KARATAŞ, E. (2018). A Case Study on the Positive Effects of Smartphone Usage in Postgraduate Education. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 7 (2), 607-635. DOI: 10.14686/buefad.402975 Bartın Uni versity Journal of Faculty of Education, 7(2), 607-635 Bartı n Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 607-635 buefad.bartin.edu.tr A Case Study on the Positive Effects of Smartphone Usage in Postgraduate Education Erinç Karataş*a Article Info Abstract DOI: 10.14686/buefad.402975 Smartphones have become a part of the individuals in all societies. This is also true for students. Studies on the effects of the use of smart devices in educational Article History: environments, especially during the course, have begun to attract the attention of Received: 07.03.2018 researchers. The aim of this research is to seek answer to the question of the positive Revised: 17.05.2018 effects of the use of smartphones in the education processes of graduate students. In Accepted: 30.06.2018 the case study, which was designed as a Type 1 study, 29 students who received Keywords: masters training in 10 different departments in the Educational Sciences Institute of one of Ankara's established universities were involved. According to the opinions Smartphone usage, obtained through the feedback form from participants who declared that most of Postgraduate education, them use a smartphone for more than 4 hours a day, it was determined that they used Case study. these devices for searching the subject or the term of the course, academic research, Article Type: following course materials, taking notes via photographs or voice notes, Research Article communicating with peers and instructors, and so on. Besides smartphones are also used for actions like notifications that are not relevant to the course, or clock control because student is bored. Lisansüstü Eğitimde Akıllı Cep Telefonu Kullanımının Olumlu Etkileri Üzerine Bir Durum Çalışması Makale Bilgisi Öz Tüm toplumlara bakıldığında akıllı cep telefonları bireylerin birer parçası haline DOI: 10.14686/buefad.402975 gelmiştir. Bu durum öğrenciler için de geçerlidir. Eğitim ortamlarında özellikle de ders Makale Geçmişi: sırasında akıllı cihazların kullanımının etkileri üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, Geliş: 07.03.2018 araştırmacıların dikkatini çekmeye başlamıştır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, yüksek lisans Düzeltme: 17.05.2018 öğrencilerinin eğitim süreçlerinde akıllı cep telefonu kullanımının olumlu etkilerine Kabul: 30.06.2018 yönelik görüşleri nelerdir sorusuna cevap aramaktır. Durum çalışması Tip 1 olarak Anahtar Kelimeler: desenlenen araştırmada, Ankara’nın köklü üniversitelerinden birinin Eğitim Bilimleri Akıllı telefon kullanımı, Enstitüsünde yer alan 10 farklı anabilim dalında yüksek lisans eğitimi alan 29 öğrenci Lisansüstü eğitim, ile çalışılmıştır. Çoğunluğunun günde 4 saatten fazla akıllı cep telefonu kullandığını Durum çalışması. beyan eden katılımcılardan görüş formu yoluyla elde edilen görüşlere göre, bu cihazları daha çok derste geçen konu ya da terimi araştırma, akademik araştırma, ders Makale Türü: materyallerini takip etme, fotoğraf ya da sesli not özelliği ile ders notu alma, akran ve Araştırma Makalesi öğretim elemanı ile iletişim amaçlı kullandıkları gibi, sıkılma nedeniyle ders ile ilgisi olmayan bildirimlerin ya da saatin kontrolü gibi eylemler için de kullandıkları belirlenmiştir. *Corresponding Author: [email protected] a Asst. Prof. Dr., Ankara University, Ankara/Turkey, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4336-6232 Smartphone Usage in Postgraduate Education Introduction It is a common fact that individuals’ having smartphones across the globe has become widespread. According to 2017 data, 75% of American adults and 92% of the American young adults aged 18-29 are known to have a smartphone (Olmstead, 2017). In 2017, the Internet usage was revealed to be 66.8% by individuals in the 16-74 age group (TÜİK, 2017). For university students who are a part of the society, smartphones (Hawi & Samaha, 2016; Judd, 2014) have become an inseparable part of them. According to the data from the 2014 Educause Analysis and Research Center, 86% of undergraduate students (Dahlstrom & Bichsel, 2014) and 15% of the young American adults, between 18-29 years, have a smartphone (Smith, et al., 2015). Students use smartphones not only in spare time activities but also in in-class activities (Felisoni & Godoi, 2018) and this usage has become a natural part of the process (Kim, et al., 2017). In Turkey, in 1994, the number of mobile phone subscribers was 81.276, and according to the June 2017 data, this number reached 76.616.147. Again, the number of the Internet subscribers according to the same data is 66.436.443. (Since Turkish Statistics Institute or other researches did not have detailed information about mobile phone usage, no data was presented on a country basis.) In order to understand why students’ use