Background of The Study

Influence of technology to the level of communication within the family
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
Technologies on today’s world are getting better as the time passes,
leaving many people dependent on technology. People are living today on the
so called Generation Y in which digital immigrants live and manipulated by
technologies. Families on the other hand are affected by the rapid growth of
technology that results to decline of communication. First of all communication
is defined as the connection between two or more people, in which people
participate and shares information about each other. Yet this communication is
affected by the technologies that rise on our very world.
New technology offers children independence from the parents involvement
in the social lives, with the use of mobile phones, instant messaging, and social
networking sites. Of course, children see this technological between children
and parents as freedom from over-involvement and emersion on the part of
the parent lives. Parents, in turn, see it as a loss of connection to the children
and inability to maintain reasonable over sight, for the sake of safety and
overall health of children lives. Children's time consuming immersion in
technology may also affects the parents since the parents don't entertain the
children anymore, leaving the children more time to do anything.
There is also less sharing which means that parents know less about
what is going on to children's live and, consequently, have less ability to exert
influence over the children. Parents are also less able to not only offer
1
appropriate supervision and guidance but, at a more basic level, parents are
less able to model healthy behavior, share positive values, and send good
messages to the children. (Taylor, 2015)
The researchers choose this topic to observe how communication on
family faded because of technology.
Research Problem
The study is conducted to determine the influence of technology to the
level of communication within the family
Specifically, it aimed to answer the following questions:
1.What is the Demographic Profile of the respondents in forms of:
1.1 Gender
1.2 Age
1.3 Technologies or Gadgets the respondents have
General question:
1. What are the manifestations that a technology could influence a family’s
level of communication?
2
Specific questions:
1. What are the technologies that could influence the communication within
the family?
2. What is the level of communication that Marketing students of DFCAM-
CLP have with their family?
3. How different is the level of communication between technologically
capable students from technologically incapable students or those who
do not have technology (gadgets) or to those students who only have
few gadgets?
Objectives
This study aims to:
General objective:
1. Discover the manifestations that the technology could influence the level
of communication within the family of marketing students of DFCAM-CLP
campus.
Specific objectives:
2. Observe the different technologies that could influence the
communication within the family.
3. Discover the level of communication of marketing students of DFCAM-
CLP.
3
4. Differentiate the level of communication between technologically
capable student from those who do not have technology (gadget) or to
those who have few or limited gadgets.
Hypothesis
There is no significant relationship between technology and communication
of the family.
Scope and Delimitation
This study will only cover the demographic profile, manifestations, and
technologies that could influence the level of communication within the family
of Marketing students of DFCAM-CLP. In addition this study aims to know and
differentiate the level of communication between technologically capable
students and to those who do not have technology. There may be other factors
that affect the level of communication within the family like having an OFW
parents, social misunderstandings, poor time management, and the time
consumed on using technologies but are not considered in the study.
4
Significance
The purpose of this study is to educate the respondents by
understanding the influence of technology to the level of communication within
the family.
The findings of this study would benefit the following:
Children: Children can use our Research by knowing the influence of
technology to the communication between students and parents. And how a
technology could disrupt the relationship between the families
Parents: Parents will gain information about the hindrances of having too
much technology and how it could affect the relationship between parents and
children.
Future researchers: This study would be beneficial to the future researchers
that will conduct similar study and research for the future improvement and
modification.
5
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Framework
Technology
Parents Children
Communication
A. Lack of authority A. Lack at respect
B. Lack of B. Unwilling to listen
Attention to the parents
C. Lacks information C. Spend more time
about with technology
what happen with the D. Lack of communication
children from parents
D. Lack of support
The teenagers don’t use technology in the right way. Children are being
addicted so that children lack time in communicating with the family. And
parents lack authority since parents have no information about the children.
The influence of technologies to both parents and children can lead to
deterioration of family’s communication.
6
Figure 2
Theoretical Framework
Technology
Disrupt Relationship Bad Perception
Deterioration of
Family Communication
The theories of Byrum (2015) and Taylor (2013) are used in the current
study given the influence of using technology when engage to the
communication within the family. The theory of Byrum (2015) highlighted that
when children used technologies the relationship between children and family
are affected, as it prevent the children from engaging deep conversations. The
theory of Taylor (2013) emphasized that technologies could give bad
perception about the children’s families or parents, as it make the children
distant from the parents.
Byrum and Taylor’s fieldwork is strongly important in this study as it can
reveal the influence of technology to the communication within the family
7
Definition of terms:
Cyberspace - the notional environment in which communication over
computer networks occurs.
Digital Device – These are smartphone, tablet and smartwatch.
Digital Immigrant - a person born or brought up before the widespread use
of digital technology.
Encryption - the process of converting information or data into a code,
especially to prevent unauthorized access.
Generation Y - the generation born in the 1980s and 1990s, comprising
primarily the children of the baby boomers and typically perceived as
increasingly familiar with digital and electronic technology.
Global Responsibility - is therefore an act of leadership, a voluntary and
willful deployment of the resources of an organization towards building
sustainability
Online Hostility - an occasion in which someone is unfriendly
SNS (Social Networking Service/Social Networking Site/Social Media)
- is an online platform that is used by people to build social networks or social
relations with other people who share similar personal or career interests,
activities, backgrounds or real-life connections.
8
Social Isolation - is a state of complete or near-complete lack of contact
between an individual and society.
Social Revolution - means the reorganization of the industrial, economic life
of the country and consequently also of the entire structure of society.
