On the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Evidence from a Survey of Faculty and Students

by William M. Baker Professor of Accounting Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608

Edward J. Lusk Professor of Accounting SUNY – Plattsburgh Plattsburgh, NY 12901

Karyn L. Neuhauser Associate Professor of Finance Lamar University Beaumont, TX 77710

ABSTRACT: We investigate faculty and student perceptions regarding the use of cell phones and other electronic devices in the classroom. Students differ markedly from faculty, with students exhibiting much greater acceptance of in-class use of technology. Among students, we find that gender affects perceptions. Specifically, male students are more accepting of in-class use of technology than are female students. Also, graduate students are more disturbed by offtask use of laptop computers in class than their undergraduate counterparts. This research should be of interest to post-secondary educators and administrators in attempting to bridge the studentfaculty generation gap, and in formulating policies regarding the use of electronic devices in the classroom.

Keywords: Cell Phones, Laptops, MP3 Players, Cell-Phone Policies, Students vs. Faculty, Technology

On the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Evidence from a Survey of Faculty and Students

INTRODUCTION For over five decades, educators have known that electronic devices are essential elements of education in business (American Accounting Association, 1960). Transistor radios gave way to portable audio cassette players (e.g., the Sony Walkman), which subsequently gave way to today’s MP3 players (e.g., the Apple iPod). Laptop and netbook computers have made computer technology more portable and more affordable for today’s students. Bulky paper date books, address books, and scheduling calendars have been replaced by personal digital assistants (PDAs), and cell phones have been ubiquitous on college campuses for at least a decade (Arizona State University, 2000). So-called “smart phones” function not only as cell phones but also offer many MP3, laptop, and PDA features in one device. Today, there is no doubt that electronic devices are commonplace across all college campuses. But should the use of these electronic devices be commonplace in the classroom? This research seeks to shed light on that question.

LITERATURE REVIEW Pedagogical Help – Or Hindrance? Educators are constantly seeking ways to improve the learning experience for students, so it is no surprise that most of the research concerning electronic devices in the classroom focuses on pedagogical enhancements. As early as 1983 (Technology Section), Clarkson University provided computers for students and expected students to routinely use them. In the mid-1990s, schools such as Wake Forest University began to develop and implement strategic plans that 1

included personal computers for students (Brown et al, 1998), arguing that they were necessary both for collaborative learning and computer literacy. Today, most pedagogical research concerning laptops focuses on whether they do, indeed, offer pedagogical advantages. For example, Brown et al (1998), Brown and Petitto (2003), and Hall and Elliott (2003) attempt to convince all business-faculty members that classroom instruction using laptops is practically a necessity, while Elwood et al (2006) observe that – although laptop usage may be ubiquitous – programs and strategies for using laptops in the classroom are not. Elwood et al develop a model which suggests that whether students will embrace the use of laptops depends on three factors: (1) perceived usefulness, (2) perceived ease of use, and (3) perceived change. While the model appears to address the central issues, the authors note that its practical applications are limited to use as a basis for discussion. No indication as to how to implement the model, or consistently measure the effects of its three factors, is provided. Skolnik and Puzo (2008) study students and faculty who strongly indicate that laptop computers enhance instruction – mainly by enhancing spreadsheet skills and providing the opportunity to record notes electronically – but find that laptops in the classroom may increase academic dishonesty, and on average, 15% of students lose focus on class topics and drift away to other computer applications. Lectures accompanied by PowerPoint slides most often resulted in off-task activities, suggesting that passive learning creates the greatest opportunity for students to be distracted by the laptop technology. Fried (2008) points out that, in a number of cases reported in the popular press, faculty members and universities have sought to prohibit or restrict laptop use in the classroom. Her research finds that students using laptops frequently engage in multitasking, student learning – as measured by self-reported understanding of course material 2

