Dial D for Distraction: The Making and Breaking of Cell Phone

Dial D for Distraction: The Making and Breaking of Cell Phone

Policies in the College Classroom

Michael J. Berry

University of Colorado

Aubrey Westfall

Virginia Wesleyan College

Cell phones are nearly ubiquitous in the college classroom. This study asks two primary

questions regarding the making and breaking of in-class cell phone policies. In what manner

are students using their phones and how can faculty members minimize the potential for

phone-related distractions? To answer these questions we analyze original survey data from

nearly 400 college students across multiple public and private universities to better

understand the students’ impulse to use their phones during class. Results from the survey

demonstrate that more than 80% of students use their phone at least once per class and that

students generally believe this to be an acceptable practice. These student data are

supplemented with survey data from close to 100 college faculty to evaluate a range of

policy options for dealing with this issue. From this analysis, it is clear that the policies most

frequently implemented by instructors are typically perceived by students as the least

effective.

Keywords: cell phones, classroom distractions, mobile technology

INTRODUCTION

Cell phones have become a ubiquitous feature in American

society. A 2014 survey by a communication industry orga-

nization estimated that the United States, with a population

of approximately 317 million, had nearly 336 million wire-

less subscriptions, meaning that wireless connection pene-

tration stood at an astonishing 104.3% (CITA 2014). This

number continues to climb. Studies from a broad array of

disciplines have examined the myriad ways that cell phones

have transformed society, business, communication, health,

and numerous other facets of daily life, including education

(Campbell 2006; Gilroy 2004; Jenaro et al. 2007; Katz

2005; Wei and Leung 1999).

As educators well know, cell phones have become per-

vasive in the classroom. While many scholars offer sug-

gestions about how to make cell phones a useful

pedagogical tool (Katz 2003; Kinsella 2009; Lindquist

et al. 2007; Prensky 2005; Schell, Lukoff and Mazur

2013; Scornavacca et al. 2009; Valk et al. 2010), others

bemoan the distracting nature of cell phones in the class-

room. One scholar has gone as far as likening cell phone

interruptions during class to a form of “technological

terror,” citing the multitude of ways that a single cell

phone can disrupt an entire class (Gilroy 2004, 56). While

this term is admittedly hyperbolic, nearly every educator

has had to deal with problems related to student cell phone

use and interruptions during class. The actual distractions

caused by cell phones can vary widely across campuses

and classrooms. This study contributes to a small but

growing literature on cell phone use in the classroom

(Baker et al. 2012; Campbell 2006; Campbell and Russo

2003; End et al. 2010; Gilroy 2004; Katz 2005; Tindell

and Bohlander 2012; Wei et al. 2012) by approaching the

topic from two perspectives: those of the student and the

instructor. We utilize original survey data to assess student

attitudes toward in-class cell phone use as well as instruc-

tor policies on how to best address this persistent issue.

Correspondence should be sent to Michael J. Berry, Department of

Political Science, University of Colorado, Denver, P.O. Box 173364, CB-

190, Denver, CO 80217, USA. E-mail: Michael.Berry@ucdenver.edu

COLLEGE TEACHING, 63: 62–71, 2015

Copyright� Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 8756-7555 print / 1930-8299 online

DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2015.1005040

To foreshadow some of our findings, most students believe

that it is acceptable to use cell phones during class, and

the policies most often used by instructors are perceived

by students to be largely ineffective.

WHY TRY TO CONTROL CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM?

As cell phone ownership and functioning capacity have

increased, the debate over the social norms associated with

cell phone use has shifted (Wei and Leung 1999). Even five

years ago, the biggest complaint about cell phone use in

public space related to the phones as a verbal communica-

tion device—having private conversations in public space,

or interrupting a conversation to receive a call. In recent

years, the functionality of cell phones has progressed from

verbal communication toward a communication device and

personal computer combination, commonly called a smart-

phone. As the technology has evolved, concerns over social

norms have likewise changed.

Along with more general social norms, the debate over

the effect of cell phones in classrooms has been altered

with the introduction of smartphones. In the past, tradi-

tional, lower-tech phones commonly brought to class raised

concerns over distractions associated with ringing or vibrat-

ing phones, but a student was unlikely to answer his or her

phone and carry on an extended conversation while seated

in class (though this has certainly happened). With the

advent of smartphones, it is not at all unusual for a student

to carry on a nonverbal conversation with a correspondent

while in class via text messaging or e-mail.1 Perhaps even

more tempting is a campus wireless Internet connection,

which places an entire virtual world at the fingertips of a

disengaged student.