Video Games - a game played by electronically manipulating images produced
by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen.
9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is used in the current study given the influence of using
technology when engaged to the communication within the family. This chapter
ought to answer the research questions.
Technological Innovation in Society
Technology always impacts the society. Every invention influence how
people relate to one another and how culture expands or ends. Technology
impacts how cities grow and interact. Technologies are the reason why there
are people who are rich, why people are more social, and the changes on how
people teach and learn. (Bray, 2010) According to Guterl (2014), data
technologies empower individuals and transport information about societies. At
the same time, technology and virtual communities are the one who makes
decisions for the society. In addition, we can now receive real-time feedback
about what and who is best through these tools, which ignore the contradictory
nature of the human mind.
Technology by self is not harmful to the society, but the way the society
uses technology to achieve specific goals could result into negative impacts of
technology on the society. Humans tend to use energy to process products in
factories, to run cars, to light homes and to run technological machines like
10
computers, but the only way to do this without affecting the environment and
society, is by shifting from exhaustible energy sources to renewable and
inexhaustible sources like Solar / Wind energy. (Ramey, 2012)
The technological perspective we live in is the information society. Since
information and telecommunication technologies play an important role in all
fields of social existence, Technology has shaken the foundations of the social
structures and processes and resulted in profound changes in politics,
economy, culture, and everyday life. Bijker and Pinch emphasize that the
meanings assigned to technologies are determined by the norms and values of
certain social groups which draw the socio-cultural and political environment
into the set of determining factors. Drawing on the much wider context
concept, Laudan R. argues that changing social values can bring new
technological constructs or the complete generation to life. The mixed and
ranking of community of technological development, functions as a mediator of
social values and forces value orientation in society to change. Innovation
becomes the primary source of productivity growth in relation to organizations,
institutions as well as individual workers. Social processes today are mainly
mediated by technological development. The society's level of being informed
with the opportunities provided by information and communication technology
has been increased dramatically. This new technology opens new perspectives
in the fields of industry, trade and education. (Sasvari, 2012)
11
Types of Technological Innovation
The Innovations of ‘technologies are getting faster as years passes by.
There are three kinds of technological innovations namely: Semi- Radical,
Incremental and Disruptive.
Semi- Radical technology relies on the existing knowledge about
technology. However, Semi- Radical technology uses knowledge that differs
importantly into the past. Cellphones were considered before as mobile
telephones yet Cellphones works in another way around these days. Today, the
personal communication that has built-in desks for work and systems
specifically made for entertainment purposes. Semi Radical is being
represented by cell phones and most people wants it to have in the everyday
life.
Disruptive technology is known as disruptive since it breaks the traditional
ones and provide new products and technologies that are more accessible and
useful. This technology is also considered as disruptive since technology pushes
the idea about existing businesses and supply chains. Take digital photography
as an example, Digital Photography is best because digital photography
minimize the traditional films and cameras as well as the e-readers that can
make the print media irrelevant.
12
Incremental technologies are small but have valued improvements for
today’s product and methods. Incremental technologies has a later version of
word processing program which allows each of users to make new documents
types with more effective tools, serves as a great example for improving the
modern technology.
These three types of innovative technologies are really advantageous in the
marketing platform. Here are the following benefits of the innovation of
technologies tend to provide: These technological innovations have benefits
such as speeds up any work, provides higher profit, access quick information.
(Koshak, 2015)
New technologies can have revolutionary impacts with widespread and
unexpected benefits on the society. Technology can also serve as a tool to
enable governments in serving the citizens.There are technological innovations
from 2014 that innovators and governments are using today. Examples are
Data transparency, 3D printers, Robots, artificial intelligence, and machine
learning, Mobile technology. Wireless internet, mobile phones, and mesh
networks such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. (Bleiberg,Darrell, 2014)
Manifestations that technology could influence the communication
within the family
The technology changed since technology has brought down the cost of
communication expressively and improved the access of the people who used
technology. People now communicate whatever comes up instantly, and tend
to break up different topics into different communications. (Edwards, 2014)
13
According to Byrum (2015), Researchers, policymakers, popular pundits, and
journalists note that digital technologies have the power to disrupt personal
relationships and deliver uninvited content. This anxiety centers the impact
that new technologies can influence the well-being of children and the strength
and social cohesion of families. Experts worry that cell phones and personal
computer devices distract parents from the children (and vice versa) and
prevent children from engaging in positive, nurturing conversations. In a study
of caregivers in using smart phones in a fast-food restaurant, researchers
observed nearly two- thirds of participants who use mobile devices during
meals, eating and talking.
There are instances that because of technology children are being distant
from the parents. As a result, children will feel less familiarity, comfort, trust,
security, and, most importantly, love from the parents. There is also less
sharing which means that parents know less about what is going on in
children’s lives and, consequently, have less ability to exert influence over the
children. Parents are also unable to offer appropriate supervision and guidance,
but, at a more basic level, parents are unable to model healthy behavior, share
positive values, and send good messages to the children. (Taylor, 2013)
And as the technology affect our lives technology results to changes.
According to Gonski (2013) every time people use technology, technology
immures the society. Many often say that technology frees people, but in many
ways, says Steiner-Adair, technology only imprisons. As technology calls
people to social banter and to gaming, bargain hunting, browsing, current
14
events as this events happen society feels in need to connect and struggling
with the guilt, the lost time and the exhaustion that comes within it.
Technologies make the world small and virtual. Proliferation of technology
and its effects on interpersonal relationships warns that the influence of