and overall course performance – is negatively affected, and laptop use is distracting to fellow students. Hembrooke and Gay (2003) focus solely on the effects of multitasking using laptops, and also conclude that laptop use decreases learning in the college classroom. Wurst et al. (2008) reach a similar conclusion when studying both honors and non-honors college students. There is less research concerning the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages of other electronic devices. However, Kulesza et al (2010) argue that reliance on contemporary technologies in the classroom does not guarantee a better learning experience and may actually result in decreased student interest in learning, excessive dependence on technology, lower student engagement, and increased distraction, at least for some students. Bugeja (2008) argues that while new technologies—including cell phones, laptops, music players, and game consoles— keep us connected, they also keep us constantly distracted. Furthermore, he suggests that the new challenge to academia lies in the “pervasive unwillingness to do anything about it.” Wagner (2005) argues that laptop and notebook computers and cell phones are the most important hardware issue on most campuses these days and points out the potential for these devices to encourage or enable cheating, interfere with deeper learning, and inhibit critical thinking and effective communication. Braguglia (2008) conducted a survey on cell phone use on college campuses. However, her work differs from ours in that: i) her sample consisted of only 84 undergraduate business majors at a single university and ii) her survey was much shorter, focused only on cell phone use, and in many cases focused on different aspects of cell phone use. Interestingly, in the two instances in which her study overlaps with ours, her findings are quite different. For instance, she finds that 45% of students report spending over 4 hours a day on their cell phone while we find that only 19% of undergraduates report spending over 3 hours a day on their cell phone. 3

Also, 54% of her respondents report using their cell phone in every class while only 31% of undergraduate students in our survey report use in almost every class. When it comes to MP3 players, existing research focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of podcasting. Students seem to place some importance on the availability of podcast recordings of class lectures (Guertin et al, 2007). McKinney et al (2009) conclude that students learn more from a podcast (that they can view more than once) than they do with a onetime lecture – but this additional learning only occurs when the students take notes during the podcast (as they would in class) and view the podcast more than once. Overall, the research on technology in the classroom is inconclusive and still in the early phase despite its seeming importance due to the large role it now plays in our everyday lives, particularly in the lives of the “under 25 crowd”. This research sets out to fill some of the gaps in the literature, provide up-to-date information, and offer practical guidance for handling the use of technology in the classroom. Faculty/Student Differences When it comes to cell phones, research concerning the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages is still quite new and inconclusive. End et al. (2010) use an experimental design to show that a ringing cell phone impairs student performance. Both groups of test subjects watched an instructional video, took notes on the video, and then took a multiple-choice test over material presented in the video. One group’s viewing of the video was interrupted by a ringing cell phone while the other group’s was not. Students in the ringing condition group were significantly more likely to have omitted information in their notes and were significantly less likely to give the correct answer on the test.

4

According to Bugeja (2007), some instructors have “outlawed” electronic devices in their classrooms with positive results. Bugeja argues that soon all faculty members will include policies regarding the in-class use of electronic devices on their syllabi. However, Gilroy (2003) argues that the opinions of faculty regarding the use of cell phones in the classroom are quite diverse with some faculty members wishing to ban them and others feeling that even guidelines on cell phone use are overly restrictive and unnecessary. It seems that whether and which aspects of cell phone usage are disruptive is unclear, and we believe students and faculty will likely differ in their opinions on this matter. To understand these differences, it is important to carefully investigate these differences in perceptions. In a study focusing on young people aged 11-17 and their parents, Devitt and Roker (2009) find that both parents and children believe cell phones are essential for keeping in touch with each other. Similarly, Bauman (2009) finds that college students who use electronic devices to keep in touch with their family are extremely satisfied with that approach, and that these students tend to be more successful academically. In addition, Manthe (2009) finds that they adjust better to college life and are less likely to drop out, while Quan-Hasse (2007) concludes that electronic social interaction is entrenched in such students’ lives and therefore, when teachers prohibit the use of electronic devices during class time, students may think teachers are unfair. Obringer and Coffey’s (2007) survey finds that 84 percent of American high schools have a written policy on cell phone use and 76 percent do not permit cell phone use by students. Unlike elementary and secondary schools, most universities have seemingly been slow to develop cell phone use policies, presumably because college students are viewed as adults who can wisely govern their own use of this technology. However, when undergraduate students in a business ethics and corporate responsibility course at Western Carolina University were 5