smartphones, it is useful to look first at, why smartphones have become a part of everyday life of all the individuals. Smartphones are handheld devices, which provide access to the Internet, and facilitate the daily lives and professional activities of individuals (Anshari, Almunawar, Shahrill, Wicaksono, & Huda, 2017). The fact that smart phones have the capacity to store thousands of things such as photos, video, sound, applications, games, etc., (Hawi & Samaha, 2016), enhances the charm of these devices. The reasons for the use of smartphones in daily life vary: Communication, productivity, entertainment, social networks, games (Kwon, Lee, Won, Park, Min, Hahn, et al. 2013), access to information via the Internet, finding addresses, reading news online or taking photos (Chen & Yan, 2016) are among a few of the reasons. Moreover, today, a wide range of applications suitable for all ages, preferences and intentions of use are offered to users in application markets (Hawi & Samaha, 2016). When we look at the students’ smartphone usage; they benefit from smartphones as a learning assistant for many reasons, including ease of use, portability, comprehensive learning experience, multi-resource provisioning and multi-tasking and being eco-friendliness (Anshari, Almunawar, Shahrill, Wicaksono, & Huda, 2017). There are two contrasting opinions on the use of smart mobile phones in educational environments of students. The first focuses on the negative aspects of its use, while the other draws attention to the positive aspects. The problem of this research is to investigate the positive effects of smartphone use during the training process. Smartphone Usage in Educational Environments According to Bradford Networks 2013 study, 89% of the colleges and universities in the USA and the UK, and 44% of elementary and high schools allow them to bring their own devices to school and use them (O'Bannon, Dunn, & Park, 2017). Some teachers believe that they should allow the use of smartphones in their classrooms (Ruggiero & Mong, 2015). In traditional university teaching, especially in large classrooms, the instructor teaches, and the student takes individual notes about this course. Nowadays, traditionally called face-to-face education has had to turn its face into many resources offered online. Student-centered practices such as flipped classes and collaborative learning lead to the development of cooperative note taking strategies (Kuznekoff, Munz, & Titsworth, 2015). Today, instructors and teachers make choices, through a mass of online resources and share that they find useful with their students (Anshari, et al., 2017). In addition, instructors and teachers encourage and assist students to use the online resources correctly at least that is the way it should be. Teens prefer smartphones to other devices in accessing the Internet (García-Ormaechea, 2014). According to the study of Advanced Placement (AP) and National Writing Project (NWP), 73% of the teachers expressed that they use smartphones to complete students' homework, 79% to access students' homework and 76% expressed the usage of a smartphone to deliver the students’ homework online (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). Many students use the camera of smartphones to receive lecture notes or other notes given by instructors (Anshari, et al., 2017). In the study of Junco and Cotton (2011), it is understood that 93% of students are actively chatting on smartphones while doing homework. According to the study with university students by Tindell and Bohlander (2012), 90% of the students are messaging during class presentations. Yıldırım, Yaşar, and Murat (2016) conducted a study with 30 students to investigate the effects of the use of smartphones in educational environments. They found that secondary school students use their smartphones to communicate with their families, to take photos of lecture notes, and to deal with their time when they are bored. In addition to these 608 Karataş intended uses, they have obtained the result that high school students use their smartphones in the educational environments to make repetitions, to complete their homework and to cheat. Gökdaş, Torun, and Bağrıaçık's (2014) research on student candidates with 656 education faculty students to determine their educational use of mobile phones and their views on mobile learning, provided that mobile phones were used primarily as communication tools, taking photos, and time planning. If the reasons for smartphone usage are to be listed in educational environments: • online chat, blogging, tweeting, or enhancing the interaction between student and instructor through other social platforms, providing interaction and sharing between peer groups, collaboration, providing student centered learning and differentiation of teaching (Alarabiat & Al-Mohammad, 2015; Anshari, et al., 2017, Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007; Echeverria, et al., 2011; Gökdaş, Torun, & Bağrıaçık, 