technology can be a hindrance to interpersonal relationships. To McQuillen, the
Internet has made the world smaller in terms of global interaction, but wider in
terms of one-on-one relationships. McQuillen believes that the more children
are left to the Internet, the less likely people are to see familial
interdependence. McQuillen believes companies that produce all of these
technologies are making unreal interaction same with face-to-face interaction.
And McQuillen believes that this can be disastrous for family life. (Sorensen,
2015)
Technologies could also give wrong and bad perception about family or
parents. Over the years, children who watched television could get ideas from
popular culture saying that parents are selfish, immature, incompetent, and
generally clueless, for example, from Malcolm in the Middle, Tool Time, Family
Guy, Two and a Half Men, and I Hate My Teenage Daughter, not to mention
reality TV shows such as SuperNanny and the Housewives franchise. This
divide has grown due to the increasing use of technology among children in
several ways. First, children’s absorption in technology, from texting to playing
video games, does by the very nature limit the children’s availability to
communicate with parents. One study found that when the working parent
arrived home after work, children were so immersed in technology that the
parent was greeted only 30 percent of the time and was totally ignored 50
15
percent of the time. Another study reported that technologies hurt family
communications when used for social reasons. Interestingly, children who
spent considerable time on a popular social networking site indicated that
people felt unsupported by the parents. Second, as digital immigrants, parents
are struggling to gain proficiency and comfort with the new technology that the
digital-native children are already immersed. This divergence in competence
makes it more difficult for parents to assume the role of teacher and guide in
the children’s use of technology. Because of the lack of technological acumen
on the part of many parents, parent lack the sense of authority, at least in the
eyes of the children, to regulate its use. Due to parents’ anxiety or
apprehension about the use of technology, parents may be unwilling to assert
themselves in the children’s technological lives. Since children’s sense of
superiority and lack of respect for parents’ authority matters, children may be
unwilling to listen to the parents. (Taylor, 2013) Because of these, parents,see
a loss of communication to the children and parents didn’t bother to entertain
the children. And there an instances in which parents and children are emailing
and texting each other even though in the same place.
According to Gonski (2013),one of the first things parents notice is that
day-to-day communication with the kids is different from the way it was before
the invasion of technology. But just like the kids, parents also love the
technologies. Kids have told Steiner-Adair that the parents are virtually missing
in action, routinely engaged in either a cell phone conversation or basking in
the glow of the computer screen. Children compete with computers and cell
phones for the parents’ attention. Sharing self-expression and identity are one
16
of the reasons that there are hindrances in the communication of the family,
many find that the nature of the Internet can allow children to voice the
opinions and organize the thoughts in a setting that isn’t confined by the
parents, other adults or other social constraints. (Oglethorpe, 2012)
Most children today has a direct connection through the internet. According
to FamilyTech Guest (2017) children ages spent an average of 7.5 hours a day,
seven days a week on technology. Whether the time is devoted to social
media, internet research, or communication, children are regularly involved
with technology. A recent study found that children aged between 12 and 15
are spending as much time online as children are watching television, about 17
hours a week for each. (Orlando, 2013) Teenagers spend two or more hours on
social network sites and a too much time allotted for that activity. In terms of
communication, social networking has own advantages. It means that
teenagers can communicate with the family members and friends easily.
However, this type of communication affects negatively the ability of face to
face communication or real life conversations of teenagers. Moreover, young
people whose life is based from social networking do not recognize that the
connection with real life is getting weaker and weaker. (Salgur, 2016)
According to a study on media influence done by the Kaiser Family
Foundation, 8-18 years old spent about 50 hours per week on the different
entertainment media. And on that time children did not meet the friends and
shares stories with family or negotiating in-person relationships and even if do
so children are mentally absent when sitting with a group of friends or family.
Parents are spending nearly the same amount of time per day as the tween
17
and teen-aged kids consuming media and using various digital technologies.
The gap was even smaller among families with parents who are still in the
thirties or early forties. In other words, the younger the parents are the more
technology- and media-dependent parents are. All of this points to the fact that
the digital world has influenced all members of the family, not just teens.
(Hunter, 2011)
Indeed, technology could influence the communication within the family like
sharing common interests and emotions, so instead in sharing those things
within the family most people tend to shares feelings with the social medias by
the use of the respective technologies. Consider someone who enjoys
photography as a serious leisure. This person would be able to share that
passion with people all over the world by using the Internet and powerful tools
(e-mail, video chat, discussion boards, online video, family Web sites).
However, simply sharing common interests and pursuits with people through
technology does not necessarily have a positive impact on social skills and
social development. (Human Kinetics, 2010)
Technologies that influence the communication within the family
With smart phones and social media dominating society, Juggi
Ramakrishnan notes that there was an alarming trend of parents who ignore
the children of all ages, and paid more attention to the phones and tablets than
the immediate surroundings. Psychologist Catherine Steiner-Adair agrees that
people are behaving in ways that certainly tell that children don’t matter, not
18
interesting, not as compelling as anybody, anything, any ping that may
interrupt our time with children. (Restom, 2017)
Most people view the internet having a relatively minor influence on the
amount of time that people spend on various activities. For many internet
users, new communication tools have led to an increase in the time users
spend working, whether that work is done at the office or at home. One in five
employed internet users (19%) says, using the internet has increased the
amount of time spend working from home, and one in ten (11%) say that
technology has increased the amount of time employees spend working from
the office.
Despite the large number of people who now work from home, the blurring
of work and family life has surprisingly few quantifiable effects with respect to
the ways workers spend the private time. Individuals who work at home at
least occasionally and those who are employed but do not work from home are
similar in terms of the satisfaction with the time for family, friends and
hobbies; the amount of time people spent with other household members; the
