See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241739366

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

Article  in  The Journal of Education for Business · January 2012

DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.622814

CITATIONS READS

102 11,627

3 authors, including:

Edward J. Lusk Karyn Neuhauser

State University of New York at Plattsburgh, NY USA Lamar University
258 PUBLICATIONS   6,243 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rule-based forecasting View project

Predictable Dividend Increases View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karyn Neuhauser on 18 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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 off-
task 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 student-
faculty 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 one-

time 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 (<1%). MP3 player ownership is also much more

prevalent among students (86%) than faculty (53%).

As for usage of technology, on a typical day, computer use is higher among faculty

(mean response to Q10 of 3.8 or 4-6 hours for faculty compared with 2.8 or 2-4 hours for

students). Almost 70% of faculty spent four or more hours on the computer compared with only

25% of students. The majority of students, 62%, spend between one and four hours on the

computer each day. At least two explanations for this finding spring to mind. First, most faculty

members are employed full-time in a job that typically requires extensive use of computers.

Second, most students spend several hours per day in classes and most classes do not require the

use of a computer during class. Surprisingly, almost 13% of students report using a computer for

less than one hour per day while no faculty respondents report such a low level of computer use.

On the other hand, students spend much more time on their cell phones than faculty.

The mean response to Q12 for students is 3.6, which corresponds with 1-2 hours of cell phone

use per day, while the mean response of faculty members is 1.6, which corresponds with 10-30

minutes of using the cell phone each day. Almost 30% of students report using their cell phone

for over two hours per day. Among faculty only 2 out of 95 respondents, or 2%, report such high

usage.

We also collected data on the number of calls or text messages sent and received each

day (not shown in table). The typical student receives 26-50 text messages and voice calls on

their cell phone each day (Q14) and sends out an additional 26-50 text messages and voice calls

per day (Q13), while the typical faculty member receives 3-5 messages and sends 3-5 messages

14
per day. Thus, while computer usage is somewhat higher among faculty, cell phone usage is

higher among students by an order of magnitude.

Students also use their MP3 players more than faculty do with over 80% reporting daily

usage compared to less than 30% of faculty using an MP3 player every day (Q16). The mean

response is 1.5 for students, which roughly corresponds to 1 hour of usage per day, versus 0.5 for

faculty, which suggests less than ½ hour of daily usage.

Table 3 reports the data collected on usage of electronic devices by students in the

classroom. This part of the survey was only administered to students. At one end of the

spectrum, almost one quarter of students say that they send a text message in almost every class

(Q51) while another 15% send 5-10 texts in class each week. At the other end of the spectrum,

approximately one-third of students say they rarely or never send texts during class. Students are

slightly more likely to check texts (Q52) than to send them during class with 29% saying they

check them in almost every class and another 17% saying they check them in class 5-10 times

per week. Once again, at the other extreme, almost one-third of students say they rarely or never

check text messages in class. Over 70% of students report that they never take a call during a

typical semester (Q53) and an additional 23% limit themselves to one or two calls per semester.

However, about 6% of students take a call more than once a month. Our a priori expectation

was that graduate students might find it necessary to take more calls during class because some

of them have very demanding jobs but, surprisingly, most of the more-frequent call takers are

undergraduate rather than graduate students. Another unexpected result is the limited use of

laptops in class (Q54) with over 80% of students reporting that they rarely or never use them.

Not surprisingly, students report much less frequent use of MP3 players in class (Q55) with over

90% saying they are never used and only 3% reporting once a month or more frequent usage.