Of course, the potential consequences of cell phones in

the classroom are not all negative. As students incorporate

the technology into their normal routine, they easily adapt

them to their individual uses in the classroom. Students will

often use their phones to look up supplementary informa-

tion or fact-check, and it has become increasingly common

for students to use their cell phones to take pictures of the

classroom boards or materials. Cell phones also provide

ready access to a voice or video recorder, which make them

a valuable tool for students with disabilities. There are

many efforts to formally harness the learning potential of

cell phones and to use them as a tool for learning within the

classroom (Katz 2003; Kinsella 2009; Lindquist et al.

2007; Prensky 2005; Scornavacca et al. 2009; Valk et al.

2010). Nyiri terms such efforts to utilize student mobile

phones in the classroom as “m-learning” activities (2002,

121). Many college instructors have adopted the use of

“clickers” to similarly facilitate a more interactive learning

experience, allowing instructors or students to collect data

from multiple locations, and to perform immediate analysis.

Research has shown strong evidence of their effectiveness

and ability to engender greater student participation (Evans

2012; Ulbig and Notman 2012). For the instructor, the abil-

ity to receive immediate feedback is crucial for identifying

student misunderstanding and improving learning (Schell,

Lukoff, and Mazur 2013). Cell phones present enhanced

opportunities for feedback when compared to clickers,

which are typically restricted to a single digital platform

using close-ended questions. Because cell phones are com-

plex instruments intended for a variety of uses, several

response systems (ex. Learning Catalytics, Poll Every-

where, Soap Box, Socrative) may be downloaded or used

on a single device, providing much greater flexibility.2

Of course, there are numerous obstacles to using cell

phones in lieu of clickers, which are specifically designed

for active in-class participation. First, not every student

may have a phone, and students that do have different

phone models and service providers. With this lack of stan-

dardization, the actual implementation of an “m-learning”

activity orchestrated through cell phones could be challeng-

ing. Second, and perhaps most importantly, research has

found substantial use of cell phones and the Internet during

class time to be a detriment to students’ learning and aca-

demic performance (Kraushaar and Novak 2010; Morahan-

Martin and Shumacher 2000; Scherer 1997). Most research

on mobile Web devices in the classroom focuses on student

laptops. Kraushaar and Novak found that 42% of the time

computers were used for non-class related activities (2010).

Another study estimated that millennial students spent

more time on social networking sites than they did working

on homework or completing class assignments (Hanson

et al. 2010). This may be emblematic of an increasingly

psychological desire to be linked in. In a study of under-

graduates at a northeastern U.S. university, for example,

Morahan-Martin and Shumacher found that nearly one in

10 students exhibited characteristics associated with

“pathological Internet usage,” while nearly 75% of students

were identified as having at least one symptom of Internet

usage addiction, which was correlated with a number of

problems both in and out of the classroom (2000, 13).

Results from these studies suggest that instructor efforts to

implement “m-learning” activities that would utilize stu-

dent cell phones for pedagogical purposes would most

likely result in a large subset of students surfing the Internet

1Our survey did not ask students about the specific type or capabilities

of their individual phones. For expositional purposes, we refer to phones of

all types simply as “cell phones.”

2One type of classroom response system is Learning Catalytics, which

allows students to provide feedback on any web-enabled device, using a

variety of tools. A pilot study demonstrates the effectiveness of Learning

Catalytics in soliciting meaningful feedback, engaging students, and orga-

nizing and implementing effective peer instruction (Schell, Lukoff, and

Mazur 2013).

DIAL D FOR DISTRACTION 63

or otherwise utilizing their phones for things unrelated to

the lesson. In short, despite the obvious potential for

enhanced student engagement using cell phone technology,

the consequences associated with the vast majority of stu-

dents entering class carrying a cell phone are often

negative.

While much of the aforementioned research on student

multitasking has focused on the use of laptops during class,

the number of students bringing a phone into class likely

exceeds those bringing a laptop. For this reason, our study

seeks to highlight student perceptions and attitudes toward

cell phones in the classroom as well as the policies set by

instructors. With this approach, we seek to build upon exist-

ing survey research of students (Braguglia 2008; Tindell

and Bohlander 2012) by also soliciting information from

faculty. Further, we identify factors contributing to the like-

lihood that students will use their phone during class time.

From the instructor’s perspective, we provide an assess-

ment of faculty policies and approaches to dealing with this

common issue. The following sections discuss the results

from two separate surveys as they relate to a number of dif-

ferent aspects of cell phone use in the classroom. These sec-

tions also discuss the real and perceived consequences of

phone-related distractions and opportunities as reported by

our survey respondents.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

This study analyzes original survey data from students from

one private institution of higher education, Virginia Wes-

leyan College in Norfolk, Virginia, and one public univer-

sity, the University of Colorado, Denver (UCD). We

recruited student subjects by soliciting participation during

visits to a variety of upper- and lower-division undergradu-

ate courses. These courses ranged from small seminars to

larger lecture-style courses with enrollments approaching

100 students. In addition, approximately 85 students were

recruited from other institutions by email and asked to com-

plete an online survey. Our complete student sample is

comprised of individuals from six institutions, including

two private liberal arts institutions, three public universities

and one community college. The students in the sample

represent 20 disciplinary majors.

