Laptop Increase The Efficiency Of Students

1

Final Project

LAPTOP INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF STUDENTS Mamoona Islam GIFT Business School, GIFT University, Gujranwala. Pakistan

Abstract This Research document presents an empirically authorized approach that laptop increase the efficiency of students. Research was conducted amongst students of different universities coming from four different cities, to check competence of their work by usage of laptop. This document will provide the factors that become efficient after usage of laptop. Discussions, consequences, and suggestions will help in generating result that whether laptop provides a competitive edge or not.

Introduction: Over the past, the presence of computers in schools has burst out. Whereas schools had one computer for every 125 students in 1983, they had one for every nine students in 1995, and 1 for every 6 students in 1998 (Market Data Retrieval, 1999).then teachers start using computer in their instruction, computers are used most often for student writing (Becker, 1999). As several studies reveals, regular use of computers can lead to a noteworthy improvement (see Russell & Plati, 2001, for a fuller review of the literature on computers and writing). To take advantage of on these benefits, a few schools have made computers available to all of their students. In most schools, however, the relatively high cost of computers prohibits schools from acquiring a sufficient quantity of computers for all students to use simultaneously. In attempts to provide an entire class of students with computer access, some schools place large numbers of computers into a shared computer lab. With the passage of time students started using laptop for their project, Assignments and quizzes preparation etc. That gives them competitive edge and increases their effectiveness For students, laptop computers are cognitive tools. It provides computer-mediated workspaces for the rapid, flexible processing of symbolic representations and abstract concepts. In addition

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

2

Final Project

to aiding the process of learning (research, , communication, discovery, composition, revision), laptops also support the creation of products (reports, , images, video, graphs, maps, web pages).

Literature Review: According to “KZNDEC LAPTOP POLICY” Laptop is portable computer, small enough that it can sit on your lap. It is microcomputer that is portable and suitable for use while traveling (oxford university press, 2008). A laptop computer or simply laptop also known as notebook computer, notebook and notepad is a small mobile computer, which usually weighs 2-18 pounds around 1 to 8 kilograms, depending on size, materials, and other factors.

Department of Education conducted a research in Jan 2006, to find that either laptop increase the efficiency of the students or not. They found, K-12 students live in a digital world. Technology is not a handy tool used to accomplish tasks; it is the way of life. In the old days, students and teachers looked to the Encyclopedia Britannica for answers. Today, they have a world of information at a transformation in the way teachers instruct and students learn. The study shows that Students have improved research skills. For example, after two years of a laptop initiative in Henrico Country, scores for high school students increased on all 11 of the Virginia Standards of Learning tests. Students report that laptops make their school work easier and help improve the quality of their work. Students are more interested in their school work and more motivated to learn. Students spend more time engaging in collaborative work.

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

3

Final Project

Although much of the research on laptop programs is still on-going, preliminary findings report several positive effects. Focusing on laptop programs in Carmen Arce Middle School in Connecticut, Cromwell (1999) provides anecdotal evidence from staff and administrators that laptops have increased students’ sense of excitement about learning as well as their interest in research and writing. In Town Country Middle School in Georgia, Baldwin (1999) reports that after implementing a laptop program, average daily attendance increased, tardiness decreased, and disciplinary referrals decreased. In addition, teachers reported an increase in students’ willingness to revise their work and an increased efficiency in introducing students to more advanced mathematics. Students also reported spending more time on home-work and less time watching television (Baldwin, 1999).

Methodology: Research Design: Survey was conducted through Questioner. A self Administrate questionnaire was used as a communication tool for research. Questionnaire was divided into three portions, first is demographic, second is to check the device that increase efficiency, third part dealt Various Factors that have become Efficient after Use of Laptop developed on five Likert scale. The study is exploratory and formal Sample Design: Descriptive study is used for sampling. Sampling was Convenient Based. Data was collected from the Students of four different cities studying in GIFT University and Punjab University. The Students from all departments were the target Audience (38.5 % BBA, 5.5 % Bsc,

27 %

MBA, 25 % others) and both from private and Government university. 50% of respondents were male and 50 % are female. Data Collection: 200 hundred questionnaires were distributed, 100 questionnaires were filled from male and 100 from female. Limitation: Research was only conducted from two universities not from the schools. Respondents were from Under graduate and graduate level. Only benefits of the laptop were considered. The

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

4

Final Project

research environment was Field conditioned. The study was Statistical. The attempt is to capture population’s characteristics by making inferences from samples characteristics.