15
Perceptions on Use of Electronic Devices in the Classroom – Cell Phones

In Table 4, mean responses to statements about the use of electronic devices in the

classroom are reported. A number of statements were designed to measure respondents’ beliefs

about the appropriateness of cell phone use in the classroom. Two statements (Q17 and Q18)

were framed to indicate inappropriateness while four statements (Q19, Q20, Q23, and Q24) were

framed in the opposite way, asking whether cell phone use was appropriate under various

conditions. Respondents generally believe that using a cell phone in class is not appropriate with

61% agreeing or strongly agreeing with Q17 concerning the inappropriateness of making calls or

checking messages and 46% agreeing or strongly agreeing with Q18 concerning the

inappropriateness of sending text messages or checking email. The mean response for these two

statements is 3.60 and 3.21, respectively. Interestingly, a larger number of respondents, 57%,

indicate that using a cell phone to send text messages is not appropriate when we add the

additional information stating that “the lecture is not interesting” (Q19). The mean response to

this question, which is framed in the opposite direction, is 2.45. Responses were more evenly

split when we specified that cell phone usage in class was completely silent (Q20) with 44%

(41%) of all respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing (disagreeing or strongly disagreeing) with

the appropriateness of this behavior and a mean response of 3.03. When we specified that not

only was usage quiet but also that students were using the device to look up relevant information

(Q23), the proportion of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the

appropriateness fell to 29% but the mean response of 3.08 was very similar to Q20. Q24 is very

similar to Q18 except that it is framed in the opposite way and the phrasing is changed from

“send text messages or answer email” to “send or answer email or to text”. The mean response

of 2.67 is similar to that for Q18 but in the opposite direction as expected. Overall, we believe

16
that the similarity in responses to similar survey questions lends credence to the validity of our

results.

Around 80% of respondents indicate that ringing cell phones in the classroom are

disruptive (Q30) and that students who let their cell phones ring or make other noises are being

rude or disrespectful (Q31) with mean responses of 4.13 and 4.08, respectively. In addition,

almost half believe that any use of cell phones is generally disruptive to the learning process

(Q21) with a mean response of 3.30. Mixed beliefs are found for the question of whether certain

types of cell phone use in class can actually assist the learning process (Q22) with an almost

equal proportion agreeing or strongly agreeing, 36%, and disagreeing or strongly disagreeing,

40% and a mean response of 3.00.

With respect to classroom policy, over two-thirds of respondents agreed or strongly

agreed that students should be required to turn off their cell phones if requested to do so by the

instructor (Q27) with a mean response of 3.77. However, two-thirds also agreed or strongly

agreed that as part of the campus emergency alert systems, cell phones should be left on at all

times (Q33) with a mean response of 3.77. While 92% of respondents believe that instructors

should be allowed to prohibit the use of cell phones during exams (Q29), 75% believe that

instructors should not be allowed to collect them (Q28). The mean responses to Q28 and Q29

are 2.01 and 4.48, respectively. Respondents believe that cell phones can potentially be used to

gain an unfair advantage on quizzes or exams (Q36) with 76% agreeing or strongly agreeing and

a mean response of 3.93. Responses to whether instructors (Q34) and students (Q35) should be

allowed to leave class to take a cell phone call were mixed with a mean response of 2.92 and

3.15, respectively. However, respondents were less likely to agree or strongly agree with

instructors taking calls during class (37%) than with students doing it (47%). While 45% of

17
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that instructors should allow the use of cell phones in class

as long as the device is completely silent (Q45), 31% disagreed with this statement, resulting in a

mean response of 3.17. Lastly, when asked to quantify how many times a cell phone had to ring

before it becomes disruptive (Q50), the most popular answers are once (38.5% of respondents) or

twice (35.8% of respondents).

Perceptions on Use of Electronic Devices in the Classroom – Laptops

Table 5 reports responses to statements regarding laptop use in the classroom. Most

respondents believe that laptop computers are useful and should be permitted in the classroom

(78% agree or strongly agree with Q37) but few believe they should be a required part of every

course (14% agree or strongly agree with Q38). The mean responses for Q37 and Q38 are 4.00

and 2.55, respectively. Only 28% of respondents express concern about the fairness of laptop

use when not all students have them (Q39). This may be due to the large number of students

owning laptops noted earlier. However, respondents do express some concern about laptop use

for web-surfing in class with 46% agreeing or strongly agreeing that it is distracting (Q25) or

disruptive (Q41). The mean responses for Q25 and Q41 are 3.14 and 3.21, respectively.6 Most

respondents also believe that using a laptop to send or answer email in class is not appropriate

with 46% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with Q40 which garners a mean response of 2.64.