2014; Kukulska-Hulme, 2007); • visualizations of different subjects, analysis of these images, creating electronic reports, blogging, wiki, digital photography and sharing, providing information communication with tools such as digital stories, taking advantage of the camera (Gökdaş, Torun, & Bağrıaçık, 2014; Nakamura, Hanamitsu, & Minamizawa, 2015; O'Bannon, Dunn, & Park, 2017; Yıldırım, Yaşar, & Murat, 2016); • article readings, sharing attractive articles with each student or silent e-group discussions (Alarabiat & Al-Mohammad, 2015; Au, Lam, & Chan, 2015); • create content, access content, find additional information, search for specific information (Alarabiat & Al-Mohammad, 2015; Bull & Thompson, 2004; Echeverria, et al., 2011; Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008); • evaluation and reflection (Markett, Sanchez, Weber, & Tangney, 2006; Thomas, O’Bannon, & Britt, 2014); • management associated with the course, entertainment, such as playing games, listening to music, watching videos (Alarabiat & Al-Mohammad, 2015), • translation, spelling control, word search and dictionary access (Al Hamdani, 2014); • document sharing, syncing, storing and restoring documents shared by academics and students (Johnston, 2016) are seen. Wang et al. (2009) classified the effect of smartphone usage in the classroom on the human behaviors as; performance expectation (the perceived benefit of mobile learning), effort expectation (the easiness of smartphone usage for the perceived learning by the users), social effect (belief towards how the other people adopt to mobile learning), perceived entertainment (smartphone usage entertainment except form learning process) and self- management of learning (the expression of how an individual her/himself during the connection process to an authentic learning environment). An indication of the widespread use of smartphones with so many and various uses is also revealed by the work of Smith et al. (2015). According to this study, 99% of the undergraduate students who declared that they own a smartphone stated that they have used their mobile phones at least once during the last hour of their courses. However, when the literature is examined, as mentioned above, there are two contrasting opinions that look positively and negatively in the use of smartphones in educational environments, but most of the research has been observed to focus on the negative opinion. There are two arguments in the negative facing studies: The first is the addiction caused by excessive use, and the other is multi-tasking caused by excessive use, which is allowed by smartphones to do multiple jobs simultaneously, that causes division and distraction. As a result of the division and distraction, the course process has a breakdown of the natural flow. The outcome of both negative situations is a decrease in the success of the course. Brief explanations of some of the studies that have revealed these situations are mentioned below. The definitions of internet addiction, mobile addiction and smartphone addiction differ according to the literature (Lee, et al., 2015). Hwang, Son, & Choi (2011), express the level of dependence on the smartphone, as being addicted to the smartphone, the fact of obsessive usage and putting daily life into trouble. In the definition of Yoon et al. (2011), it is pointed out, that the lack of mobile phone leads to irritability and anxiety disorder and 609 Smartphone Usage in Postgraduate Education the inability to concentrate on the work. Felisoni and Godoi (2018) think that the negative effect of the usage of smartphones or other technologies on academic performance could be due to their "excessive" use. Excessive use of smartphones or other technologies can cause the instructors to be distracted and a negative reflection on the quality of the lesson and other class activities. It is claimed that students who use this kind of technology too heavily, can "poke" other students in the class, with application control, instant messaging, etc. They also think that some mobile phone applications may be more harmful than others may. Tesch, Coelho, and Drozdenko (2011) point out that not only the use of personal technology, but also the use of technology by others (phone ringing, etc.) will distract attention. According to the researches if there is no specific usage policy or proper supervision, students use their mobile phones more often in appropriate conditions such as large/crowded classrooms or if the teacher does not move in the classroom (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2005). In the study of Lee, Cho, Kim, and Noh (2015), they attempted to understand the difference between self- controlled learning and learning flow, focused on university students' addiction on smartphones and based on the level of smartphone addiction. The learning flow is described as the fully concentration and entertainment of a person while participating in an activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and