Results & Findings: EDA: Descriptives

Gender

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

Statistic 1.50 1.43

Upper Bound

1.57

5% Trimmed Mean

1.50

Median

1.00

Variance

.251

Std. Deviation

.501

Minimum

1

Maximum

2

Range

1

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

.010

.172

-2.020

.343

1.34 1.27

.037

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1.41

Kurtosis Age

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

1.30

Median

1.00

Variance

.266

Std. Deviation

.516

Minimum

1

Maximum

3

Range

2

Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Std. Error .036

1 1.111

.172

.132

.343

Marketing Research

5

Final Project

Department

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

2.72 2.50

Upper Bound

2.95

5% Trimmed Mean

2.69

Median

3.00

Variance

2.565

Std. Deviation

1.601

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

4

Skewness

.266

.172

-1.433

.343

1.73 1.56

.087

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1.91

Kurtosis City

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

1.59

Median

1.00

Variance

1.520

Std. Deviation

1.233

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

electronic devices you own

1.632

.172

Kurtosis

1.409

.343 .085

Lower Bound

1.75 1.59

Upper Bound

1.92

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

1.60

Median

1.00

Variance

1.439

Std. Deviation

1.200

Minimum

1

Maximum

7

Range

6

Interquartile Range

(05108119)

1

Skewness

5% Trimmed Mean

Mamoona Islam

.114

1

Skewness

2.135

.172

Kurtosis

4.989

.343

Marketing Research

6

Final Project

usage of laptop for Academic purpose

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

1.40 1.33

Upper Bound

1.47

5% Trimmed Mean

1.39

Median

1.00

Variance

.241

Std. Deviation

.491

Minimum

1

Maximum

2

Range

1

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

.424

.172

-1.839

.343

1.67 1.55

.058

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1.78

Kurtosis Which one increase efficiency of work

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

1.63

Median

1.00

Variance

.677

Std. Deviation

.823

Minimum

1

Maximum

3

Range

2

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

.684

.172

-1.183

.343 .026

Lower Bound

1.17 1.11

Upper Bound

1.22

Kurtosis If you had resourses would you buy laptop for academic purpose

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

1.13

Median

1.00

Variance

.139

Std. Deviation

.373

Minimum

1

Maximum

2

Range

1

Interquartile Range

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

.035

0

Skewness

1.811

.172

Kurtosis

1.291

.343

Marketing Research

7

Final Project

Laptop has positive impact on teachers

Laptop motivates you to work hard

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

1.27 1.21

Upper Bound

1.33

5% Trimmed Mean

1.25

Median

1.00

Variance

.199

Std. Deviation

.446

Minimum

1

Maximum

2

Range

1

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

1.036

.172

Kurtosis

-.936

.343

1.35 1.28

.034

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1.41

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

1.33

Median

1.00

Variance

.228

Std. Deviation

.477

Minimum

1

Maximum

2

Range

1

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

.649

.172

-1.595

.343 .064

Lower Bound

1.93 1.80

Upper Bound

2.05

Kurtosis Persentage time you save by laptop

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

1.87

Median

2.00

Variance

.803

Std. Deviation

.896

Minimum

1

Maximum

4

Range

3

Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

.032

1 .650

.172

-.422

.343

Marketing Research

8

Final Project

Battery of laptop cover load shading effect. do you feel it has effect on efficiency

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

1.81 1.68

Upper Bound

1.95

5% Trimmed Mean

1.71

Median

2.00

Variance

.930

Std. Deviation

.964

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

1.269

.172

1.472

.343

4.15 3.99

.080

Lower Bound Upper Bound

4.30

Kurtosis Project making

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

4.27

Median

5.00

Variance

1.277

Std. Deviation

1.130

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

-1.479

.172

1.593

.343 .077

Lower Bound

3.44 3.29

Upper Bound

3.59

Kurtosis CGPA

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

.068

3.49

Median

3.00

Variance

1.177

Std. Deviation

1.085

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

-.449

.172

Kurtosis

-.214

.343

Marketing Research

9

Final Project

Assignment making

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

4.04 3.90

Upper Bound

4.18

5% Trimmed Mean

4.13

Median

4.00

Variance

1.004

Std. Deviation

1.002

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

-1.136

.172

1.175

.343

3.30 3.15

.079

Lower Bound Upper Bound

3.46

Kurtosis Quizzes preparation

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

3.34

Median

3.00

Variance

1.242

Std. Deviation

1.114

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

Final paper preparation

-.221

.172

Kurtosis

-.668

.343 .093

Lower Bound

3.39 3.20

Upper Bound

3.57

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

3.43

Median

4.00

Variance

1.733

Std. Deviation

1.317

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

(05108119)