tendency to socialize with others; and the perceived closeness of the family.
(Wellman, Smith, Wells & Kennedy, 2008)
Cell phones and mobile devices can have a great benefit, especially in
emergencies, but this can also be a serious distraction on family’s
communication. According to Taylor (2013), computer and mobile technology
have provided children with independence in the communications with friends
and others. Consider this: In previous generations, if children wanted to be in
19
touch with a friend, people had to call them on the home phone which might be
answered by a parent. Thus, parents had the opportunity to monitor and act as
gatekeepers for the children’s social lives.
Television is one of the technologies that could influence the
communication of the family. Television is one mode of technology that can
prevent a family from communicating. (Sorensen, 2015)
Television can affect people’s social skills because viewers are not practicing
how to relate to and deal with other people. (Human Kinetics, 2010) One of the
big concerns with TV is that the more time one spends watching, the less time
is spent doing other, more valuable things. This is perhaps nowhere more
evident than in the area of public life, in places such as sports arenas, Church
and extended family gatherings. TV becomes a new sort of gathering place, a
place where people find meaning, value and sensory communion, where "us"
and "them" is readily identifiable. Obviously TV is a form of parallel interaction
in which each family member interacts with the TV more than family members
interact with each other when the TV is on. This is in sharp contrast to things
like games and meals where communication happens interactively. Studies
have shown that when the TV is on, children and fathers are oriented towards
each other less of the time, as family talk less and have fewer positive facial
expressions than when the TV is turned off. During commercials, interaction
between family members is increased but then goes back once again to lower
levels when the program resumes. With the TV on for an average of seven
hours a day in American homes, interactive communication where family
members are truly present with each other is substantially reduced. At one
20
time, values, expectations and common modes of behavior are found and
taught within the family but with the advent of the TV age, is often the mass-
media that replaces this familial function. Amidst this changing of place of
meaning away from the family comes chaos, in many areas of life as there is
now no longer any standard or recognizable place where appropriate values
and behavior can be modeled and it is in this model that the Mass Media
becomes a teacher. (Bolen, 2006)
As Verma and Lawson (2002) noted, adolescents who spend time watching
television with families find it a passive and unfulfilling experience in
comparison with other shared leisure activities, a fact that suggests that the
only reason families opt to watch television together instead of participating in
other mutual activities is due mainly to convenience. If someone if your family
is glued to hand-held or game console, video games could be affecting your
family negatively. Playing video games too often can promote isolation and
seclusion and can cut down on your family time and communication. If your
family members have unrestricted access to the video games, people may be
at risk for becoming addicted to them. Playing violent video games may also
lead to increased violence and aggression in family members. (Modernmom
staff, 2011) The relationships developed in online games are real and valuable.
people should not be diminished simply because people are not done face to
face. There is still value in having friends outside of games of course, but the
ones online can be important as well. The values of family, the relationships
developed, and the age of technology we are in are all represented in the
online gaming community. (Mayhughn, 2014)
21
Synthesis
22
Semi- Radical technology relies on the existing knowledge about technology.
However, Semi- Radical technology uses knowledge that differs importantly
into the past. Disruptive technology is known as disruptive since it breaks the
traditional ones and provide new products and technologies that are more
accessible and useful. Incremental technologies are small but have valued
improvements for today’s product and methods.
According to Byrum (2015), Researchers, policymakers, popular pundits,
and journalists notes that digital technologies have the power to disrupt
personal relationships and deliver uninvited content. This anxiety centers the
impact that new technologies can influence the well-being of children and the
strength and social cohesion of families.
There are instances that because of technology children are being distant from
the parents. As a result, children will feel less familiarity, comfort, trust,
security, and, most importantly, love from the parents. Technologies could also
gives wrong and bad perception about family or parents. (Taylor, 2013)
the use of the respective technologies. However, simply sharing common
interests and pursuits with people through technology does not necessarily
23
have a positive impact on social skills and social development. (Human
Kinetics, 2010)
communication. Television is one of the technologies that could influence the
Playing video games too often can promote isolation and seclusion and can cut
down on your family time and communication.
The values of family, the relationships developed, and the age of technology
we are in are all represented in the online gaming community. (Mayhughn,
2014)
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used by the researchers in the development of this study
was presented and elaborated in this chapter. This chapter serves as a guide
for conducting the study systematically and manageably in order to achieve the
project’s objective.
Research Design
Quantitative research is used in this study. Quantitative methods can be
explained as the objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or
24
numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys,
or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques.
Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing
data across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon. (Babbie,
2010) The most popular research methods from this category are closed-ended
questionnaires, experiments, correlation and regression analysis methods and
others. (Bryman and Bell, 2005)
Quantitative research design namely correlation is used in the current study
and can be characterized to determine the existence of a relationship between
two or more variables and to determine the degree of the relationship. (Polit
and Hungles, 1999) Moreover Kowalczyk (2015) tells that the whole purpose of
using correlations in research is to figure out which variables are connected.
Population and Sample
Population is described as a group of individuals who have the same
characteristics. (Creswell, 2012) The target population of the study is the 182
Marketing students of DFCAM- CLP. The sampling design used in this study is
the Simple Random Procedure in which is characterized as the idea that every
chance of selection is the same for each member of the population.
The researchers utilized slovin’s formula to determine the sample size of
the study which is 125 individuals.
Slovin’s formula is used to calculate the sample size (n) given the population
25
size (N) and a margin of error (e). Slovin’s formula is a random sampling
technique formula to estimate the sampling size.
This formula is computed as: n= N