required to design a student code of professional ethics as a semester project, the students chose to include a section on the use of technology and to provide within that section, guidelines on the use of cell phones (Willey and Burke, 2011). Prensky (2001) provides a rationale for the inherent differences in perspective between students and faculty. Even if faculty members regularly use electronic devices, because they are from an older generation that did not grow up depending upon such devices, they are digital immigrants. Members of the millennial generation1 – which encompasses the majority of today’s students – are digital natives. While digital immigrants know how to use electronic devices, digital natives are so accustomed to such devices that they have essentially become like bodily appendages, and digital natives feel that attempts to remove these appendages at any time are irrational or wrong. Domitrek and Raby (2008) explore differences among teachers, administrators, and students from Prensky’s viewpoint and find that students view electronic devices as (a) essential elements of social life, (b) necessary at all times for safety, and (c) integral factors in everyday life. Teachers – even if they qualify as digital immigrants – view electronic devices as take-it-or-leave-it devices that are unnecessary in the classroom. Students are troubled by inconsistencies demonstrated by teachers; they witness teachers using cell phones in other areas where they are forbidden (e.g., hospitals), and see them using MP3 players while they work. Also, by and large, administrators are neither digital immigrants nor digital natives, and their views are different from both teachers and students. In short, most students are digital natives, most teachers are digital immigrants, and most administrators are neither. Ironically, 1

Although there is no precise definition of the term “millennials”, it typically refers to persons born in the early 1980s or later and therefore roughly corresponds to anyone who is currently under 30 years old. This constitutes the majority of today’s college students. However, the term digital native is probably better reserved for the under-25 age group since Internet and cell phone usage actually became widespread in the mid- to late-1990s and early 2000s, respectively.

6

though, it is the administrators who create most of the policies forbidding electronic devices in the classroom, without ever consulting students or teachers. One of the most comprehensive studies of cell phone use in the college classroom is Campbell (2006), which examines the perceptions of faculty and students across all college disciplines and majors regarding policies banning cell phones in classrooms, ringing of cell phones during class, complaints regarding cell phone use during class, and the likelihood of cheating using mobile phones. Campbell reports that both faculty and students “generally reported negative attitudes about mobile phones in college classrooms” (p. 286). Participants regarded ringing cell phones as a problem that was serious enough to necessitate policies prohibiting in-class use. Though not as commonly perceived as a problem, cell phones were sometimes also perceived as catalysts for cheating or sources for complaints. Campbell linearly combined several variables – including age, sex, and phone usage – and explained differences between faculty and students. Further analysis led to reclassifying age in four quartiles. At this point, age was a dominant predictor variable. Further, the first quartile, which corresponded to the millennial generation, was far less negative than the remaining quartiles in its perceptions regarding ringing, anti-use policies, cheating, and complaining. Garcia (2007) provides additional evidence that faculty and students view electronic devices differently when it comes to classroom use. She notes that most of today’s students are members of the millennial generation and argues that this generation needs sufficient gadgetry “to stay in virtually uninterrupted contact with the world” (p. 13). Millennials believe that all learning should be inundated with technology. Students of this generation view electronic devices as a “must,” and believe that the “internet is like oxygen.” Classroom education has long been criticized for being disjointed from the real world. Millennials believe that classrooms 7