1

Skewness

5% Trimmed Mean

Mamoona Islam

.071

2

Skewness

-.436

.172

Kurtosis

-.901

.343

Marketing Research

10

Final Project

Presentation

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

4.17 4.02

Upper Bound

4.31

5% Trimmed Mean

4.26

Median

5.00

Variance

1.109

Std. Deviation

1.053

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

-1.124

.172

.406

.343

3.51 3.34

.085

Lower Bound Upper Bound

3.68

Kurtosis Communication within group

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

3.57

Median

4.00

Variance

1.443

Std. Deviation

1.201

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

Flexible usage of IT facility

-.383

.172

Kurtosis

-.804

.343 .073

Lower Bound

3.84 3.70

Upper Bound

3.99

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

3.91

Median

4.00

Variance

1.051

Std. Deviation

1.025

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

(05108119)

2

Skewness

5% Trimmed Mean

Mamoona Islam

.075

2

Skewness

-.620

.172

Kurtosis

-.140

.343

Marketing Research

11

Final Project

Flexible working hours

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

3.76 3.60

Upper Bound

3.91

5% Trimmed Mean

Knowledge

3.83

Median

4.00

Variance

1.224

Std. Deviation

1.107

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

2

Skewness

-.639

.172

Kurtosis

-.279

.343

3.85 3.71

.073

Lower Bound Upper Bound

4.00

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

3.92

Median

4.00

Variance

1.075

Std. Deviation

1.037

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

Students participation in extra curricular activities

-.748

.172

Kurtosis

-.023

.343 .087

Lower Bound

3.44 3.27

Upper Bound

3.61

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

3.49

Median

4.00

Variance

1.490

Std. Deviation

1.221

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

(05108119)

2

Skewness

5% Trimmed Mean

Mamoona Islam

.078

1

Skewness

-.484

.172

Kurtosis

-.623

.343

Marketing Research

12

Final Project

IT Skills

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

3.95 3.79

Upper Bound

4.11

5% Trimmed Mean

4.06

Median

4.00

Variance

1.280

Std. Deviation

1.131

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

2

Skewness

-1.084

.172

.601

.343

3.81 3.66

.077

Lower Bound Upper Bound

3.97

Kurtosis Competitive edge

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

3.89

Median

4.00

Variance

1.172

Std. Deviation

1.083

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

2

Skewness internet browsing

-.757

.172

Kurtosis

.009

.343

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

.075

Lower Bound

3.97 3.82

Upper Bound

4.12

5% Trimmed Mean

4.00

Variance

1.120

Std. Deviation

1.058

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Skewness Kurtosis

(05108119)

4.06

Median

Interquartile Range

Mamoona Islam

.080

2 -.869

.172

.158

.343

Marketing Research

13

Final Project

Innovation

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

3.79 3.63

Upper Bound

3.95

5% Trimmed Mean

Personality Development

3.88

Median

4.00

Variance

1.359

Std. Deviation

1.166

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

2

Skewness

-.740

.172

Kurtosis

-.240

.343

3.56 3.39

.088

Lower Bound Upper Bound

3.74

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

3.63

Median

4.00

Variance

1.530

Std. Deviation

1.237

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

Communication Skills

-.461

.172

Kurtosis

-.780

.343

3.50 3.32

.090

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

3.68 3.56

Median

4.00

Variance

1.625

Std. Deviation

1.275

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

(05108119)

2

Skewness

5% Trimmed Mean

Mamoona Islam

.083

2

Skewness

-.493

.172

Kurtosis

-.825

.343

Marketing Research

14

Final Project

Vocabulary

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

3.53 3.37

Upper Bound

3.70

5% Trimmed Mean

Tecnological Learning

3.59

Median

4.00

Variance

1.432

Std. Deviation

1.197

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

2

Skewness

-.480

.172

Kurtosis

-.567

.343

3.86 3.71

.078

Lower Bound Upper Bound

4.02

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

3.95

Median

4.00

Variance

1.219

Std. Deviation

1.104

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

interest in learning

-.820

.172

Kurtosis

-.001

.343 .167

Lower Bound

3.91 3.58

Upper Bound

4.24

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

3.85

Median

4.00

Variance

5.568

Std. Deviation

2.360

Minimum

1

Maximum

33

Range

32

Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis

(05108119)