The 26-question survey asked students about their own

cell phone use, their perceptions of cell phone use among

their peers, as well as attitudes toward cell phone use and

policies in the classroom. Our total number of student

respondents is 384. Sixty-two percent of respondents are

female, and 38% are male. The vast majority of student

respondents (77.1%) fall between the ages of 18 and 23.

Seventeen percent of the students identified themselves as

freshmen, 19% as sophomores, 28% as juniors, 31% as

seniors, and 2% possess an alternative class status (e.g.

graduate student or continuing education program).

Although the sample is skewed in terms of gender (female

students compose about 55% of the student body on both

campuses), there is good diversity concerning class and

major status.

Original survey data were also collected from nearly 100

teaching faculty at 11 private and public institutions of

higher education. Of those who reported an institutional

affiliation, 58% teach at a private institution, while the

remaining respondents teach at a public university. The fac-

ulty members in our sample represent 19 academic disci-

plines. Instructors were recruited by email, and requested to

anonymously complete an online survey. The 18-question

survey asked faculty about their perceptions of cell phone

use in the classroom, the policies they use to control cell

phones, perceptions about policy effectiveness, and also

asked questions about personal cell phone use. Our total

number of faculty respondents is 96. Fifty-eight percent are

female and 42% male. The sample is relatively young; 9%

of respondents are in their twenties, 37% are in their thirties,

20% are in their forties, 22% are in their fifties, and 12%

are sixty or older. While most respondents are either raked

as assistant (31%) or associate (21%) professors, the sample

also includes full professors (19%), adjunct faculty (17%),

graduate instructors (10%), and administrators (3%).

RESULTS

One of the oldest concerns with cell phone use in public

relates to the noises they make (e.g. ringing, beeping, play-

ing music or audible vibrating). Noise pollution accounts

for some of the earliest efforts to control cell phones in pub-

lic places like theaters, for example. Interestingly, faculty

subjects did not report noticing frequent audible disruptions

in their classes. Over 80% of faculty members suggest

noises from cell phones do not cause any disruptions in a

typical class period. This result is somewhat surprising con-

sidering that less than 8% of students reported that they

always power off their phones while class is in session. For

the many disruptions possible with so many phones present

in any given class, this finding does demonstrate that the

vast majority of students are both courteous and conscien-

tious when it comes to turning down the volume on their

phones. However, when compared to faculty, students

report that they notice more frequent interruptions; 38% of

students estimate that an average class session has zero cell

phone interruptions, 50% report that interruptions occur

one or two times in a typical class, 12% notice interruptions

three or four times, and only 1% suggest cell phones inter-

rupt class more than five times. This discrepancy in percep-

tion may be attributable to greater student sensitivity to

more localized disruptions such as a vibrating phone, which

may go unnoticed by the instructor.

The relatively low frequency of audible interruptions,

however, does not correspond with the actual frequency of

64 BERRY ANDWESTFALL

cell phone use in the classroom. Our survey evidence con-

firms the notion that in-class student use of phones centers

on their nonverbal capacities. When faculty members were

asked to speculate about what students are doing with their

cell phones in the classroom, the vast majority suspect stu-

dents use their phones primarily as communication devices.

In the free-form option to this question on the survey, fac-

ulty noted that the most frequent activity is texting or

emailing. Unsurprisingly, among students that claimed to

have been admonished for cell phone use during class 76%

stated that they had been texting, emailing, or engaging in

some other nonverbal communication activity on their

phone.

When faculty members were asked to identify the

consequences of verbal or nonverbal student cell phone

use in the classroom, a majority of professors agree that

distractions are among the most pressing issues, fol-

lowed by disrespect. Questions on the student survey

inquired about the frequency that students are using or

checking their phone during class as one way to esti-

mate the potential for phone-related distractions. As

illustrated in figure 1, an overwhelming majority of stu-

dents are using their cell phone in some capacity at least

once during class.

Less than 20% of students self-reported that they do not

typically check their phone while class is in session. Most

commonly, students report checking their cell phones one

or two times during an average class session (37.6%). An

additional 23.8% check their phone between three and four

times, and more than 20% of students check their cell

phones more than five times. We would expect most

instructors to be surprised that the proportion of students

reporting that they check their phone more than five times

per class is greater than those that report never checking

their phone. Studies in health and psychology examining

determinants of a variety of compulsive behaviors, such

as incessantly checking one’s phone, often use the same

theories and methodologies used to study addiction

(Jenaro et al., 2007; Morahan-Martin and Shumacher,

2000).