With regard to classroom policy, almost 60% of respondents believe that instructors should allow

the use of laptops as long as it is completely silent (Q46) but 44% also agree or strongly agree

that instructors should have the right to insist that students close or put away their laptops (Q42).

The mean responses for Q46 and Q42 are 3.56 and 3.23, respectively.

6
Again, we note that the responses are very consistent across these two similar questions which were placed two
pages apart in the survey, giving us confidence in the validity of our results.
18
Perceptions on Use of Electronic Devices in the Classroom – MP3 Players

Table 6 reports responses to statements regarding the use of MP3 players in the

classroom. The vast majority of respondents do not believe that students should be allowed to

listen to iPods or MP3 players during class (Q43) or during an exam or quiz (Q44) nor do they

believe instructors should allow them to be used even if the device is completely silent (Q47).

The percent disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with these questions is 86%, 81%, and 70%,

respectively, and the mean responses are 1.69, 1.78, and 2.10, respectively.

Overall, respondents tend to indicate that use of laptops is appropriate in the classroom,

certain uses of cell phones are appropriate, and the use of MP3 players is inappropriate. The

discussion thus far is based on the results of the full set of responses. However, much more

insight is gained when student and faculty responses are examined separately. This is the topic

of the next two sections.

Comparison of Student and Faculty Responses – Cell Phones

We examine differences in the mean response of students compared to faculty in Tables

4-6. The significance level of the difference is indicated by p-value shown in the rightmost

column.

Returning to Table 4, over 90% of faculty agree or strongly agree that using cell phones

to make calls or check messages is never appropriate (Q17) while only 58% of students agree or

strongly agree with this statement. The mean response is 3.49 for students versus 4.59 for

faculty. These differences in student vs. faculty perceptions persist even when the statement asks

about the appropriateness of using electronic devices quietly. For instance, while 87% of faculty

members express some level of agreement with the idea that using a cell phone to send text

19
messages or check email in class is never appropriate (Q18), only 41% of students agree with

this statement. The mean responses are 4.49 versus 3.07, respectively. While 48% (36%) of

students agree or strongly agree (disagree or strongly disagree) with the statement that cell-phone

usage is appropriate if it does not involve talking, beeping, or other noises (Q20), the

corresponding figures for faculty members are 13% (82%). The mean response is 3.18 for

students versus 1.71 for faculty. This difference in beliefs exists even if the student is quietly

researching material relevant to class discussion (Q21) with a mean response of 3.16 for students

versus 2.40 for faculty. While both students and faculty are bothered by ringing cell phones

(Q30 and Q31), faculty find this more disruptive and are more likely to view it as rude or

disrespectful than students. In addition, faculty view cell phones as more disruptive and less

likely to assist in the learning process (Q21 and Q22) than students.

When asked about the rights of faculty to control cell phone use in the classroom, the

perceptions of faculty again differ significantly from those of the students. Almost 93% of

faculty members believe they have the right to insist that students turn off their cell phones in

class (Q27) while only 66% of students agree with this statement. The mean responses are 3.67

for students and 4.64 for faculty. While both faculty and students tend to disagree with the idea

that it is appropriate for an instructor to collect student cell phones during an exam (Q28), the

level of disagreement is higher among students with a mean response of 1.95 compared with

2.40 for faculty. Similarly, while both faculty and students tend to agree that it is appropriate for

instructors to prohibit cell phone use during an exam (Q29), the level of agreement with this

statement is significantly higher among faculty with a mean response of 4.81 compared with 4.45

for students. Students are also more inclined to agree with the idea that cell phones are critical to

their safety due to their use in campus emergency alert systems (Q33). The mean response to

20
this statement is 3.87 for students versus 2.94 for instructors. Instructors tend to be more

concerned about the use of cell phones to cheat on exams (Q36) with over 90% of instructors

believing this is a problem versus 74% of students and a mean response of 4.45 for instructors

vs. 3.87 for students.