(1+Ne2)
Whereas:
n=? (Number of samples)
N= 182 (total population of Marketing students)
e= .05 (margin of error)
Computation:
n= 182
(1+ 182(.05) ^2)
n= 125
Instrument
The instrument used was a researcher-made questionnaire checklist to
gather the needed data for the respondent’s profile. The research questionnaire
was used as the main data-gathering instrument for this study.
The draft of the questionnaire was drawn out based on the researcher’s
readings, previous studies, professional literature, published and unpublished
thesis relevant to the study and as well as the internet who serves as the guide
to get the required information for this study.
26
The research question encouraged open responses to sensitive issues at
hand as it avoids personal biases and giving the respondents a greater feeling
of anonymity.
Research Questionnaire
This research instrument has the capability to supply information needed for
the current study. This is made by the researchers to gather specific
information from the respondents.
Data gathering process
Figure 3
Research Flow
Plan Review the literature Formulate Research Problem
CONCLUSION
Formulate Research Questions
Interpret Results
Answering research questions Research Design
27
Data Analysis
Develop data collection method

Data Collection
Select Sample Conduct Pilot Study Specify Population
First of all, the researchers need to plan the research itself or to have a
research idea relating to the topic. Second, is to review the literature needed
from the study. Review of literature is needed to formulate the research
problem and research questions and review of literature is based on published
article of different authors around the globe. Third, is to provide and select the
research design such as questionnaires and surveys to develop the data
collection method. Fourth, is to specify population and to conduct a pilot study
needed in selecting a sample. Lastly, the researcher will proceed in collecting
and analyzing the data that will result to conclusion.
Step by step Process for the data gathering
 First of all the survey questionnaire is made to be used as a data
gathering instrument.
 Next, is to validate the survey questionnaire so that the
questionnaire can provide the necessary data.
 And lastly distribute the survey questionnaire.
Data Processing and Statistical Treatment
Inferential statistics is used to make judgments through numerical
28
descriptions to observe the difference between groups.
In the interpretation of result the following statistical measure was use:
1. The mean of the research is the use of technology and its influence on the
level of communication within the family of marketing students. Mean is
computed using this formula:
Where:
= sample population
= sum of the data
n = total number of population
2. The standard deviation is used to determine how much variation there is
from the students who answered strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and
strongly disagree. Computed using this formula:
Where: = standard deviation
= mean
Pearson R is used to determine the significant relationship between
technology and communication within the family of marketing students
Chapter 4
Presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data
This chapter contains the presentation, analysis, interpretation of all data
gathered. The discussion follows the sequence of specific problems presented
in the statement at the problem found in chapter 1.
Table 1
Demographic Profile of the respondents
29
Table 1.1
Demographic profile of the respondents in terms of gender
Frequency Percentage %
Female 69 55%
Male 56 45%
Total 125 100%
Table 1 shows the gender of all respondents. In which Female got a
frequency of 69 and have a percentage of 55%, and male got a frequency of
56 with a percentage of 45%. Among the 125 respondents Female got the
highest frequency.
Table 1.2
Demographic profile of respondent in terms of age
Frequency Percentage %
18-19 99 79%
20-21 21 17%
22 and above 5 4%
Total 125 100%
Table 1.2 shows that age of 18-19 got a frequency 99 and percentage 79%
at all of the respondents. For the 20-21 ages got a frequency of 21 and have a
30
percentage of 17, at age of 22 and above got a frequency of 5 and have a
percentage of 4%. As a result ages 18-19 got a higher frequency and
percentage of all the respondents.
Table 1.3
Profile of the respondent in terms of no. of Technology/Gadget
Frequency Percentage
0-2 40 32%
3-4 38 30%
5-6 29 23%
7-8 10 8%
9 8 6%
Total 125 100
Table 1.2 shows that 0-2 kind of gadget got a frequency of 40 out of 125
respondents and have a percentage of 32%, 3-4 gadgets got a frequency of 38
out of 125 or 30%. The 5-6 no. of technologies got a frequency of 29 out of
125 and a percentage of 23% while the 7-8 no. of technologies got a frequency
of 10 out of 125 with a percentage of 8%. And lastly the 9 technologies or
complete technologies got a frequency of 8 of 125 respondents and a
percentage of 6%. As a result the 0-2 number of technologies got the highest
frequency.
Table 2
Influence of technology to the level of communication
Weighted mean Interpretation