2

Skewness

5% Trimmed Mean

Mamoona Islam

.085

2 9.439

.172

117.400

.343

Marketing Research

15

Final Project

Critical Thinking

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

3.50 3.34

Upper Bound

3.67

5% Trimmed Mean

Class Participation

.083

3.56

Median

4.00

Variance

1.362

Std. Deviation

1.167

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

-.449

.172

Kurtosis

-.522

.343

3.42 3.24

.090

Lower Bound Upper Bound

3.59

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

3.46

Median

4.00

Variance

1.598

Std. Deviation

1.264

Minimum

1

Maximum

5

Range

4

Interquartile Range

1

Skewness

-.418

.172

Kurtosis

-.765

.343

Frequency Table: Gender

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Male

100

50.0

50.0

50.0

Female

100

50.0

50.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Gender Statistics

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

16

Final Project

Gender

100

80

y c n u q re F

60

40

20

0 Male

Female

Gender

This graph shows that in the sample of 200 hundred.100 of the respondents were male and 100 were female.

Age: Valid

18-21 22-25 26 and above Total

Frequency 136 60

Percent 68.0 30.0

Valid Percent 68.0 30.0

Cumulative Percent 68.0 98.0

4

2.0

2.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Age

Age

140

120

100

y c n u q e r F

80

60

40

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

20

0 18-21

22-25

Age

26 and above

17

Final Project

The graph shows that 68% respondents lie in the 18 to 21, 30% of the respondents lie in the age of 2% to 25 and 4 respondents lie in the age of 26 and above

Department: Frequency Valid

BBA Bsc

77 11

38.5 5.5

38.5 5.5

Cumulative Percent 38.5 44.0

MBA

54

27.0

27.0

71.0

Bdes

8

4.0

4.0

75.0

50 200

25.0 100.0

25.0 100.0

100.0

others Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Department

80

60

y c n u q e r F

40

20

0 BBA

Bsc

MBA

Bdes

others

Department

The graph shows that 38% respondents were from BBA, 5% were from Bsc, 27% were MBA students, 4 % were Bdes and 25% respondents were from others (CS, I com , B com and M.A English) which comes in the category of others.

City:

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

18

Final Project

Frequency Valid

Gujranwala Sialkot Gujrat Daska others Total

Percent 131 32 11 12 14 200

Valid Percent

65.5 16.0 5.5 6.0 7.0 100.0

65.5 16.0 5.5 6.0 7.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 65.5 81.5 87.0 93.0 100.0

City

140

120

100

y c n u q e r F

80

60

40

20

0 Gujranwala

Sialkot

Gujrat

Daska

others

City

The graph shows that 65% respondents were from Gujranwala, 16% were from sialkot, 5% were Gujrat students, 6 % were Daska and 7% respondents were from others Electronic devices you own:

Frequency Valid

Percent

Personal Desktop 115 57.5 computer Laptop 57 28.5 PDA electronic devices 4you own 2.0 Personal Desktop 17 8.5 computer, Laptop 120Personal Desktop 4 2.0 Computer, PDA Personal Desktop 100 3 1.5 computer, Laptop, PDA Total 200 100.0

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

57.5

57.5

28.5 2.0

86.0 88.0

8.5

96.5

2.0

98.5

1.5

100.0

100.0

80

y c n u q e r F

60

40

20

Mamoona Islam (05108119)0

Marketing Research Personal Desktop computer

Laptop

PDA

Personal Desktop computer, Laptop

Personal Desktop Computer, PDA

electronic devices you own

Personal Desktop computer, Laptop, PDA

19

Final Project

This graph shows that, 59 % have personal desktop computers, 37 % has laptop and 4% have PDA. Usage of laptop for Academic purpose: Frequency Valid

Yes

121

60.5

60.5

Cumulative Percent 60.5

No

79

39.5

39.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

usage of laptop for Academic purpose

125

100

y c n u q e r F

75

50

25

Which one of work

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

0 Yes

No

increase efficiency

usage of laptop for Academic purpose

Marketing Research

20

Final Project

60.5% Respondents said they use there laptop for Academic purpose and 39.5% said they don’t use.