While many students may not consider checking their

phone multiple times during one class session as an addic-

tion, multitasking of this type has been demonstrated to

affect learning and information retention (Ellis et al. 2010;

Fried 2008; Fox et al. 2009; Hembrooke and Gay 2003;

Kraushaar and Novak 2010). Most studies examining the

effect of in-class technology on learning have focused on

laptop computers. Using computer monitoring software in

an undergraduate lecture course, Kraushaar and Novak

(2010) measured both “productive” and “disruptive” multi-

tasking and found an inverse relationship between the

amount of disruptive multitasking and several measures of

course performance (241). Similarly, a classroom experi-

ment designed by Hembrooke and Gay (2003) found that

students with access to a laptop performed significantly

worse on a post-lecture quiz testing for information recall

and recognition. Fried (2008) further corroborates these

findings by concluding “that the negative influence of in-

class laptop use is two-pronged; laptop use is negatively

associated with student learning and it poses a distraction to

fellow students” (912). Few studies have assessed whether

cell phone disruptions produce similar deleterious effects

(although see End et al. 2010).

Beyond the negative self-imposed effects that a

student’s phone use can potentially have on learning

and academic performance, there are also negative

externalities that can arise from a single student fre-

quently utilizing their phone during class. More than

90% of students claim to notice when other students

check their phones. Because this pulls attention away

from course material, it should negatively affect student

learning. Using an experimental design, End and col-

leagues (2010) demonstrate that students performed

worse on a test over an in-class video when a ringing

cell phone interrupted the video. Students in the control

group without this disruption scored significantly higher.

Despite findings such as this, only 33% of students in

our sample disparage cell phone use in the classroom

because it distracts the user, 40% because it distracts

nearby students, and 41% because it distracts the

professor.

When asked whether their personal academic perfor-

mance has suffered due to cell phone use in class, only

8% of students suggest their personal phone use has had

a negative effect, while 11% suggest cell phone use by

other students negatively affects their own academic

performance. At the same time, 31% of students report

missing important information in class because they

were checking their cell phones or texting. To further

assess the effect of cell phone use on academic FIGURE 1. Number of times students report checking their phone during

an average class.

DIAL D FOR DISTRACTION 65

performance, Table 1 reports estimates from two ordi-

nary least squares regression models. The first model

uses students’ self-reported actual GPA as the dependent

variable, while the second uses self-reported GPA within

designated ranges.3 Students’ gender and age are added

as control variables. The two primary factors of interest

in each model are the number of hours students use

their phone per day and the number of times students

check their phone during class. Both ordinal variables

have six categories. The hours of phone use variable

ranges from less than one hour to more than nine hours,

while the phone use in class variable ranges from zero

times to more than nine times. In the first model, both

variables have a negative relationship with student

GPAs. Neither coefficient estimate on the gender and

age variables is significant. Substantively the model

results indicate that students who check their phones

between seven and eight times per class have a GPA of

about a quarter of a point lower than those who report

never checking their phone during class. In the second

model, which has a larger sample size, daily phone use

does not emerge as a significant predictor of GPA.

However, the coefficient on the in-class phone use vari-

able remains negative and significant. Thus, while less

than 10% of students claimed that their phone use had

negatively affected their academic performance, our

analysis indicates that students that use their phones

more frequently during class often have lower GPAs

than their peers. Though we would not go as far to

claim that this is a causal relationship, the results do

identify a significant relationship between these factors.4

Beyond disruptions and distractions that can adversely

affect a classroom’s learning environment, perhaps the

most serious consequence of phones in the classroom sur-

round the opportunities modern phone capabilities provide

for academic dishonesty. In our sample, only 6.5% of stu-

dent respondents admitted to using cell phones to cheat on

a quiz or exam.5 Admitted tactics include using the Internet

to find answers, preloading information into a phone, using

the phone as an illicit tool (e.g. calculator or translator),

and emailing or texting answers. The most popular techni-

ques used by students are preloading information on a

phone or checking the Internet for answers—about one-

third of the students who admit to cheating have used these

techniques. Most of those who cheated admit they were

worried about their grades. Interestingly, however, 75% of

students who admit to cheating had a self-reported GPA

above 3.0. Ease of access to information (cited by 60% of

cheating students) combined with poor surveillance by the

professor (cited by 52% of cheating students) were the

most common conditions that resulted in cheating. Many

students who cheated justified their actions by assuming

that other students do the same thing. As one student noted

on the survey, “everyone in the class was doing it (or that’s

what it seemed like).”

While there are few noticeable patterns distinguishing

those who report cheating with cell phones from those who

do not, about three-quarters of those who admit cheating

are between 18–21 years of age, a breakdown which corre-

sponds with our sample distribution. The distribution of

cheaters by gender also reflects the broader sample, with

women comprising 62% of the admitted cheaters. Further,

there was no statistically significant difference between the

average cheating rates when comparing small liberal arts

colleges to large research universities.

