squares

Total sum of squares SST=SSW+SSG=

Step 3: Find variances
MSW (mean square within): MSW=

MSB (mean square between): MSB=

Step 4: One-way ANOVA Table
Source of
(sum of
(degrees of
(mean of
F ratio
SSB k-1


SSW n-k MSW=

Total SST n-1

In: k number of populations
N Sum of the sample size from all populations
df Degrees of freedom
HSD (honest significant difference) test
The purpose of the analysis of variance is to test the hypothesis H0 that the
overall average is equal. After the analysis and conclusions, there are two cases which
can occur: H0 hypothesis is accepted or rejected .If the hypothesis H0 is accepted,
analysis will end. If the hypothesis H0 is rejected, the overall average is not equal. So
the next further issue is to analyze and identify that any group is different from other
groups, the average of groups is greater or smaller.
There are many methods to calculate when hypothesis H0 is rejected. We use
Tukey method. The content of this method is to compare pairs of the average
groups at a significance level for all possible tested pairs to detect the different
groups .
Research by U.S. scientists at Kent State University of Ohio found that students-
students using smart phone too much can lead to anxiety and learning outcome
decline. The researcher surveyed 500 students on daily smartphone usage , lifestyle
analysis and academic scores for the purpose of considering whether smartphones can
help improve their lives or not.

The result shows that using smartphone too much has scores of disadvantage. Students
who use too much have the worst score but they are at the highest level of anxiety.

The team reported in the journal Computers in Human Behavior majors: "When the
frequency of mobile phone use is too high, the degree of success in learning and in life
fell comfortable. Statistical modeling suggests that such relationships are clear.

Research of Dr. Karla Murdock at Washington Lee (USA) University has the same
result. This research shows that students who send a lot of message usually less sleep
and more stress than others.
Based on that, we decide to use analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD test to survey
whether using smartphone affects to the study result of the second-year student of
FTU II or not.
2.2 Methods of data collection and model estimation technique
The data used in this research is collected from the researchers questionnaires.
Because of time and resources restriction, the researchers only carry survey on 238
people. Therefore, the result cannot generalize for the whole set because each
individual surveyed has their own features and cannot represent for the whole set.
We had to choose the one factor ANOVA to analyze. Compare the average of
many populations based on the average of models. Consider the effect of one factor
reason to result factor.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Descriptive data
Below is the data collected from 238 people, questioned about how many hours
the sophomore of FTU II use smartphone and their study result / average mark? Base
on their using hour, we divided them into 4 groups (as shown in the table). The unit of
measure is hour.

Groups of factor

from 0h to 2h >2h to 4h >4h to 6h >6h
8,88 7,20 7,90 7,11
8,12 8,17 8,00 7,90
7,90 8,04 7,00 7,80
8,79 8,30 7,80 7,00
8,00 8,00 6,00 8,79
7,80 7,60 5,70 7,20
7,00 8,07 6,70 8,79
8,40 7,80 6,80 5,60
8,90 8,00 7,60 8,00
7,50 8,40 7,00 6,80
9,00 7,60 7,80 6,40
8,50 8,00 7,80 6,90
8,70 8,70 7,00 6,60
9,20 8,40 8,20 7,20
8,90 8,30 7,00 7,30
8,00 8,00 7,90 6,70
7,90 7,60 7,80 6,80
8,20 7,90 8,46 7,00
8,50 7,80 7,20 5,80
7,80 8,00 6,20 8,00
8,00 7,80 8,20 6,80
8,50 7,40 8,40 7,00
8,90 6,70 8,50 7,20
8,00 8,60 8,10 7,60
7,00 8,00 8,30 6,00
8,70 9,10 7,50 7,10
6,80 7,90 6,60 8,00
9,00 7,00 7,70 5,80
7,80 9,03 8,80 7,00
7,60 8,00 8,60 7,12
7,60 7,90 8,00 7,12
7,30 7,70 7,00 5,00
8,20 8,80 7,00 7,12
7,50 7,70 7,00 7,12
7,90 9,00 7,40 6,19
8,00 6,90 7,40 6,95
7,80 7,70 7,90 6,95
8,80 8,00 8,00 5,54
7,60 7,85 7,44 6,68
8,20 7,00 7,67 6,68
8,50 8,50 7,12 6,34
7,00 8,60 7,32 5,00
8,00 7,40 7,32 6,45
7,80 8,30 7,67 6,45
8,30 8,29 7,55 5,54
8,29 8,50 7,12 5,62
6,80 6,00 7,12 5,62
7,00 7,83 7,44 5,14
8,16 7,00 6,95 7,80
7,60 7,46 7,85 7,00
8,23 8,20 7,67 4,00
6,50 7,60 6,00 7,90
6,50 8,19 7,80 5,00
7,58 8,15 6,86
6,80 5,00
8,16 6,00
8,87 7,50