the person’s showing emotional or behavioral effort (Marks, 2000). With the pleasure of the flow, the student's satisfaction level, learning quality and learning results are increasing (Kim, Tak, & Lee, 2010). In the study conducted with 210 students, it was seen that the self-controlled learning of the students with high level of dependency was low, similar to the low flow during the study. In the study of Lee, et al. (2015), it was observed that smartphone addicted students were regularly interrupted by different applications on the phones while working, and it was seen that they had no control over their plans for learning with the mobile phone. However, it was also observed that those who use smartphones in an excessive way have social problems in their daily lives. The 1839 American university students who participated in the study of Junco and Cotten (2011), it was observed that the average academic performance of students who spend, on a daily basis, quite a long time with smartphones are declining in the opposite proportion. In Duncan, Hoekstra and Wilcox’s (2012) study with university students, it was seen that there is a reverse relationship between the use of mobile phone in class and the final grades. In the study of Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever (2013), it was seen that 263 American students between 11-25 years, using Facebook and messaging while working, had lower average academic achievement scores than those who did not. In the study of Felisoni and Godoi (2018), they used two applications called “Moment” and “App Usage Tracker” to understand the amount of time students spend on their mobile phones. When the academic achievements of 250 students enrolled in the business school in Brazil were compared with the time they spent using a smartphone, it was observed that in response to every 100 minutes, the school success decreased by 6.3 degrees. Moreover, this ratio is doubled when considering the use during the class. In fact, there is also an emotional aspect of the negative aspect on the usage of smartphones in educational environments. In the study conducted by Abramova, Baumann, Krasnov, and Lessmann (2017) with 60 university students, the "phub" act in academic environments was discussed. The "Phub" action is described in the Cambridge Dictionary as ignoring the person you are together and dealing with your own mobile phone instead. The MacMillan Dictionary, on the other hand, characterizes this action as a rude behavior. In their work with observation, survey and focus group interviews, Abramova et al. (2017) showed that students' mobile phone usage steals significantly time of the course, and often underestimate the impact of this behavior on the learning process. This study shows that the number of times a student looks at the smartphone during the course, is negatively correlated with visual attention, and that the total duration of smartphone usage worsens auditory attention. If it comes to the multitasking feature of smartphones, Chen and Yan (2016) describe this feature with an example. When individuals read an article, regularly and continuously checking their e-mails is defined as multi- tasking, while reading articles with the aim of learning on mobile phones is referred to as mobile learning. Although multi-tasking is not a new phenomenon, there is an increase in the number and type of digital activities that people can perform simultaneously. The accessibility of new technologies, perceived ease of use, and a wide range of events makes it easy for adult and young learners to connect to non-tasking behaviors in teaching contexts (Wood, et al., 2012). 610 Karataş Wood, et al., (2012), describes multitasking as doing more than one job at the same time. Junco (2012) defines this as "transition between non-well-structured and non-sequential tasks performed during learning situations and split attention". From this definition, Wood et al. (2012) state that processing of the information will take more time and Chen and Yan (2016) however state, that some information may be lost during the inter-stimulus transition process. Multitasking with technology can affect efficiency and productivity in the academic context negatively (Karpinski, Kirschner, Ozer, Mellott, & Ochwo, 2013). Chen and Yan (2016) examined 132 published studies on the subject area between the years 1999-2014 and found that the use of mobile phones lead to multi- tasking and distraction; and classified them under three titles: the sources of the distraction (phone ringing, social applications and messaging), the objectives of the distraction (reading and participation), the subject of the distraction (personality, gender and culture). Most of the research reveals that mobile phone usage in the classroom causes distraction (Baker, Lusk, & Neuhauser, 2012; Dietz & Henrich, 2014; Hawi & Samaha, 2016; Kim, et al. 2017; Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010; McCoy, 2013; Thomas et al., 