Because cell phones in the classroom can distract stu-

dents or be used to cheat, the potential clearly exists for

phones to have a negative effect on student learning. How-

ever, one of the main consequences of cell phone use cited

by faculty has little to do with learning, and more to do

with social etiquette. A large majority of faculty respond-

ents believe that students using cell phones in class are

behaving disrespectfully. Interestingly, many students seem

to have the same qualms as faculty. Figure 2 illustrates stu-

dent positions on whether it is acceptable for students to

check their phones, text, or access the Internet on their

TABLE 1

OLS model estimates of student grade point average.

Model 1 Model 2

Actual GPA GPA Range

Hours on Phone per Day ¡0.08*** 0.02 (0.03) (0.07)

Times Student Checks Phone ¡0.06*** ¡0.06* during Class (0.02) (0.04)

Gender ¡0.04 ¡0.12 (0 DMale, 1 D Female) (0.06) (0.12) Age ¡0.00 0.11***

(0.02) (0.04)

Constant 3.64*** 2.65***

(0.06) (0.44)

N 124 351

R-squared 0.1601 0.0463

Note: Standard errors reported in parentheses. *p < .10, **p < .05,

***p< .01

3Only the surveys administered at UCD asked for student’s specific

GPA. The remaining surveys asked students to identify their GPA within

the following ranges: below 2.0, 2.1–2.5, 2.6–3.0, 3.1–3.5, 3.6–4.0, and 4.1

or above.

4Further, the low R-squared values in each model suggest that phone

use does not provide substantial explanatory power regarding student

GPAs. 5Although students were informed both verbally and in writing that all

survey responses would be strictly anonymous, the 6% of students admit-

ting to cheating with their phone almost certainly underestimates the pro-

portion of students that have cheated in this fashion. For comparison, a

2009 study by Common Sense Media reported that 35% of teenagers sur-

veyed claimed to have cheated with their cell phone at least once.

66 BERRY ANDWESTFALL

phones while in class. In every category, a majority of stu-

dents believe that in-class cell phone use is only sometimes

or rarely acceptable. Students are most likely to disparage

texting in class, and most likely to allow using phones to

access information on the Internet. The most frequently

cited reason for why students think checking cell phones or

texting in class is unacceptable is because it is rude.

In summary, our survey data document two real conse-

quences of phone use in the classroom. The most prevalent

of these is distraction. There was nearly unanimous consen-

sus among faculty that the main consequence of classroom

phone presence was the potential for student distractions.

This alone should be a concern to most instructors, since

such in-class distractions from class material have been

demonstrated to produce negative effects on learning and

information retention (Kraushaar and Novak 2010). Com-

pared to faculty, however, students appear less concerned

about the disruptive potential of phones in class. Though

80% of students reported noticing when others check their

phones during class, only 12% thought their own academic

performance had been adversely affected because of phone

use by other students. Further, nearly 75% of students

agreed that checking their phone during class sessions was

acceptable or sometimes acceptable.6

The other primary aspect of classroom cell phone use

concerns the use of phones to cheat. Surprisingly, most

faculty appear unconcerned with this aspect of phone use,

as about one instructor out of 20 suspects students are

behaving dishonestly with their phones in class. Perhaps

this perspective is appropriate given the small percentage

of students that reported using a phone to cheat. Despite

these faculty expectations, cell phones do provide students

with a stealth tool that can be potentially be used for cheat-

ing. Survey data from another study reported that about

one-third of student respondents reported having observed

another student texting during an exam (Tindell and Boh-

lander 2012). In addition to the consequences for student

learning and student ethics concerns, the survey data also

point to issues of student behavior and etiquette, where

both faculty and students perceive using cell phones in class

(apart from any potential academic effect) as rude and

disrespectful.

EFFORTS TO CONTROL CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM

Professors use a variety of methods to address the real and

perceived consequences of cell phone use in the classroom.

The range of policies used by the faculty members surveyed

for this study is detailed in figure 3. The most common policy

imposed by faculty is the use of verbal warnings or admonish-

ments of students caught using phones in class. Less than

10% of faculty do not include a cell phone policy in their

course syllabi. This indicates that the vast majority of instruc-

tors do adopt some variety of in-class cell phone policy.

Beyond the more conventional policies listed in figure 3,

many professors list additional policies including preemp-

tive cell phone bans, restrictive bans only during exams,

FIGURE 2. Student perceptions on the acceptability of in-class cell phone use by category.

6In general, student responses to questions regarding distractions did not

highly correlate with class size. Students in classes with larger enrollments

were slightly less likely to report noticing others checking their phones or

texting during class (Pearson’s r ¡0.03) and slightly more likely to report that their academic performance has suffered due to others using phones

around them (Pearson’s r 0.13).

DIAL D FOR DISTRACTION 67

quizzes or direct emails to students after a cell phone dis-

ruption, and requiring students to dance, lecture or bring

snacks to a future class as a penalty for cell phone use.