without an abundance of electronic devices are even more unrealistic and artificial. This strong disconnection is made even stronger when teachers do not embrace technology 24/7. Garcia also notes that today’s faculty members, most of whom are baby boomers, still believe lectures can be useful, even though lectures benefit only slightly from technology. Millennials view PowerPoint slides as poor disguises for lecture-based instruction. Millennials also hold a negative view of lecturers as authoritarian figures or “bosses” and prefer instead to learn from “mentors”. When faculty members set forth rules regarding the use of electronic devices in the classroom, the authoritarian image is deepened. In short, millennials believe that lectures create a learning barrier, and banning technology in the classroom reinforces that barrier. At the same time, faculty members believe millennials lack discipline and maturity and thus need rules regarding the use of electronic devices. It is important that we, as a profession, begin to address and reconcile these competing viewpoints. RESEARCH QUESTIONS In recent years, researchers have begun to recognize the importance of studying the use of electronic devices in the classroom. However, the research in this area is incomplete, even though more and more students are bringing electronic devices into the classroom. Thus, we seek to shed light on the following research question using a comprehensive survey: RQ1: What are the perceptions of faculty members and students regarding the use of electronic devices in the classroom? Theoretical research, whether based on generational differences (millennials versus baby boomers), or familiarity with the technologies (digital immigrants versus digital natives), suggests that perceptual differences will exist between students and faculty members. The existing research suggests that faculty may perceive electronic devices to be less appropriate in 8

the classroom than students, but no research exists that suggests either students’ or faculty members’ perceptions are normatively superior. A first step however is to determine whether student perceptions do, indeed, differ from faculty perceptions. As such, the following research question is posed: RQ2: Do perceptions regarding the use of electronic devices in the classroom differ between students and faculty members? Researchers have pointed out the importance of demographic variables and how they affect perceptions regarding electronic devices. Manthe (2009) argues that electronic devices are strong catalysts in students’ adaptation to college life, and that their effects as catalysts differ between males and females. Campbell (2006) uses a linear combination of age and gender along with electronic device usage to study perceptions of the appropriateness and misuse (via cheating) of mobile phones. To fully understand faculty and student perceptions, the effects of demographic variables such as gender, age, and faculty rank on perceptions must be examined. This leads to the third research question. RQ3: Do demographic characteristics affect perceptions concerning the use of electronic devices in the classroom? RESEARCH METHODS In order to investigate perceptions concerning the use of electronic devices, we used an eight-page survey consisting of 55 questions. The first page of this survey instrument contains instructions for completing the survey. The survey itself consists of four sections. Eight questions designed to collect demographic data are contained in the first section. Data about the availability of technology, and how often it is used, is gathered using eight questions contained in the second section. The demographics questions and the general questions about technology usage each presented a number of possible responses to the particular question. In the demographics section, there were five questions for which we could not be completely sure that 9

our menu of choices encompassed every possibility and therefore respondents were given an “other” choice. Respondents were expected to indicate their choice by placing a check mark in the appropriate blank. The third section of the survey is the longest, consisting of 33 questions, and is designed to collect information from all participants on their perceptions of the appropriateness of using technology in the classroom. In this section, 30 questions required a response indicating whether the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement based on a five-point Likert scale, two questions offered a menu of choices (including a choice of “other” in which the respondent could fill in the blank), and a final open-ended question left space for the respondent to indicate any additional comments they wished to make. The Likert scale corresponded to the following responses: “1” represents “strongly disagree,” “2” represents “disagree”, “3” represents “neither agree nor disagree,” “4” represents “agree,” and “5” represents “strongly agree.” In the fourth and final section, students were asked to answer six questions about their usage of technology in the classroom.2 These questions consisted of a menu of choices and students were expected to indicate their choice by placing a check mark in the appropriate blank. With the exception of questions 13 and 14, which are discussed only in the text, and question 49, which was an open-ended question allowing respondents to make any additional comments, all survey questions are shown in the tables.3 We conducted seven distinct pilot tests, and the discriminant validity of the questionnaire is strong. Given that only 2 out of 978 questionnaires were eliminated due to illogical response pair testing, the respondents displayed a uniform understanding of the questionnaire.

2

Faculty members were instructed to stop after the first 49 questions.

3

The survey instrument and additional details regarding the survey methods and testing are available from the authors upon request.