2014;), and that messaging in the classroom reduces student performance (Dietz & Henrich, 2014; Rosen, Lim, Carrier, & Cheever, 2011). Kim, Jung, Jung, Ko, and Lee (2017), in order to explore the usage of smartphones by college students outside the classroom, out of duty, multitasking features, had made pre-interviews with 47 instructors and 283 students and they provided a software called Let’s FOCUS developed by them, to volunteers in one of the Korean universities to try. 370 students in 233 classes used this downloaded application for 9335 hours. Kim et al. (2017) and Hawi and Samaha (2016) state that multitasking requires cognitive processing, which may cause a cognitive overload. For example, a student who replies to a message from his friend will stop listening to the instructor for a while. Ophir, Nats, and Wagner (2009) reveal that intensive multi-tasks are less successful in filtering irrelevant information and are slower in transitions between tasks, according to light multi-tasks. According to Just, Carpenter, Keller, Emery, Zajac, & Thulborn (2001), students who use smartphones, accepting interruptions with notifications during learning and interrupt their learning processes and switching to non-academic tasks, will have losses in their learning (Hawi & Samaha 2016). The presence of tools that make learning efficient on smartphones, contrary to the belief that it is used in the reinforcement of new learned and in the interacting of students and instructors, causes a split in the classroom or in any other environment related to study (Felisoni & Godoi, 2018). Lepp, Barkley, and Karpinski (2014) conducted extensive studies with 536 American university students, showing that messaging has an inverse relationship with the average academic success, also having a positive relationship with anxiety, and it has revealed that academic success has a positive relationship with satisfaction from life and that is has a relationship with anxiety in the opposite direction. According to Wood, Zivcakova, Gentile, Archer, De Pasquale, and Nosko (2012), multitasking with the technologies of e-mail, messaging, Facebook, etc., has a negative relationship with effective learning, and turns out in low-test results. Instant messaging faces us as a serious distraction (Junco & Cotten, 2011). On the one hand, in the classroom or out-of-class learning situations, the negative aspects of smartphone usage are noted, it is also obvious that this negativity cannot be avoided in the opposite direction. For example, although Facebook's main purpose is socializing and entertainment, an increasing number of students are known to be using Facebook for academic purposes and set up working groups and meetings (Alarabiat & Al-Mohammad, 2015; Johnston, Chen, & Hauman, 2013). In 2011, the number of undergraduate students who say they own smartphones has increased from 55% to 62% in 2012. The smartphone usage rate for academic purposes increased from 37% in 2011 to up to twice in 2012 (67%) (Dahlstrom, 2012). The fact that the majority of academics have become active Youtube users (Roodt, de Villiers, Johnston, Ophoff, & Peier, 2014) and the effectiveness of wikis on the group work of students (Burton, 2015) cannot be ignored. Kuznekoff, Munz, and Titsworth (2015) point out that although allowing students to communicate and tweet during class makes learning less successful, the correct integration of these devices will help the students to learn. The multitasking capabilities of smartphones can be used for educational purposes like, in-class learning, out of class work, in individual or group work and for homework (Jacobsen & Forste, 2011; Junco, 2012). Bollliger and Shepherd (2016) argue that devices that make it possible to connect to the Internet are contributing to learning via instant and direct experience and it means that the devices that make it possible to connect to the Internet should be balanced by taking the positive and negative aspects into consideration. Thomas and Orthober (2011) state that messaging provides communication, interaction, and collaboration between teacher, student, and the content. In addition, Ruggiero and Mong (2015) suggest that the use of mobile 611 Smartphone Usage in Postgraduate Education devices in the classroom will have a positive unexpected effect, such as the ability to get rid of paper and turn into "green" classes. Johnston (2016) suggests that it is impossible for any academician or student not to want to use mobile devices in the classroom. There is no way, for both academics and students, to lose notes they took with these devices, there's also no loss of meaning due to bad handwriting, conversion to paper-free "green" classes can occur, all documents can be shared, and are always accessible. Moreover, many people generate new information from the information they obtain from the Internet using their smartphones (Anshari, Almunawar, Shahrill, Wicaksono, & Huda, 2017). Chen and Tzeng (2010) revealed that