1. Technologies disrupt 2.5 Moderately Influential
personal relationship
31
2. Technologies prevent 2.6 Moderately Influential

the family from engaging
in activities
3. Technologies make 2.5 Moderately Influential
the children distant from
their parents
4. Technologies give 2.7 Moderately Influential
wrong perception about
parents
5. Technologies limit the 2.5 Moderately Influential
availability to
communicate with
parents
6. Parent unwilling assert 2.8 Moderately Influential
themselves in the
children’s technological
lives.
7. Parents are unwilling 2.7 Moderately Influential
to guide or limit their
children.
8. Children cannot voice 2.6 Moderately Influential
their opinions thoughts
to their parents.
9. Cellphone and mobile 2.5 Moderately Influential
device can be a
distraction on the family
communication.
10. Television is one 2.5 Moderately Influential
mode of technology that
mitigates family from
communication
11. Computer and mobile 2.3 Influential
technology have provide
children an avenue to
independent expression
12. Television can have 2.6 Moderately Influential
serious effect on people’s
social skills
13. Video games affect 2.7 Moderately Influential
32
your family negatively.

14. Video games can 2.7 Moderately Influential
promote isolation and
seclusion and can cut
down on your family
time and communication
15. Video games lead to 2.6 Moderately Influential
increased violence and
aggression within the
family.
16. I spent more time 2.6 Moderately Influential
using technologies than
talking with my parents.
17 I used technologies 2.7 Moderately Influential
even when I am with my
parents.
18. Technologies make 3.1 Moderately Influential
me feel distant from my
parents
19. When I have 3.1 Moderately Influential
problems I share it
online instead with my
family
20. I cannot voice my 3.1 Moderately Influential
thoughts and opinions
directly to my family, I
do it online instead.
21. Personal interaction 2.8 Moderately Influential
is severed due to
technology.
22. Technologies affect 2.7 Moderately Influential
my communication level
to my family.
General weighted mean 2.67 Moderately Influential
This table shows the influence of technology in terms of communication
within the family. Computer and mobile technology have provided children an
33
avenue to independent expression got the lowest weighted mean of 2.3 which
means it is Influential. The statement Technologies make me feel distant from
my parents, When I have problems I share it online instead with my family,
When I have problems I share it online instead with my family got the highest
weighted mean of 3.1 which means it is moderately influential. The general
weighted mean is 2.57. Therefore technology moderately influence the level of
communication within the family
Table 3
The level of communication of marketing students of DFCAM-CLP
Statement Weighted Mean Interpretation

I spent more time using 2.66 Average communication
technologies than talking
with my parents
I used technologies even 2.86 Average communication
when I am with my
parents
Technologies make me 3.1 Average communication
feel distant from my
parents
34
When I have problems I 3.1 Average communication

share it online instead
with my family
I cannot voice my 3.1 Average communication
thoughts and opinions
with my family
Personal interaction is 2.9 Average communication
severed due to
technology
Technologies affect my 2.7 Average communication
communication level to
my family
General Weighted Mean 2.9 Average communication
The level of communication of marketing students of DFCAM based on their
general weighted mean of 2.9 is Average communication. Indeed, the
marketing students have an average communication with their family.
Table 4
Difference on communication of technologically capable students and
technologically incapable students
Students General Weighted Mean Interpretation

Technologically capable 2.82 Average communication
students
Technologically incapable 2.92 Average communication
students
35
The communication of technologically capable students and technologically
incapable students are both Average communications. Therefore, there is no
difference between being a technologically capable students and technologically
incapable students.
Table 5
Significant relationship between technology and level of communication
Computed Degree of Computed Critical z- Level of Decision Interpretation