3.2 One-way ANOVA model
Ho: There is no different in the average monthly food cost between 4 group. (1 = 2
= 3 = 4)
H1: The average monthly food cost of them are not equal.

Table 1: Anova: Single Factor by Excel

Groups Count Sum Average Variance
from 0h to 2h 74 595,6 8,048648649 0,485674861
>2h to 4h 54 427,98 7,925555556 0,354579874
>4h to 6h 57 421,66 7,39754386 0,569683145
>6h 53 356,52 6,726792453 0,961922206

Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Groups 63,15854893 3 21,05284964 36,17827298 3,02055E-19 2,64318
Groups 136,1692091 234 0,581919697

Total 199,327758 237

If F > F crit, we reject the null hypothesis. As we can see in the table above:
36.178273 > 2.6432. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis. The means of the four
populations are not all equal. At least one of the means is different. Therefore, we can
say that the hour for using smart phone does affect how much to the result / average
mark of students.
3.3 HSD (honest significant difference) test
Because the null hypothesis has been rejected, the result / average mark of four
groups are not equal. However, in order to find out how they differ from each other,
we need to do Tukeys HSD (honest significant difference) test and compare each
couple of group.

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

From 0h to 2h and >2h to 4h
Ho: 1 - 2 =0
Table 2: Tukeys HSD test (from 0h to 2h and >2h to 4h) by Excel
from 0h to 2h >2h to 4h
Mean 8,048648649 7,925555556
Variance 0,485674861 0,354579874
Observations 74 54
Pooled Variance 0,430531732
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 126
t Stat 1,048187211
P(T<=t) one-tail 0,14827941
t Critical one-tail 1,657036982
P(T<=t) two-tail 0,296558819
t Critical two-tail 1,978970602

In this table: -1.978970602 < 1.048187211 < 1.978970602 . Therefore, 1 - 2 = 0 ,
the result / average mark of the two groups are different.

From 0h to 2h and >4h to 6h
Ho: 1 - 3 = 0
Table 3: Tukeys HSD test (from 0h to 2h and >4h to 6h) by Excel
from 0h to 2h >4h to 6h
Mean 8,048648649 7,39754386
Variance 0,485674861 0,569683145
Observations 74 57
Pooled Variance 0,522143574
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 129
t Stat 5,112973725
P(T<=t) one-tail 5,58858E-07
t Critical one-tail 1,656751594
P(T<=t) two-tail 1,11772E-06
t Critical two-tail 1,978524491

If t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we reject the null
hypothesis. In this table: 5.112973725 > 1.978524491. Therefore, 1 3 , the result /
average mark of the two groups are different.