students who frequently search for information on the Internet are more successful than students who search less. According to the study conducted by Kuznekoff, Munz, and Titsworth (2015) on 8 groups, according to control and experimental groups, students who do not tweet or respond to irrelevant messages have obtained a higher grade by 10-17%, it has been observed that they received a higher score for the recall of information (70%) and for taking notes (50%) compared to the students who tweet or respond to irrelevant messages. Sending/receiving irrelevant messages to the class content has caused adverse effects on learning and taking notes, while sending a related message has not a significant negative impact. Judd (2014) reveals that the use of Facebook provides significant contributions to the multi-tasking skills in students ' work. Felisoni and Godoi (2018) based on past studies; think that there may be a relationship between time management skills and smartphone usage, and that these variables will adjust focus and attention. Again, Felisoni and Godoi (2018) in literature studies, bring a different perspective on how smartphone usage leads to low academic skills, perhaps it also means that individuals with low academic skills need to be questioned about their frequent smartphone usage. Chen and Yan (2016) point out that it is important to look at the impact of different tasks, while investigating the impact of multiple tasks on learning. This is explained by auditory and visual tasks. When you take a note of a verbal-listened course, listening to voice messages can lead to distraction, and it may be easier to look at an image sent by your friend while taking a note of the verbal-listened course. Aim of the research Chen and Yan (2016) pointed out that the reason for the search of literature on this field is that smartphones becoming indispensable in everyday life, and educational environments, the use of the multi-tasking feature of smartphones in the learning process, the complexity of this process and the urgency of addressing this situation. For the same reasons, post-graduate students' views on this situation, has been a source of motivation for this study. The aim of this research is to seek answers to the question what the positive effects of the use of smartphones in the education processes of graduate students are. Method The research design, study group, and data collection tool are included in this section. Research Design In this study, as Cresswell (2003) stated, the case study was adopted from qualitative research methods in order to trying to investigate a situation in depth, in a particular period of time. In this study, the positive effects of smartphone usage were tried to be handled with a holistic approach and how the students were affected by this situation was tried to be revealed. In this study, a single case was addressed and included in the Type 1 category of the Case Study of Yin (2013). Study Group In order to reach the study group, at the Institute of Educational Sciences in one of the most established universities in Ankara, the faculty members who teach masters and doctorate courses in 10 different branches were requested to send invitations to students by e-mail who are attending classes and would like to participate voluntarily in this study. 29 students responded to the study. 612 Karataş Age distributions of participants are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Age Distribution of Participants Age f 21-24 19 25-28 6 >28 4 Total 29 When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that the majority of the participants (n = 19) are in the age range of 21- 24 years. There are 6 participants in the 25-28 age range, and 4 in the age group of 28 and above. Considering that the participants are graduate students, the majority of participants are expected to be between 21-24 years of age, since the rate of starting a master's degree is higher immediately after the undergraduate education. 20 of the participants are female and 9 are male. The program distributions in which the participants are registered are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Distributions of programs where participants are registered Program f Social Studies Education 9 Science Education 4 Classroom Training 4 Mathematics Education 3 Chemistry Education 3 Physics Education 2 Computer and Instructional Technology Education 2 Biology Education 2 Total 29 When Table 2 is examined, it is observed that participants are from following departments; Social Studies Education (n = 9), Science Education (n = 4), Classroom Education (n = 4), Mathematics Education (n = 3), Chemistry Education (n = 3), Physics Education (n = 2), Computer and Instructional Technology Education (n = 2), Biology Education (n = 2). 