The results also indicate that a large proportion of students believe that leaving the

classroom to answer a cell-phone call is appropriate whether one is a faculty member or student

(mean student response to Q34 and Q35 is 3.07 and 3.30, respectively), while faculty members

very much disagree (mean faculty response to Q34 and Q35 is 1.54 and 1.81, respectively).

Overall, it is exceedingly obvious that students and faculty members have different views about

the appropriateness and disruptiveness of electronic devices in the classroom.

Comparison of Student and Faculty Responses – Laptops and MP3 Players

Table 5 shows that 80% of students agree or strongly agree that laptop computers are

useful and should be permitted in the classroom (Q37) while only 62% of faculty agree or

strongly agree with this statement. The mean response is 4.03 for students versus 3.76 for

faculty. With regard to the more extreme statement that laptops should be used in every course

(Q38), only 46% of students disagree or strongly disagree compared with 72% of faculty.

Students and faculty have similar beliefs about whether the use of laptops creates an unfair

advantage for the haves vs. the have-nots (Q39). However, when it comes to statements

concerning web surfing in the classroom (Q25 and Q41), 42% of students agree or strongly agree

that it is disruptive or distracting while 80% of faculty agree or strongly agree with these

statements. Students are also significantly less likely to disapprove of answering email during

class (Q40), more likely to believe that instructors should allow the quiet use of laptops in class

21
(Q46), and less likely to believe instructors have a right to insist that students close or put away

their laptops (Q42).

Table 6 shows that 86% of students disagree or strongly disagree that students should be

allowed to listen to MP3 players in class (Q43) while 94% of faculty disagree or strongly

disagree with this statement. The mean response is 1.73 for students versus 1.30 for faculty.

About 80% of students disagree or strongly disagree that students should be allowed to listen to

MP3 players during an exam or quiz (Q44) while 92% of faculty disagree or strongly disagree

with this statement. Similarly, 68% of students disagree or strongly disagree with Q47

concerning the silent use of MP3 players compared with 86% of faculty. Overall, while both

faculty and students are generally against the use of MP3 players in class, students are more

tolerant of their use than faculty.

The most intriguing result of the survey is how much the students and faculty differ in

their perceptions regarding the use of these devices in the classroom. For almost every question,

student responses differ strongly from those of faculty members. In every instance where we

find a difference, students perceive electronic devices to be more appropriate, and less

disruptive, than faculty members do.

Recommendations for Policy and Instructor Response to Use of Electronic Devices

Table 7 focuses on our findings regarding recommendations for setting an electronic

device usage policy and how instructors should respond to disruptions created by such usage.

Most respondents do not believe that it is appropriate for instructors to criticize or make

demeaning comments about students using electronic devices in the classroom (Q48) with two-

thirds disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement and a mean response of 2.16. When

it comes to policy regarding electronic device usage in the classroom (Q26), roughly two-thirds
22
of respondents believe the policy should be solely determined by the course instructor, included

in the course syllabus, and discussed in class. Very few were in favor of a university-wide, top-

down approach to policy or a democratically determined, bottom-up approach. When it comes to

responding to a ringing cell phone (Q32), most respondents were in favor of speaking to the

student in private after class or making a joke or otherwise calling attention to it in class but in a

light-hearted way while very few were on board with a grade-based penalty.

With regard to policy, faculty tends to be more bureaucratic, indicating a preference for a

university-wide policy much more frequently than students do. On the other hand, students tend

to support the idea of a democratically determined policy to a much greater extent than faculty

do. However, a policy that was determined by the instructor, included on the course syllabus,

and discussed in class was favored by a majority of both students and faculty. Students put equal

emphasis on class discussion of the policy and its inclusion in the syllabus while faculty

members favor inclusion in the syllabus over class discussion. Students and faculty are broadly

in agreement as to how to handle a ringing cell phone but there seems to be some preference

among students for discussing it in a joking, light-hearted way while faculty are somewhat more

inclined to discuss the interruption with the student right then and there.