Which one increase efficiency of your work:

Valid

Laptop

Frequency 111

Percent 55.5

Valid Percent 55.5

Cumulative Percent 55.5

43

21.5

21.5

77.0

46

23.0

23.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

University computer Personal Desktop computer Total

Which one increase efficiency of work

120

100

80

y c n u q e r F

60

40

20

0 Laptop

University computer

Personal Desktop computer

Which one increase efficiency of work

The graph shows that 55.5% respondents said laptop increase the efficiency of work, 21.5% said university computers and 23% said personal desktop computers increase the efficiency of work

If you had recourses would you buy laptop for academic purpose:

Frequency Valid

Yes No Total

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Percent 167

Valid Percent 83.5

83.5

Cumulative Percent 83.5 100.0

33

16.5

16.5

200

100.0

100.0

Marketing Research

21

Final Project

If you had resourses would you buy laptop for academic purpose 200

150

y c n u q re F

100

50

0 Yes

No

If you had resourses would you buy laptop for academic purpose

The graph shows that 83.5% respondents said if they have recourses then they will buy the laptop and 16.5% said No they will not. Laptop has positive impact on teachers:

Valid

Frequency 145

Yes No Total

Percent 72.5

Valid Percent 72.5

55

27.5

27.5

200

100.0

100.0

Cumulative Percent 72.5 100.0

Laptop has positive impact on teachers

150

120

y c n u q e r F

90

60

30

0 Yes

No

Laptop has positive impact on teachers

The graph shows that 72.5% respondents said laptop has positive influence on teachers where as 27.5% said no it don’t have

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

22

Final Project

Laptop motivates you to work hard:

Valid

Frequency 130 70 200

yes No Total

Percent 65.0 35.0 100.0

Valid Percent 65.0 35.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 65.0 100.0

Laptop motivates you to work hard

140

120

100

y c n u q e r F

80

60

40

20

0 yes

No

Laptop motivates you to work hard

65% respondents said laptop motivate to work hard where as 35% said it don’t

Percentage time you save by laptop:

Frequency Valid

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

76

38.0

38.0

38.0

26-50%

75

37.5

37.5

75.5

51-75%

37

18.5

18.5

94.0

76 and above

12

6.0

6.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Percent

1-25 %

Marketing Research

23

Final Project

Persentage time you save by laptop

80

60

y c n u q e r F

40

20

0 1-25 %

26-50%

51-75%

76 and above

Persentage time you save by laptop

38% respondents said they save 1-25 % time, 37% said they save 26 to 50 percent time, 18% said they save 51 to 75 % time and 6% said they save 76 and above time. Battery of laptop covers load shading effect. Do you feel it has effect on efficiency? Frequency Valid

strongly agree Agree

93

Percent 46.5

Valid Percent 46.5

Cumulative Percent 46.5

67

33.5

33.5

80.0

Neutral

94.5

29

14.5

14.5

Disagree

6

3.0

3.0

97.5

Strongly disagree

5

2.5

2.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Battery of laptop cover loadshading effect.do you feel it has effect on efficiency 100

80

y c n u q re F

60

40

20

0 strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Battery of laptop cover loadshading effect.do you feel it has effect on efficiency

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

24

Final Project

46.5% of the respondents said battery of laptop covers load shading effect, 33.5% are agree, 14.5% are neutral, 3% are disagree and 2.5% respondents were strongly disagree with this statement. Project making Frequency Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent 6.5

Strongly disagree Disagree

13 4

2.0

2.0

8.5

Neutral

24

12.0

12.0

20.5

Agree

58

29.0

29.0

49.5 100.0

6.5

6.5

strongly agree

101

50.5

50.5

Total

200

100.0

100.0

Project making

120

100

80

y c n u q e r F

60

40

20

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Project making

50.5% respondent said laptop help in project making, 29% are agree that it help, 12% are in neutral phase, 2% disagree with the statement 6.5% respondents are strongly disagree.

CGPA Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree

13 19

6.5 9.5

6.5 9.5

Cumulative Percent 6.5 16.0

Neutral

68

34.0

34.0

50.0

Agree

66

33.0

33.0

83.0

strongly agree

34

17.0

17.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Percent

Valid Percent

Marketing Research

25

Final Project

CGPA

70

60

50

y c n u q e r F

40

30

20

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

CGPA

17% respondents said laptop increase CGPA, 33% said they agree, 34% are neutral, 9.5% disagree with the statement, 6.5% strongly disagree with the statement Assignment making: Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

Percent

7 7 33 77 76 200

Valid Percent

3.5 3.5 16.5 38.5 38.0 100.0

3.5 3.5 16.5 38.5 38.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 3.5 7.0 23.5 62.0 100.0

Assignment making

80

60

y c n u q e r F

40

20

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Assignment making

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

26

Final Project

38% respondents said laptop help, 38.5% said they are agree, 16.5% are neutral, 3.5% disagree with the statement, 3.5% strongly disagree with the statement Quizzes preparation: Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent

12

6.0

6.0

6.0

36 61 61 30 200

18.0 30.5 30.5 15.0 100.0

18.0 30.5 30.5 15.0 100.0

24.0 54.5 85.0 100.0

Quizzes preparation

70

60

50

y c n u q e r F

40

30

20

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Quizzes preparation

15% respondents said laptop help, 30.5% said they are agree, 30.5% are neutral, 18% disagree with the statement, 6% strongly disagree with the statement Final paper preparation Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

25

12.5

12.5

12.5

25

12.5

12.5

25.0

Neutral

45

22.5

22.5

47.5

Agree

56

28.0

28.0

75.5

strongly agree

49

24.5

24.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Percent

Marketing Research

27

Final Project

Final paper preparation

60

50

40

y c n u q e r F

30

20

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Final paper preparation

24.5% respondents said laptop help, 28% said they are agree, 22.5% are neutral, 12.5% disagree with the statement, 12.5% strongly disagree with the statement Presentation: Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree

4

Percent 2.0

Valid Percent 2.0

Cumulative Percent 2.0

14

7.0

7.0

9.0

Neutral

30

15.0

15.0

24.0

Agree

49

24.5

24.5

48.5

strongly agree

103

51.5

51.5

100.0

Total

200

100.0

100.0

Presentation

120

100

80

y c n u q e r F

60

40

20

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Presentation

51.5% respondents said laptop help, 24.5% said they are agree, 15% are neutral, 7% disagree with the statement, 2% strongly disagree with the statement

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

28

Final Project

Flexible Working hours:

Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

Percent

8 18 50 63 61 200

Valid Percent

4.0 9.0 25.0 31.5 30.5 100.0

4.0 9.0 25.0 31.5 30.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.0 13.0 38.0 69.5 100.0

Flexible working hours

70

60

50

y c n u q e r F

40

30

20

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Flexible working hours

30.5% respondents said laptop help, 31.5%said they are agree, 25% are neutral, 9% disagree with the statement, 4% strongly disagree with the statement Knowledge: Frequency Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent

Strongly disagree Disagree

18

9.0

9.0

11.5

Neutral

39

19.5

19.5

31.0

Agree

76

38.0

38.0

69.0 100.0

strongly agree Total

5

2.5

2.5

62

31.0

31.0

200

100.0

100.0

2.5

31% respondents said laptop help, 38% said they are agree, 19.5% are neutral, 9% disagree with the statement, 2.5% strongly disagree with the statement

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

29

Final Project

Knowledge

80

60

y c n u q e r F

40

20

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Knowledge

IT Skills Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

Percent

12 8 36 66 78 200

6.0 4.0 18.0 33.0 39.0 100.0

Valid Percent 6.0 4.0 18.0 33.0 39.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 6.0 10.0 28.0 61.0 100.0

IT Skills

80

60

y c n u q e r F

40

20

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

IT Skills

39% respondents said laptop help in increasing, 33% said they are agree, 18% are neutral, 4% disagree with the statement, 6% strongly disagree with the statement

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

30

Final Project

Competitive edge:

Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree

Percent 8

Valid Percent 4.0

4.0

Cumulative Percent 4.0

Disagree

15

7.5

7.5

11.5

Neutral

45

22.5

22.5

34.0

Agree

69

34.5

34.5

68.5

strongly agree

63

31.5

31.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Competitive edge

70

60

50

y c n u q e r F

40

30

20

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Competitive edge

31.5% respondents said laptop help in increasing, 34.5% said they are agree, 22.5% are neutral, 7.5% disagree with the statement, 4% strongly disagree with the statement Internet browsing: Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

6 12 42 61 79 200

Percent 3.0 6.0 21.0 30.5 39.5 100.0

Valid Percent 3.0 6.0 21.0 30.5 39.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 3.0 9.0 30.0 60.5 100.0

Marketing Research

31

Final Project

internet browsing

80

60

y c n u q e r F

40

20

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

internet browsing

39.5% respondents said laptop help in increasing, 30.5% said they are agree, 21% are neutral, 6% disagree with the statement, 3% strongly disagree with the statement Vocabulary: Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

Percent

Valid Percent

15 21 57 55 52

7.5 10.5 28.5 27.5 26.0

7.5 10.5 28.5 27.5 26.0

200

100.0

100.0

Cumulative Percent 7.5 18.0 46.5 74.0 100.0

Vocabulary

60

50

40

y c n u q e r F

30

20

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Vocabulary

26% respondents said laptop help in increasing, 27.5% said they are agree, 28.5% are neutral, 10.5% disagree with the statement, 7.5% strongly disagree with the statement.