Some professors also report efforts to make cell phones a

learning tool with games or activities. Though faculty

members report a wide range of policies, when students

report being reprimanded for cell phone use, the most fre-

quent reprimand is a verbal warning with no additional con-

sequences (reported by 76% of reprimanded students).

Faculty members were also asked to evaluate whether they

believed that their course phone policies reduced cell phone

use. In general, all policies were perceived as effective.

Although instructors generally believe that their phone poli-

cies are effective, student evaluation presents a different

picture.

Of the students who were previously reprimanded for

cell phone use in the classroom, only 40% reported that the

reprimand prevented them from using phones in the same

class, and a mere 11% said it would prevent them from

using their phones in other classes. Out of the full sample

of students, 61% report seeing others reprimanded would

prevent them from using cell phones in that class, and 40%

suggest it would prevent them from using cell phones in

other classes. These results reveal an unexpected result; stu-

dents who have been reprimanded for using cell phones in

class seem less likely to change their behavior than those

who are not reprimanded. Further, where reprimands do

change behavior, they do not have a very large effect in

contexts outside that particular classroom.

When students were asked to rank cell phone policy

effectiveness on a scale from 1 (least effective) to 5 (most

effective), they collectively report that only the more con-

frontational methods (e.g. grade reductions or removing

students from class) are most successful. The mean effec-

tiveness scores for each policy and their standard deviations

are illustrated in figure 4.

The only two policies with a mean effectiveness rating

greater than four are grade reductions and removing students

from class for cell phone disruptions. Each of these policies

has an average effectiveness rating of 4.2, though the grade

reduction policy has a slightly lower standard deviation.

Accordingly, students perceive grade reductions and removal

from class as the most effective policies to deal with cell

phone offenders, followed by instructor confiscation or inter-

ception of student phones. Among the least effective in deter-

ring classroom phone use are general university or class

policy statements often included in a course syllabus, which

are the policies most utilized by faculty. Interestingly, stu-

dents find little difference in the effectiveness of public or pri-

vate reprimands to individual students caught using their

phone in class. Students perceive each of these actions as gen-

erally more effective than simply directing eye contact or

glaring at a student using a phone. Responses from these sur-

vey items suggest that faculty should consider adopting more

assertive or punitive policies if they are serious about curtail-

ing phone use in their classes.

OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING CELL PHONE USE

Of course, classroom policies are not the only determinant

of student cell phone use. Assuming the consequences of

classroom cell phone use are serious enough to warrant

action, what other factors might influence the rate of cell

phone use in the classroom, and can faculty strategically

FIGURE 3. Faculty cell phone policy frequency.

68 BERRY ANDWESTFALL

control these factors? In a battery of related questions, stu-

dents were asked to indicate what factors make them more

or less likely to use cell phones during class. Figure 5

presents the results from these questions.

As expected, students are more likely to use cell phones

in classes that meet for longer periods of time, with larger

enrollments, or as individual class sessions are reaching

their conclusion. Students are less likely to use their cell

phones in small classes and during classroom activities that

require their active participation, like group discussions or

activities.

The positive educational effects of small class sizes and

classroom activities and discussions have been well docu-

mented (Arias and Walker 2004; Biddle and Berliner 2002;

Finn et al. 2003; Pollock et al. 2011). Numerous studies

have shown that classes with less than 20 students are asso-

ciated with improved academic performance and the posi-

tive effect has been substantiated by several state-level

initiatives in public education (Finn et al. 2003). In their

review of research on the effects of small classrooms, Finn

and colleagues, discuss possible mechanisms of the rela-

tionship between class size and performance, and note that

FIGURE 5. Factors contributing to in-class cell phone use.

FIGURE 4. Student assessments of cell phone policy effectiveness

DIAL D FOR DISTRACTION 69

most studies do not find significant differences in teaching

between large and small classrooms, leading to the conclu-

sion that the primary difference between large and small

classrooms is found in student behavior. “Students become

more engaged academically and more engaged socially

when class sizes are reduced, and this increased engage-

ment in the classroom is a compelling explanation for

increased learning in all subject areas” (2003, 322). The

main mechanisms developed by sociologists and psycholo-

gists in regard to social dynamics within different sized

groups center on concepts of visibility and belonging,

where individuals in smaller groups are obliged to partici-

pate more than counterparts in larger groups.

If small class sizes lead students to become more

engaged by increasing student visibility and a sense of

belonging, students would naturally feel less tempted to use

cell phones in class. Because small classes increase student

visibility, students should be less likely to risk being caught

and reprimanded for cell phone use. Further, since smaller

classes are generally more likely to develop a community

of learning and belonging, students should be more engaged

in class projects and materials, and be less likely to be

pulled away from class content by cell phone distractions.

Unfortunately for faculty and students alike, there is little

either group can do to affect the enrollment of any given

class. With this in mind, there are some additional aspects

related to the format or structure of a course that faculty

should remain aware of.