10

This survey was administered to both students and professors at three public universities located in New York, North Carolina, and Texas after it had been pilot-tested in all three locations. At all three universities, students were asked to complete the survey at the beginning of a regular class period, whereas faculty surveys were distributed both to faculty mailboxes and via email asking them to complete and return the survey within a two week timeframe.4 Participation was entirely voluntary and respondents received no credit or other types of incentive for participating. The choice of the number of classes at each university was designed to elicit a total number of responses in the range of 250-350 students from each university. The appropriate sample size for the study was set so as to accomplish two goals. First, the sample size provides a 95% confidence interval with precision of 2% of the Likert-scale range; this was judged to be sufficient to provide useful demographic information. Second, the sample size was designed to provide power of at least 80% for non-directional (i.e., conservative) two-sample-mean difference tests. The overall expectation based upon these two goals was thus determined to be a sample size of at least 200 respondents per university. This sample size was more than achieved for each university, so the confidence intervals and the power of the statistics are conservatively bounded at the design parameters indicated above.

RESULTS We received 978 completed surveys – 882 from students and 96 from faculty members. The totals reported for each question in the tables that follow will not always equal the total number of respondents because some respondents returned surveys without answering certain questions or in a very small number of instances chose more than one response when only one 4

Participation rates were over 95% in every class surveyed.

11

response was permitted (e.g., on Likert scale questions). In what follows we report differences and discuss inferential results only when the parametric two-tailed p-value is less than 0.01. Demographic Profile Demographic data are reported in Table 1. The distribution across higher education institutions is roughly equal but there are somewhat fewer respondents from the Texas school (27.9% of the sample) and somewhat more from the North Carolina school (39.6% of the sample) with the remaining 32.5% from the New York school. Not surprisingly, far more students (882 total) than faculty (96 total) participated in the survey. Of the 874 student participants responding to the question about gender, 41.2% are female while 58.8% are male. Of the 92 faculty participants responding to this question, 31.5% are female while 65.6% are male. This is not surprising given that the majority of business faculty in higher education is male5 and that many business school classes attract a larger number of male students than female students. For the overall sample, about three-quarters of the student respondents are under 23 years old. However, the proportion of students in this age group is higher at the New York school, which serves only undergraduates, and considerably lower (only about one-half the sample) at the Texas school.

The vast majority of students for the full sample and at each school are under

30. Not surprisingly, the age distribution is quite different for faculty with most being over 40 (80% of the full sample and 70-88% at each school). Only two faculty members, or 2.1%, out of the 95 responding to this question are under 30.

5

For the three schools used in our survey, approximately 80%, 70%, and 72%, of the business school faculty are male at the New York, North Carolina, and Texas school, respectively. Because the North Carolina faculty is by far the largest, the corresponding figure is 72% male faculty for the three schools combined.

12

Of the students responding to the question about whether they are undergraduate or graduate students, 85.9% indicate undergraduate standing while 14.1% indicate graduate standing. However, the proportions at the North Carolina and Texas schools are actually about two-thirds undergraduate versus one-third graduate students while the New York school sample is composed entirely of undergraduate students because the business school there does not have a graduate program. About three-quarters of the sample indicate their race to be white while about 9% indicate Asian, 8.5% indicate African American, and 5% indicate other races. A much larger proportion of the North Carolina school sample indicate white, 94%, while the New York school sample has a larger proportion of Asian students, 16.6%, and the Texas school sample has a much larger proportion of African American students, 20.7%. Students were also asked to self-report their overall grade point average (GPA). For the full sample, 24% indicate a GPA of 3.50 or higher, 37% report a GPA of 3.00-3.49, 29% report a GPA of 2.50-2.99, and 10% report a GPA of 2.00-2.49. Only 3 students out of 868 responding to this question report a GPA below 2.00. GPA distributions are roughly similar across schools. Access to and Use of Technology Table 2 examines respondent’s access to and use of technology. Consistent with the notion that access to technology is widespread, 90% of the respondents own a laptop computer (Q9), 99% have a cell phone (Q11), and 83% own an MP3 player (Q15). While laptop ownership is quite common among both faculty and students, faculty are much more likely to own a desktop computer (79% of faculty vs. 30% of students). Not surprisingly, faculty more often have access to computers at work (75% of faculty vs. 19% of students) while students more frequently indicate access to computers through school (22% of faculty vs. 56% of students). 13