Effect of Demographic Characteristics on Results

The effects of demographic data on the results are examined to address RQ3. Most of the

significant differences found using demographic data are caused by differences in gender.

Almost half of the questions showed differences in perceptions between male and female

23
students. These results, which were analyzed separately for faculty and students, are reported in

Tables 8-10. However, the results are easy to sum up: male students are more in favor of

electronic device usage in the classroom than are female students. For example, as shown in

Table 8, male students were more prone to disagree with statements that reflect negatively on

cell phone usage (Q31, Q21, Q29, Q36) and to agree with statements that suggest cell phone use

is appropriate (Q35). Similarly, as shown in Tables 9 and 10, male students are more likely to

agree with statements that support laptop use (Q37, Q38) or use of MP3 players (Q43, Q44,

Q47) and more likely to disagree with negative statements about laptop usage (Q39, Q25, Q41).

The one exception, shown in Table 9, is that male students were more likely to agree that it is

appropriate for instructors to criticize or make demeaning comments to students who use devices

in class. This may reflect gender differences in interpersonal relations (i.e., males are less

sensitive to criticism than females) but this is merely a conjecture on our part.

Only two of the questions showed gender differences for faculty. First, as shown in

Table 8, male faculty members are more likely to agree that it is appropriate for instructors to

criticize or make demeaning comments to students who use devices in class. Second, as shown

in Table 9, male faculty perceived in-class web-surfing to be more distracting than female

faculty did. Interestingly, for every question other than Q48, when female student responses

differed significantly from male student responses, the female student responses are closer to

faculty members’ responses than are those for male students.

Since graduate students use computers in the classroom more than undergraduate

students, it was suspected that graduate students’ responses might differ from undergraduate

students’ for questions regarding laptop usage; this suspicion was confirmed. Interestingly, as

shown in Table 11, graduate students are significantly more likely to agree that it is disruptive

24
when other students web-surf in class (Q41) and that it is appropriate for instructors to insist

students put away their laptops (Q42) and are significantly more likely to disagree with the

appropriateness of using laptops to send or answer email in class (Q40) compared with

undergraduates.

Other variables such as faculty rank (full, associate, assistant professor, or adjunct) were

examined but no significant differences in perceptions were found and therefore these results are

not reported.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Our main findings can be summarized as follows:

 In almost every instance, faculty perceptions differ from student perceptions
with students believing that use of electronic devices is more appropriate, and
less disruptive, than faculty members do.
 In a large number of cases, female students’ perceptions differ from those of
male students with females finding the use of electronic devices to be more
disruptive and less appropriate than their male counterparts.
 Graduate students are less tolerant than undergraduate students of off-task
usage of laptops in the classroom and are more supportive of the instructors’
right to ban laptop usage in the classroom.

We find that faculty perceptions about the appropriateness of electronic devices in the

classroom are very different from student perceptions, making it easier to discuss points of

agreement rather than disagreement. Both faculty and students tend to agree that owning a

laptop does not give a student an unfair advantage in the classroom and that it is inappropriate

for instructors to criticize or make demeaning comments to students who use electronic devices

in the classroom.7 For every other survey question, faculty perceptions differ from student

7
For both students and faculty, females believe more strongly than males that such comments are inappropriate.

25
perceptions and, in every instance where beliefs differ, students perceive electronic devices to be

more appropriate, and less disruptive, than faculty members do.

For about half of the questions, female students’ perceptions differ from the perceptions

of male students. In all such cases, females find the use of electronic devices to be more

disruptive and less appropriate than their male counterparts. While no current theory directly

addresses this “gender effect”, the differences offer an important avenue for future exploration,

as researchers try to better understand the appropriateness of electronic devices in the classroom.

This is particularly important in light of the fact that in the past decade, and for the first time in

history, more females than males are attending college. In addition, graduate students are less

tolerant than undergraduate students of off-task usage of laptops in the classroom and are more

supportive of the instructors’ right to ban laptop usage in the classroom.