Classroom discussion and activities are generally con-

sidered to be tools of an “active learning” approach to

instruction. While a more lecture-based format is unavoid-

able in some contexts, students reported that they were less

likely to check their phone during inclusive class discus-

sions or activities. Somewhat unexpectedly, students also

were less apt to check their phones when instructors show

videos or video clips. Thus, in addition to its many other

benefits, creating a classroom environment where students

are encouraged to be active participants should reduce the

likelihood that students will be causing distractions or tun-

ing out with the aid of their phone.

CONCLUSION

Student and faculty survey responses reveal several inter-

esting patterns about the present-day classroom landscape

where cell phones are seemingly omnipresent. First, faculty

are primarily concerned about distractions (both to them-

selves and students) caused by phones. Student responses

affirm faculty concerns, and suggest that phones do distract

students, although the students generally do not believe that

such distractions affect their academic performance.

Although only a small minority of students admits to using

cell phones to cheat, as phone technology and ease of use

improves, the temptation to use phones in this manner

should likewise increase.

To combat cell phone use in the classroom, faculty

members employ a wide variety of tactics and generally

believe that they are effective. However, students report

low levels of policy effectiveness, especially among those

students that experience reprimands. While no policies are

expected to be universally effective, according to the stu-

dents surveyed, the most confrontational policies are gener-

ally the most successful. However, the data suggest that

most faculty use less confrontational verbal reprimands

when trying to combat cell phone use, a strategy which is

not expected to be an effective deterrent over time or across

classes.

The rate of classroom cell phone use hinges on several

factors independent of official phone use policies. Students

reported that they were less likely to use their phone during

classes within their major that have smaller enrollments

and frequently involve group activities and discussions

involving active participation. For classrooms falling out-

side these parameters, the task of controlling cell phones is

an uphill battle with no apparent panacea. According to stu-

dents, classroom phone use policies that are most successful

require faculty to confront students in a potentially uncom-

fortable and unpopular manner. Each faculty member

should weigh the costs of policy enforcement against the

cost incurred by class disruption, cheating or the enforce-

ment of social norms, especially as enforcement of policy

could lead to greater distraction than the cell phone use in

the first place.

Because our results suggest that professors are fighting a

losing battle over controlling cell phones in the classroom,

our research highlights the need for an expanded conversa-

tion about how to usefully integrate cell phones into class-

room pedagogy. Innovations in classroom response systems

that use cell phones as a platform for increasing improving

feedback and peer instruction provide hopeful results sug-

gesting that proper incorporation of cell phones into class-

room pedagogy could enhance learning outcomes and

make classroom instruction appear more relevant to techno-

logically-dependent students.

REFERENCES

Arias, J. J., & D. M. Walker. 2004. “Additional Evidence on the Relation-

ship between Class Size and Student Performance.” The Journal of Eco-

nomic Education 35(4): 311–29.

Baker, W. M., E. J. Lusk, & K. L. Neuhauser. 2012. “On the Use of Cell

Phones and Other Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From

a Survey of Faculty and Students.” Journal of Education for Business

87: 275–89.

Biddle, B. J., & D. C. Berliner. 2002. “Small Class Size and Its Effects.”

Educational Leadership 59(5): 12–23.

Braguglia, K. H. 2008. “Cellular Telephone Use: A Survey of College

Business Students.” Journal of College Teaching & Learning 5(4):

55–62.

70 BERRY ANDWESTFALL

Campbell, S. W. 2006. “Perceptions of Mobile Phones in College Class-

rooms: Ringing, Cheating, and Classroom Policies.” Communication

Education 55(3): 280–94.

Campbell, S. W., & T. C. Russo. 2003. “The Social Construction of Mobile

Telephony: An Application of the Social Influence Model to Perceptions

and Uses of Mobile Phones within Personal Communication Networks.”

Communication Monographs 70: 317–34.

Common Sense Media. 2009. “Hi-Tech Cheating.” http://www.common

sensemedia.org/hi-tech-cheating.

CTIA–The Wireless Association. 2014. “CTIA’s Semi-Annual Wireless

Industry Survey.” http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless-

works/annual-wireless-industry-survey.

Ellis, Y., B. Daniels, & A. Jauregui. 2010. “The Effect of Multitasking on

the Grade Performance of Business Students.” Research in Higher Edu-

cation 8(1): 1–11.

End, C. M., S. Worthman, M. B. Mathews, & K. Wetterau. 2010. “Costly

Cell Phones: The Impact of Cell Phone Rings on Academic Perform-

ance.” Teaching of Psychology 37: 55–7.

Evans, H. K. 2012. “Making Politics ‘Click’: The Costs and Benefits of

Using Clickers in an Introductory Political Science Course.” Journal of

Political Science Education 8(1): 85–93.