z-value Relationship z- value value Significance
-0.03 Negative -0.37 1.96 0.05 Accept Ho Not
Weak Significant
Correlation
of the family.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter contains the summary of findings, conclusions and
recommendations for further study.
Summary
36
Semi- Radical technology relies on the existing knowledge about technology.
However, Semi- Radical technology uses knowledge that differs importantly
into the past. Disruptive technology is known as disruptive since it breaks the
traditional ones and provide new products and technologies that are more
accessible and useful. Incremental technologies are small but have valued
improvements for today’s product and methods.
According to Byrum (2015), Researchers, policymakers, popular pundits,
and journalists note that digital technologies have the power to disrupt
personal relationships and deliver uninvited content. This anxiety centers the
impact that new technologies can influence the well-being of children and the
strength and social cohesion of families.
There are instances that because of technology children are being distant from
the parents. As a result, children will feel less familiarity, comfort, trust,
37
security, and, most importantly, love from the parents. Technologies could also
gives wrong and bad perception about family or parents. (Taylor, 2013)
the use of the respective technologies. However, simply sharing common
interests and pursuits with people through technology does not necessarily
have a positive impact on social skills and social development. (Human
Kinetics, 2010)
communication. Television is one of the technologies that could influence the
Playing video games too often can promote isolation and seclusion and can cut
down on your family time and communication.
The values of family, the relationships developed, and the age of technology
we are in are all represented in the online gaming community. (Mayhughn,
2014)
Summary of findings
Based on the analysis of the data, the following findings were taken into
account:
38
1. The demographic profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender and
no. of technologies.
The demographic profile 1.1 shows the gender of the respondents
chosen for the research wherein 69 or 55% are female and 56 or 45% are
male. It indicates that most of the respondents are female.
The demographic profile 1.2 shows the age of the respondents chosen
for the research wherein 99 or 79% have an age of 18-19 years old, 21 or 17%
have an age of 20-21 years old and 5 or 4% have an age of 22 and above. It
indicates that most of the respondents have an age of 18-19 years old.
The profile 1.3 shows the no. of technologies of the respondents chosen
for the research shows that 0-2 no. of gadgets got a frequency of 40 and have
a percentage of 32%, 3-4 gadgets got a frequency of 38 and have a
percentage of 30. The 5-6 no. of technologies got a frequency of 29 out of 125
and a percentage of 23% while the 7-8 no. of technologies got a frequency of
10 out of 125 with a percentage of 8%. And lastly the 9 technologies or
complete technologies got a frequency of 8 of 125 respondents and a
percentage of 6%.
2. Influence of technology to the level of communication
The influence of technology to the level of communication within the family
based on their general weighted mean is moderately influential. So that
technology can moderately influence the level of communication within the
family.
39
3. Level of communication
The level of communication of marketing students of DFCAM based on their
general weighted mean is Average communication. Indeed, the marketing
students have an average communication with their family.
4. Difference on communication between technologically capable students
and technologically incapable students
The communication of technologically capable students and technologically
incapable students are both Average communications. Therefore, there is no
difference between being technologically capable and technologically incapable.
5. Significant relationship between technology and communication
of the family.
CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned findings, the following conclusions were
established:
1. Most of the respondents are female; most of the respondents have an
age of 18-19. And most of the respondents have 0-2 number of
technologies
40
2. The manifestations that technology could influence the level of
communication within the family are; Technologies make the children
distant from their parents, Technologies limit the availability to
communicate with their parents, and Children cannot voice their opinions
and thoughts to their parents and shares it online instead.
3. The technologies or gadgets that could influence the level of
communication are cellphones, televisions, computer/laptop and video
games.
4. The level of communication between the family of Marketing students of
DFCAM-CLP is average
5. There is no difference on communication between technologically
capable and technologically incapable students. Indeed, the
technologically capable students and technologically incapable students
both have an average communication with their parents.
6. There is no significant relationship between technology and
communication of the family.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were
suggested:
41
1. The researchers would like to recommend that the future researchers
can include how much time the respondents consumed in using
technologies.
2. The future researchers can include the other factors that can influence
the level of communication within the family.
3. The researchers would like to recommend that people should be aware
of the influence of technology to the level of communication within the
family
4. People should spend quality time with their family to avoid weak
communication.
42
Bibliography
BARRY WELLMAN, A. S. (2008, October 19). The internet, cell phones, and
family communication. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2008/10/19/the-internet-cell-phones-and-
family-communication/
Bolen, J. (2006, November 21). TV's Effect on the Family. Retrieved July 9,
2017, from http://tvseffect.blogspot.com/
Bonderud, D. (2015, May 15). Technology and Family Life: What’s the Impact.
Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
https://www.gazelle.com/thehorn/2015/05/15/technology-and-family-
life-whats-the-impact/
Bray, B. (2010, September 22). Technology and its Impact on Society.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2014/12/22/techtanks-top-
10-tech-innovations-that-will-transform-society-and-governance/
Byrum, G. (2015, May 1). How has technology changed America’s families?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/how-has-technology-
changed-americas-families/
Dunn, C. (2014, May 6). Technology can help parents forge stronger links with
their children. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/06/technology-
helping-families-communicate-or-holding-back
George, D. S. (2008, October 20). Internet, Cellphones May Strengthen Family

Unit, Study Finds. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/10/19/AR2008101901346.html
Gonski, L. (2013, December 4). How technology impacts families. Retrieved

June 2017, from http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-
democrat/index.ssf/2013/12/how_technology_impacts_familie.html
Guterl, F. (2014, November 10). What Impact Will Emerging Technologies

Have on Society? Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
http://www.gistic.org/the-innovation-of-technologies-and-its-three-
types/
43
Hunter, L. (2011, May 23). 5 WAYS TECHNOLOGY INFLUENCES FAMILIES.