Cell phone ownership is ubiquitous in both groups but there is a larger proportion of faculty who do not own a cell phone (5%) than students ( 6 hours 101 10.4% 71 8.1% Total 971 100.0% 875 100.0% Q11: Do you own a cell phone? Yes 959 98.8% 868 99.2% No 12 1.2% 7 0.8% Total 971 100.0% 875 100.0% Q12: Cell phone use on a typical day None 13 1.3% 4 0.5% < 10 minutes 103 10.7% 56 6.4% 10-30 minutes 215 22.2% 192 22.0% 30-60 minutes 219 22.6% 209 24.0% 1-2 hours 169 17.5% 165 18.9% 2-3 hours 89 9.2% 89 10.2% > 3 hours 159 16.4% 157 18.0% Total 967 100.0% 872 100.0% Q15: Do you own an MP3 player? Yes 798 82.6% 748 85.8% No 168 17.4% 124 14.2% Total 966 100.0% 872 100.0% Q16: MP3 player use on a typical day None 214 23.0% 164 19.3% < 1 hour 348 37.3% 324 38.1% 1-2 hours 237 25.4% 231 27.1% 2-4 hours 84 9.0% 84 9.9% 4-6 hours 29 3.1% 28 3.3% > 6 hours 20 2.6% 20 2.4% Total 932 100.0% 851 100.0%

Faculty % 76 77 72 21 0

79.2% 80.2% 75.0% 21.9% 0.0%

0 0 9 30 27 30 96

0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 31.3% 28.1% 31.3% 100.0%

91 5 96

94.8% 5.2% 100.0%

9 47 23 10 4 0 2 95

9.5% 49.5% 24.2% 10.5% 4.2% 0.0% 2.1% 100.0%

50 44 94

53.2% 46.8% 100.0%

50 24 6 0 1 0 81

61.7% 29.6% 7.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 100.0%

31

Table 3: Use of electronic devices by students in the classroom Yes

% of total sample

Q51: How often do you use a cell phone during class to send a text message? Used in almost every class 216 Used in class 5-10 times per week 128 Used in class 1-4 times per week 166 Used in class 1-3 times per month 81 Rarely used in class 169 Never used in class 112 Total 872 Q52: How often do you use a cell phone during class to check email or text messages? Used in almost every class 245 Used in class 5-10 times per week 148 Used in class 1-4 times per week 144 Used in class 1-3 times per month 63 Rarely used in class 136 Never used in class 119 Total 855 Q53: In a typical semester, how often do you use your cell phone to take a call during class? More than once a week 8 About once a week 6 Every 2-3 weeks 9 About once a month 30 Once or twice a semester 195 Never 607 Total 855 Q54: How often do you use a laptop during class? Used in almost every class 26 Used in class 5-10 times per week 15 Used in class 1-4 times per week 44 Used in class 1-3 time per month 67 Rarely used in class 229 Never used in class 473 Total 854 Q55: How often do you use an iPod or MP3 player during class? Used in almost every class 7 Used in class 5-10 times per week 3 Used in class 1-4 times per week 9 Used in class 1-3 time per month 8 Rarely used in class 52 Never used in class 775 Total 882

24.8% 14.7% 19.0% 9.3% 19.4% 12.8% 100.0% 28.7% 17.3% 16.8% 7.4% 15.9% 13.9% 100.0% 0.9% 0.7% 1.1% 3.5% 22.8% 71.0% 100.0% 3.0% 1.8% 5.2% 7.8% 26.8% 55.4% 100.0% 0.8% 0.4% 1.1% 0.9% 6.1% 90.7% 100.0%

32

Table 4: Responses to perceptual questions about cell phones All

Student

Faculty

Difference test p-value

Q17: Using a cell phone to make calls or check messages in class is never appropriate. Mean response 3.60 3.49 4.59