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

32

Final Project

Technological Learning:

Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent

8

4.0

4.0

4.0

16 40 66 70 200

8.0 20.0 33.0 35.0 100.0

8.0 20.0 33.0 35.0 100.0

12.0 32.0 65.0 100.0

Tecnological Learning

70

60

50

y c n u q e r F

40

30

20

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

strongly agree

Tecnological Learning

35% respondents said laptop help in increasing, 33% said they are agree, 20% are neutral, 8% disagree with the statement, 4% strongly disagree with the statement. Class Participation: Frequency Valid

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree Total

21 23 55 52 49 200

Percent 10.5 11.5 27.5 26.0 24.5 100.0

Valid Percent 10.5 11.5 27.5 26.0 24.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 10.5 22.0 49.5 75.5 100.0

Class Participation

60

50

40

y c n u q e r F

30

20

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

10

0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Class Participation

strongly agree

Final Project

33

24.5% respondents said laptop help in increasing, 26% said they are agree, 27.5% are neutral, 11.5% disagree with the statement, 10.5% strongly disagree with the statement. Factor loading using Principle Component Method: Factor analysis method uses covariance and correlation matrix analysis to explain the relationship between variables by using less number of factors (Ozdamar, K, 1999). It results in increased parsimony (Leech, Barrett & Morgan, 2005). Principal Components Analysis (PCA) mathematically derives a relatively small number of variables that are used to convey as much of the information in the observed/measured variables as possible.

Precisely, PCA is simply

directed toward enabling one to use fewer variables to provide the same information that one would obtain from a larger set of variables. Principle Component Factor Analysis: Variable's communality included for the factor analysis. Communality refers to the proportion of a variable's variance explained by a factor structure and may be interpreted as the reliability of the indicator. It is the squared multiple correlation for the variable as dependent using the factors as predictors. When an indicator variable has a low communality, the factor model is not working well for that indicator and possibly it should be removed from the model. Similarly, the eigenvalues for a given factor measures the variance in all the variables, which is accounted for by that factor. The ratio of eigenvalues is the ratio of explanatory importance of the factors with respect to the variables.

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

34

Final Project

Table 1: Total Variance Explained: Comp onent

1 2

Initial Eigenvalues % of Cumulativ Total Variance e% 8.385 38.116 38.116 1.573 7.152 45.267

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulativ Total Variance e% 8.385 38.116 38.116 1.573 7.152 45.267

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulative Total Variance % 4.197 19.076 19.076 2.868 13.037 32.113

3

1.310

5.956

51.224

1.310

5.956

51.224

2.686

12.211

44.324

4

1.072

4.873

56.097

1.072

4.873

56.097

1.896

8.617

52.941

5

1.009

4.585

60.683

1.009

4.585

60.683

1.703

7.742

60.683

6

.909

4.132

64.815

7

.884

4.016

68.831

8

.796

3.619

72.450

9

.653

2.970

75.420

10

.634

2.880

78.300

11

.575

2.613

80.913

12

.561

2.551

83.464

13

.540

2.456

85.920

14

.449

2.040

87.960

15

.433

1.969

89.929

16

.401

1.824

91.753

17

.379

1.723

93.476

18

.352

1.598

95.075

19

.330

1.502

96.576

20

.284

1.290

97.867

21

.277

1.261

99.128

22

.192

.872

100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis In above table of total variance explained first five factors encompass 60.6% of total variance. Internet browsing has 38.11%, communication skills have 7.15%, Flexible working hours have 5.95%, Final paper preparation has 4.87% and interest in learning has 4.58% of total variance.

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

35

Final Project

Table 2: Communalities Project making CGPA

Initial 1.000 1.000

Extraction .503 .395

Assignment making

1.000

.645

Quizzes preparation

1.000

.768

Final paper preparation

1.000

.818

Presentation

1.000

.475

Communication within group

1.000

.625

Flexible usage of IT facility

1.000

.645

Flexible working hours

1.000

.654

Knowledge

1.000 1.000

.501 .509

Students participation in extra curricular activities IT Skills

1.000

.623

Competitive edge

1.000

.521

internet browsing

1.000

.596

Innovation

1.000

.610

Personality Development

1.000

.637

Communication Skills

1.000

.718

Vocabulary

1.000

.601

Tecnological Learning

1.000

.578

interest in learning

1.000

.600

Critical Thinking

1.000

.687

Class Participation

1.000

.639

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Alpha coefficient ranges in value from 0 to 1 and may be used to describe the reliability of factors extracted from dichotomous and/or multi-point formatted questionnaires or scales (Reynaldo, Santos, April 1999).The higher the value, correlation between the factors increases. Nunnaly (1978) has indicated 0.7 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient but lower thresholds are sometimes used in the literature. Cronbach's α (alpha) has an important use as a measure of the reliability of a psychometric instrument. Cronbach's alpha in this research is up to standards and value of 22 items is .910. As shown below:

Table 3: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

Cronbach's Alpha .910

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

N of Items .921

22

Marketing Research

36

Final Project

Scree Plot

10

8

lu a v n e ig E

6

4

2

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Component Number

Table 4: Rotated Component Matrix (a) Component 1 Project making CGPA

2

3

.575 .490

.189 .234

Assignment making

.511

Quizzes preparation

.185

Final paper preparation Presentation Communication within group Flexible usage of IT facility

4

5

.360 .270

.075 .047

.034 .157

.075

.411

.445

-.107

.086

.254

.789

.199

.113

.287

.055

.837

.136

.561

.133

.274

.190

-.177

.122

.315

.678

.226

.023

.445

-.015

.632

.215

.029

Flexible working hours

.344

.182

.702

-.028

.099

Knowledge

.414

.412

.355

.185

.014

Students participation in extra curricular activities

.054

.554

.301

.182

.275

IT Skills

.676

-.068

.205

.072

.338

Competitive edge

.626

.143

.061

.132

.297

internet browsing

.687

.313

.117

.110

.023

Innovation

.672

.376

.039

.125

.007

Personality Development

.464

.637

.091

.077

.053

Communication Skills

.236

.789

.103

.128

.113

Vocabulary

.248

.675

.210

.127

.154

Technological Learning

.592

.314

.189

-.025

.304

interest in learning

.132

.099

-.077

.108

.745

Critical Thinking

.112

.307

.385

.153

.640

Class Participation

.105

.325

.540

.201

.438

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization (a) Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

37

Final Project

In above rotated component matrix for laptop increase the efficiency of students, total of five dimensions were included. First was only of “internet browsing (.687)”, second was of “communication skills (.789), third was Flexible working hours have (.702), fourth was Final paper preparation (.837)” and fifth was “interest in learning (.745). KMO and Bartlett's Test: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .899 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

1900.787

df

231

Sig.

.000

As above values shows that the value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin is .899, standard should be greater than .574 but .75 is considered better. Similarly, Bartlett test of sphericity all factors were reported significant (i.e., a significance value of less than 0.05).

Regression Analysis: Table: Coefficients (a) Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

1

B 3.321

Std. Error .136

.071

.064

(Constant) electronic devices you own a Dependent Variable: CGPA

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

Beta .078

24.466

.000

1.107

.270

The table above shows that “electronic device you own” in independent variable and CGPA in dependent variable. From the equation of linear regression Y=a+bx “Y” is dependent variable that is CGPA and “X” is independent factor that is “electronic device you own”. By putting the value in equation. Y = 3.321 + 0.071x The value of Beta1 is 0.71. This value is Positive so the CGPA is dependent on the electronic device that we own. There would be increase in the CGPA if we have the electronic device for the academic purpose. The magnitude of B1 is 0.071, which is very less so the model is not that strong.

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

Final Project

38

CONCLUSION: The research conclude that laptop increase the competency of the students. By the laptop students become motivated and started working hard to get good grades. They think that it has good impression on the teachers and laptop assists them in making difficult assignment by using Graph, PowerPoint slides and charts. Students think that low weight and small size of laptop provide ease for their work. While different factors conclude that efficiency, facilitate sharing and enhance information usability, interaction with people increases by usage of laptop. Research shows that continuous online access to the course syllabus, schedule, assignments, projects, and electronic files may reduce the need for students to contact the teacher in class or during office hours. Students who have no Internet access most probably continue to obtain materials directly from their teachers.

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research

39

Final Project

References “Management of laptop computers” FP18 – 27 July 2001, KZNDEC LAPTOP POLICY “Laptop” The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, 2008 “Laptop Program for Students and Faculty Initial Analysis Report” INDIANA UNIVERSITY KOKOMO Department of IT January, 2007 “Class Room Connections” Wade Pogany, Department of Education, January 2006. “Tablet PCs Increase Efficiency, Lower Cost of Teaching and learning” By Stacy Grant and Jason Crist, Business Development Executive, Business Development Market ware, Mobile Computing. “An Alpha Smart for Each Student: Does Teaching and Learning Change With Full Access to Word Processors?” Michael Russell, Damian Bebell, Jennifer Cowan, Mary Corbelli Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative Boston College April 2002

Mamoona Islam (05108119)

Marketing Research