Retrieved July 9, 2017, from http://churchtechtoday.com/2011/05/23/5-
ways-tech-influences-families/
Lopez, S. (2010, April 9). The Influence of Media on the Family. Retrieved July
9, 2017, from http://www.parentsareimportant.com/2010/04/influence-
of-media-on-family.html
MODERNMOM. (2011, January 18). The Effects of Video Games on the Family.
Retrieved July 9, 2017, from https://www.modernmom.com/2daee054-
051f-11e2-9d62-404062497d7e.html
Nayab, N. (2014, October 24). How Communication Has Evolved With New
Technologies . Retrieved June 2017, from
http://www.balanceinteractive.com/blog/influence-technology-culture
Oglethorpe, M. (2012, July 3). The positive role of technology: why parents
should embrace the online world. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from
https://themodernparent.net/the-positive-role-of-technology-why-
parents-should-embrace-the-online-world/
Orlando, J. (2013, July 9). Technology harming family life? Blame the parents.
Retrieved June 18, 2017, from
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/technology-harming-family-life-
blame-the-parents-20130709-2pndz.html
Pruitt, M. (2015, February 12). Is Using Your Phone Affecting Your Child and
Family Life? Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
https://parentsplace.jfcs.org/using-phone-affecting-child-family-life/
Ramey, K. (2012, November 12). TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY – IMPACT OF

TECHNOLOGY ON SOCIETY. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-impact-will-
emerging-technologies-have-on-society/
Restom, D. (2017). The devastating effect smartphones are having on families.

Retrieved July 9, 2017, from http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-
life/in-the-news/the-devastating-effect-smartphones-are-having-on-
families
Schoolworkhelper. (2016). Television and Its Effects on Interfamilial

Relationships. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
https://schoolworkhelper.net/television-and-its-effects-on-interfamilial-
relationships/
44
Sorensen, B. (2015, January 28). How Does Technology Affect Family

Communication? Retrieved June 18, 2017, from
http://www.livestrong.com/article/243280-how-does-technology-affect-
family-communication/
Taylor, J. (2013, March 13). Is Technology Creating a Family Divide? Retrieved

June 18, 2017, from Is Technology Creating a Family Divide?
Taylor, J. (2013, March 15). Is Technology Creating a Family Divide? Retrieved

June 18, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/is-
technology-creating-a-_b_2862631.html
TECHGUEST, F. (2017, fEBRUARY 12). How Technology Affects Family

Dynamics. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from http://familytech.com/how-
technology-affects-family-dynamics/
University, B. Y. (2009, January 25). Video Games Linked To Poor

Relationships With Friends, Family. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090123075000.htm
Wiley-Blackwell. (2011, September 15). TV found to have negative impact on

parent-child communication and early literacy compared to books and
toys. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110914122317.htm
45

Background of The Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Background of The Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Background of The Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of technology to the level of communication within the family

Background of the study

Technologies on today’s world are getting better as the time passes,

so called Generation Y in which digital immigrants live and manipulated by

technology that results to decline of communication. First of all communication

is defined as the connection between two or more people, in which people

affected by the technologies that rise on our very world.

New technology offers children independence from the parents involvement

networking sites. Of course, children see this technological between children

and parents as freedom from over-involvement and emersion on the part of

overall health of children lives. Children's time consuming immersion in

children anymore, leaving the children more time to do anything.

messages to the children. (Taylor, 2015)

The researchers choose this topic to observe how communication on

family faded because of technology.

The study is conducted to determine the influence of technology to the

level of communication within the family

Specifically, it aimed to answer the following questions:

1.What is the Demographic Profile of the respondents in forms of:

1.3 Technologies or Gadgets the respondents have

1. What are the manifestations that a technology could influence a family’s

2. What is the level of communication that Marketing students of DFCAM-

CLP have with their family?

3. How different is the level of communication between technologically

capable students from technologically incapable students or those who

do not have technology (gadgets) or to those students who only have

This study aims to:

of communication within the family of marketing students of DFCAM-CLP

2. Observe the different technologies that could influence the

communication within the family.

3. Discover the level of communication of marketing students of DFCAM-

4. Differentiate the level of communication between technologically

capable student from those who do not have technology (gadget) or to

those who have few or limited gadgets.

There is no significant relationship between technology and communication

Scope and Delimitation

of Marketing students of DFCAM-CLP. In addition this study aims to know and

differentiate the level of communication between technologically capable

parents, social misunderstandings, poor time management, and the time

consumed on using technologies but are not considered in the study.

The purpose of this study is to educate the respondents by

understanding the influence of technology to the level of communication within

The findings of this study would benefit the following:

Children: Children can use our Research by knowing the influence of

technology to the communication between students and parents. And how a

technology could disrupt the relationship between the families

Future researchers: This study would be beneficial to the future researchers

A. Lack of authority A. Lack at respect

B. Lack of B. Unwilling to listen

Attention to the parents

C. Lacks information C. Spend more time

about with technology

what happen with the D. Lack of communication

children from parents

The influence of technologies to both parents and children can lead to

deterioration of family’s communication.

Disrupt Relationship Bad Perception

study given the influence of using technology when engage to the

theory of Taylor (2013) emphasized that technologies could give bad