Finn, J. D., G. M. Pannozzo, and C. M. Achilles. 2003. “The ‘Why’s’ of

Class Size: Student Behavior in Small Classes.” Review of Educational

Research 73(3): 321–68.

Fox, A. B., J. Rosen, & M. Crawford. 2009. “Distractions, Distractions:

Does Instant Messaging Affect College Students’ Performance on a

Concurrent Reading Comprehension Task?” CyberPsychology &

Behavior 12(1): 51–3.

Fried, C. B. 2008. “In-class Laptop Use and its Effects on Student

Learning.” Computers & Education 50: 906–14.

Gilroy, M. 2004. “Invasion of the Classroom Cell Phones.” Education

Digest 69(6): 56–60.

Hanson, T. L., K. Drumheller, J. Mallard, C. McKee, and P. Schlegel.

2010. “Cell Phones, Text Messaging, and Facebook: Competing Time

Demands of Today’s College Students.” College Teaching 59(1): 23–30.

Hembrooke, H., & G. Gay. 2003. “The Laptop and the Lecture: The

Effects of Multitasking in Learning Environments.” Journal of Comput-

ing in Higher Education 15(1): 46–64.

Jenaro, C., N. Flores, M. Gomez-Vela, F. Gonzalez-Gil, & C. Caballo.

2007. “Problematic Internet and Cell-Phone Use: Psychological, Behav-

ioral, and Health Correlates.” Addiction Research and Theory 15(3):

309–20.

Katz, J. E. 2003. “Mobile phones in educational settings.” Origins:

91–103.

Kinsella, S. 2009. “Many to One: Using the Mobile Phone to Interact with

Large Classes.” British Journal of Educational Technology 40(5): 956–58.

Kraushaar, J. M. & D. C. Novak. 2010. “Examining the Affects of Student

Multitasking with Laptops during the Lecture.” Journal of Information

Systems Education 21(2): 241–51.

Lindquist, D., T. Denning, M. Kelly, R. Malani, W. G. Griswold, & B. Simon.

2007. “Exploring the Potential of Mobile Phones for Active Learning in the

Classroom.” Paper presented at SIGCSE’07, Covington, Kentucky.

Morahan-Martin, J. & P. Shumacher. 2000. “Incidence and Correlates of

Pathological Internet use among College Students.” Computers in

Human Behavior 16(1): 13–29.

Nyiri, K. 2002. “Towards a Philosophy of M-learning.” Wireless and

Mobile Technologies in Education: 121–4.

Pollock, P. H., K. Hamann, & B. M. Wilson. 2011. “Learning Through

Discussions: Comparing the Benefits of Small-Group and Large-Class

Settings.” Journal of Political Science Education 7 (1): 48–64.

Prensky, M. 2005. “What Can You Learn from a Cell Phone? Almost Any-

thing!” Innovate 1 (5): 1–9.

Schell, J., B. Lukoff, & E. Mazur. 2013. “Catalyzing learner engagement

using cutting-edge classroom response systems in higher education.”

Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education 6: 233–61.

Scherer, K. 1997. “College Life Online: Healthy and Unhealthy Internet

Use.” Journal of College Student Development 38 (6): 655–65.

Scornavacca, E., S. Huff, & S. Marshall. 2009. “Mobile phones in the

Classroom: If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them.” Communications of

the ACM 52 (4): 142–6.

Tindell, D. R., & R. W. Bohlander. 2012. “The Use and Abuse of Cell

Phones and Text Messaging in the Classroom: A Survey of College

Students.” College Teaching 60 (1): 1–9.

Ulbig, S. G., & F. Notman. 2012. “Is Class Appreciation Just a Click

Away? Using Student Response System Technology to Enhance Shy

Students’ Introductory American Government Experience.” Journal of

Political Science Education 8 (4): 352–71.

Valk, J.-H., A. T. Rashid, and L. Elder. 2010. “Using Mobile Phones to

Improve Educational Outcomes: An Analysis of Evidence from Asia.”

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 11

(1): 117–40.

Wei, F.-Y. Flora, Y. K. Wang, & M. Klausner. 2012. “Rethinking College

Students’ Self-Regulation and Sustained Attention: Does Text Messag-

ing During Class Influence Cognitive Learning?” Communication Edu-

cation 61 (3): 185–204.

Wei, R., & L. Leung. 1999. “Blurring Public and Private Behaviors in Pub-

lic Space: Policy Challenges in the Use and Improper Use of the Cell

Phone.” Telematics ad Informatics 16: 11–26.

DIAL D FOR DISTRACTION 71http://www.commonsensemedia.org/hi-tech-cheatinghttp://www.commonsensemedia.org/hi-tech-cheatinghttp://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless-works/annual-wireless-industry-surveyhttp://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless-works/annual-wireless-industry-survey

Copyright of College Teaching is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.