15 of the 29 participants stated that they were working full time, one was working part time, and 12 were not working. Participants' smartphone brand distributions are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Participants' Smarphone Brand Distributions Brand f Iphone 12* Samsung 8 LG 5* Sony 2 Asus 1 Huawei 1 Xiaomi 1 Total 30 * One person has two phones When the Table 3 is examined, it is observed that participants use the following smartphones respectively, Iphone (n = 12), Samsung (n = 8), LG (n = 5), Sony (n = 2), Asus (n = 1), Huawei (n = 1) and Xiaomi (n = 1). One participant reported that s/he had 2 phones. 613 Smartphone Usage in Postgraduate Education Participants' daily smartphone usage time distributions are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Participants' Smartphone Usage Time Distributions Time/Duration f 1-2 hours 4 2-4 hours 8 4-6 hours 7 6-8 hours 6 Continuous use 4 Total 29 When the Table 4 is examined, it is observed that 4 of the participants use their smartphones less than two hours, 8 of them use their smartphones about/between 2-4 hours, 7 of the participants use them between 4-6 hours and 4 of them use their smartphone more than 6 hours on a daily basis. The results of Aljomaa, Al Qudah, Albursan, Bakhiet and Abduljabbar’s (2016) research, also support this study. In the study of Aljomaa et al., they investigated 416 university students to determine their smartphone addiction and found that 37 of the students used their phones less than 2 hours a day, 110 students used their phones 2-4 hours a day, and 269 students more than 4 hours a day Data Collection Tool The study aims to reach graduate students, and the instructors, who teach this target audience, were asked to reach to their students. An opinion form was prepared to obtain the views of the students who agreed to participate in the research. While the opinion form was being prepared, similar studies were carried out in the field (Anshari, et al., 2017; Bolkan and Griffin, 2017; Kim, et al., 2017; Muñoz and García, 2016; Wood, et al.) The questions include issues as the rationale for students to use smart phones for educational purposes, their impact on their academic performance, and their ability to feel safe. In terms of the scope and expression of the opinion form, opinions from two experts in the field of Computer and Instructional Technology Education were taken. The finalized opinion form according to the experts’ opinions consists of 7 questions for determining the general characteristics of the participants and 7 questions for obtaining the opinions of the students. Findings Findings for the purpose of the research are presented in this section. Participants were asked, "Do you check or use your smartphones during your course in your Master's courses? What is the reason for your behavior?” 3 (1 female, 2 male) of the 29 participants, answered no. The answers of the participants who answered yes on the reasons for usage are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Participants' Reasons for Using Smartphones during Class Justification for use f I check incoming notifications. 10 I check the clock or the calendar. 8 I investigate a subject or term that is referred to in the course. 8 I make an emergency call. 5 I use it because of curiosity/habit/addiction. 5 I use it for personal purposes. 4 I use it when I'm bored. 2 I use it for business. 2 I take notes. 1 I don't use it in class. 1 I use it when I think I won't attract attention. 1 Total 47 614 Karataş When the Table 5 is examined it is observed, that the participants use their mobile phones, in order to control incoming notifications (n=10), check the clock or calendar (n=8), investigate a subject or term that is referred to in the course (n=8), make an emergency call (n = 5), due curiosity/habit/addiction (n=5) or for personal purposes (n=4). Two of the participants clearly stated that they looked at their smartphones when they were bored, incoming notification control, or the control of the clock could be due to being bored. Bolkan and Griffin (2017), referring to Keller's 1987 opinion of motive, that as long as we do not kill the students' interests, we prevent them from getting bored, drew attention to the fact that this is still a problem today confronting the educators. Researchers such as Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, and Stupinsky (2010), Nett, Goetz, and Hall (2011), Mann and Robinson (2009) and Goetz and Hall (2014) all point out that the majority of the students are bored in most of the courses. Researchers, such as Emanuel (2013) and McCoy (2013), also point out that, when students are bored in the class, they hide behind their mobile phones. A participant also stated that he used the smartphone when he thought he would not be noticed. In a study by Mitchell, Finkelhor, and Wolak (2005), in cases where the teacher does not notice the use of mobile phones, they observed that students use their mobile phone more often. Although the target group of Yıldırım, et al.’s (2016) study is secondary and high school, the findings are consistent with this research. In addition, Gökdaş et al.’s (2014) research result (prospective teachers use their smartphone for time planning) supports this research. The answers of the participants to the questions "How does dealing with your smartphones affect your performance? Does checking your smartphones cause you to quickly relax or divide your course concentration?" are presented in Table 6. Table 6. The Impact of Smartphone Usage during the Courses on the Performances of Participants in the Courses Effect on Performance f It has no effect on my performance. 