From to 2h and >6h
Ho: 1 - 4 = 0
Table 4: Tukeys HSD test (from to 2h and >6h) by Excel
from 0h to 2h >6h
Mean 8,048648649 6,726792453
Variance 0,485674861 0,961922206
Observations 74 53
Pooled Variance 0,683793757
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 125
t Stat 8,883284671
P(T<=t) one-tail 2,94495E-15
t Critical one-tail 1,657135178
P(T<=t) two-tail 5,88989E-15
t Critical two-tail 1,979124109

If t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we reject the null
hypothesis. In this table: 8.883284671 > 1.979124109. Therefore, 1 4 , the result
/ average mark of the two groups are different.
>2h to 4h and >4h to 6h
Ho: 2 - 3 = 0
Table 5: Tukeys HSD test (>2h to 4h and >4h to 6h) by Excel
>2h to 4h >4h to 6h
Mean 7,925555556 7,39754386
Variance 0,354579874 0,569683145
Observations 54 57
Pooled Variance 0,465091647
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 109
t Stat 4,077059893
P(T<=t) one-tail 4,34777E-05
t Critical one-tail 1,658953458
P(T<=t) two-tail 8,69554E-05
t Critical two-tail 1,98196749

If t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we reject the null
hypothesis. In this table: 4.077059893 > 1.98196749. Therefore, 2 3 , the result /
average mark of the two groups are different.

>2h to 4h and >6h
Ho: 2 - 4 = 0
Table 6: Tukeys HSD test (>2h to 4h and >6h) by Excel
>2h to 4h >6h
Mean 7,925555556 6,726792453
Variance 0,354579874 0,961922206
Observations 54 53
Pooled Variance 0,655358934
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 105
t Stat 7,65837593
P(T<=t) one-tail 4,86251E-12
t Critical one-tail 1,659495383
P(T<=t) two-tail 9,72502E-12
t Critical two-tail 1,982815274

If t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we reject the null
hypothesis. In this table: 7.65837593 > 1.982815274. Therefore, 2 4, the result /
average mark of the two groups are different.
>4h to 6h and >6h
Ho: 3 - 4 = 0
Table 7: Tukeys HSD test (>4h to 6h and >6h) by Excel
>4h to 6h >6h
Mean 7,39754386 6,726792453
Variance 0,569683145 0,961922206
Observations 57 53
Pooled Variance 0,758538989
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 108
t Stat 4,03600465
P(T<=t) one-tail 5,09091E-05
t Critical one-tail 1,659085144
P(T<=t) two-tail 0,000101818
t Critical two-tail 1,982173483

If t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we reject the null
hypothesis. In this table: 4.03600465 >1.982173483. Therefore, 3 4, the result /
average mark of the two groups are different.
Through the analyzing process above, we can say that the result / average mark differs
significantly as the hour for using smart phone change, except the case of group 1 and
2, cause the difference in the hour for using smart phone between them is not big

4. Conclusion and Policy Implication
After researching influences of using smartphones on the study results of Foreign
Trade University II students, we can know that the time of using smartphones plays an
important role in their study results.
Although study results depend on many impacts such as intelligence, hard-working,
study method and so on, time for studying is also a very essential one. The more time
students spend on using smartphones, the less time they spend on studying. When a
student spend more time on learning, his or her study results will be certain better and
vice versa. It is very clear that screen time right before bed is bad for sleep. And using
your smartphone late at night also makes you feel depleted in the morning, thereby
making you less focused and engaged at studying.
To have a good study result, a student need know how to arrange study time and
reasonable entertainment. Time for using smartphones should be within a certain
limit. It will be better for students health as well as study results if they do not use
smartphone after 9 pm. Smartphones only brings much benefit and convenience when
students know how to use them reasonably.
1. Fisher .Ronald Aylmer ,sir (1890-1962) -The analysis of variance with various
binomial transformations

2. Landau S, Everitt BS. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using SPSS,
Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2004.

3. Fisher, Ronald Aylmer, Sir, 1890-1962-Answer to query 114 on the effect of
errors of grouping in an analysis of variance

4. Wikipedia, Articles about Tukeys HSD test.

5. Hoang Tran Van and Van Le Hong (2013), Principles of Statistics, Vietnam
National University-Ho Chi Minh City Press, Ho Chi Minh City.

6. David F.G., Patrick W.S., Phillip C.F. and Kent D.S. (2010), Business Statistics
8th edition, Pearson.