9 I relax. 7 It rarely affects my performance. 5 When I stay away from the phone, it's on my mind. 4 It's negatively affecting my performance. 4 It's increasing my motivation. 3 Total 32 When Table 6 is examined, most of the participants stated that using a smartphone in the course does not affect their performance (n=9) or stated that they were relaxed (n=7). In addition, participants stated that, the use of smartphones rarely affects their performance (n=5), when they have no access to their phones, they have it in their mind (n=4), it negatively affects their performance (n=4) and it increases their motivation (n=3). Looking at the literature, in contrast to this study, as pointed out earlier in most researches (Dietz & Henrich, 2014; Rosen, Lim, Carrier, & Cheever, 2011), it has been concluded that smartphone usage in class has lowered student performance. The contradiction of the findings in this research with the literature could be because the participants are graduate students; so their awareness levels are high and therefore may not adversely affect their performance. From another point of view, this study is based on the statements of graduate students, but the participants' real-life behaviors and statements can be different, as seen in Duncan, Hoekstra, and Wilcox’s (2012) researches. The answers of the participants to the question "Does it make you feel safe to have your smartphone on your side during the course? Explain why." are presented in Table 7. Table 7. The Impact of Participants' Smartphone Usage during the Course on the Sense of Trust The effect on the sense of trust f I feel safe. 23 It does not provide a sense of trust. 5 I do not use it in class. 1 Total 29 615 Smartphone Usage in Postgraduate Education When Table 7 is examined, a large part of the participants stated that using smartphones during the course makes them feel safe (n = 23). 5 participants stated that using a smartphone does not provide any sense of trust while a participant stated s/he did use a smartphone during the course. Looking at the literature, Johnston (2016) conducted a study through observation and interaction on the use, impact and unintended consequences of web- assisted mobile devices on graduate students in Africa (South Africa) and Europe (Germany). Contrary to the research results that mobile devices do not adversely affect the classroom, it has revealed that students are more connected and more comfortable when they are granted access to mobile devices. The answers of the participants to the question "Can you explain how you use your smartphones for educational purposes in your master classes?" are presented in Table 8. Table 8. Participants' Usage of Smartphones for Educational Purposes during the Courses Usage for educational purposes f I investigate a subject or term that is referred to in the course. 21 I send and receive e-mails. 6 I follow the course material. 5 I examine thesis and articles. 5 I take notes. 4 I do voice recording. 2 I use it for translation. 1 I take a photo of the board. 1 Total 45 When the Table 8 is examined, a very large part of the participants stated that they used their smartphones to investigate a subject or term that was referred to in the course (n=21). Other uses include sending and receiving e- mail (n=6), following course materials (n=5), examining thesis-articles (n=5), taking notes (n=4), voice recording (n=2), use for translation (n=1) and take a photograph of the board (n=1). Researches in literature of smartphone usage in educational environments and the findings of this research are seem to be consistent (Alarabiat & Al- Mohammad, 2015; Al Hamdani, 2014; Anshari, et al., 2017; Au, Lam, & Chan, 2015; Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007; Echeverri, 2011; Kukulska-Hulme, 2007; Nakamura, Hanamitsu, & Minamizawa, 2015; O'Bannon, Dunn ve Park, 2017). The answers of participants to the question "Would you describe what features of your smartphone you use in the course process during your master's degree education?" are presented in Table 9. Table 9. Participants' use of Different Features of Their Smartphones during the Courses Smartphone Features f I make searches on the Internet. 19 I send and receive e-mails. 8 I take notes. 7 I use it for instant communication (WhatsApp). 6 I take photos/videos. 6 I use it for storage (access to saved files). 6 I make voice recording. 3 I use it as a calendar/reminder/things to do list. 3 I check the clock. 3 I look up in the dictionary. 2 Total 63 616