While this study only examines perceptions, it is apparent that strong behavioral

differences exist between students and faculty. This dichotomy suggests that Bugeja (2007) is

correct: some faculty members already are—and should be—addressing the use of electronic

devices in the classroom in their syllabi. Indeed, at many universities, administrators are

currently contemplating the creation of university-wide policies regarding the use of electronic

devices in the classroom. This research may be useful as a guide in setting those policies. Given

that student and faculty perceptions differ strongly, and that there is no indication of whose

perceptions are “better”, this research suggests that administrators should consider and attempt to

reconcile the opinions of both students and faculty before creating electronic-device-usage

policies for the classroom.

In conclusion, we believe that the baby-boomer professors of today must find a way to

peacefully co-exist with their millennial students who have fully embraced the technologies that
26
we created for them. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as instructors, and designers of the

classroom environment, to adapt to these technologies in so far as possible and to deliver our

courses in a way that reflects these oftentimes conflicting views concerning the use and

usefulness of these technologies. The information gleaned from this study should be beneficial

as we begin, or in some cases continue, our journey in this direction.

27
 REFERENCES

American Accounting Association. Committee on the Scope of the Four Year Accounting Major.
W. G. Kell, Chairman; R. J. Canning; S. R. Hepworth; E. L. McGowan; G. Shillinglaw;
F. P. Smith; and D. W. Thompson. 1960. Report of the Committee on the Scope of the
Four Year Accounting Major: Trends in Undergraduate Accounting Education. The
Accounting Review 35(2): 203-205.
Arizona State University, W.P. Carey School of Business (in conjunction with Cellular One).
2000. As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Prime Numbers,” section.
46(45): A12.
Bauman, A M. 2009. Millennial Student-Parent Communication Patterns and First-Year College
Success. (M.A. Thesis, University of Central Missouri).
Braguglia, K H. 2008. Cellular Telephone Use: A Survey of College of Business Students.
Journal of Teaching & Learning 5(4): 55-61.
Brown, D G, J J Burg, and J L Dominick. 1998. A Strategic Plan for Ubiquitous Laptop
Computing. Communications of the ACM 41(1): 26-35.
Brown, D G and K R Petitto, 2003. The Status of Ubiquitous Computing. EDUCAUSE Review
38(3): 25-33.
Bugeja, M. 2007. Distractions in the Wireless Classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education 53(21):
C1-C4.
Bugeja, M. 2008. The Age of Distraction: The Professor or the Processor? The Futurist 42(1):
66-68.
Campbell, S W. 2006. Perceptions of Mobile Phones in College Classrooms: Ringing, Cheating,
and Classroom Policies. Communication Education 55(3): 280-294.
Devitt, K and D Roker. 2009. The Role of Mobile Phones in Family Communication. Children
& Society 23(3): 189-202.
Domitrek, J, and R Raby. 2008. Are You Listening to Me? Space, Context, and Perspective in
the Regulation of MP3 Players and Cell Phones in Secondary Schools. Canadian Journal
of Education Administration and Policy 81(Sept): 1-33.
Elwood, S, C Changchit, and R Cutshall. 2006. Investigating Students’ Perceptions on Laptop
Initiative in Higher Education: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model.
Campus-Wide Information Systems 23(5): 336-349.
End, C M, S Worthman, M B Mathews, and K Wetterau. 2010. Costly Cell Phones: The Impact
of Cell Phone Rings on Academic Performance. Teaching of Psychology 37(1): 55-57.
Fried, C B. 2008. In-Class Laptop Use and its Effects on Student Learning. Computers &
Education 50(3): 906-914.

28
Garcia, L L. 2007. Millennial Students’ And Faculty’s Perceptions of A New Generation of
Learning Classrooms. (PhD Dissertation, University of Texas – Austin).
Gilroy, M. 2003. Invasion of the Classroom Cell Phones. The Education Digest 69(6): 56-60.
Guertin, L A, M J Bodek, S E Zappe, and H Kim. 2007. Questioning the Student Use of and
Desire for Lecture Podcasts. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 3(2):
133-141.
Hall, M and K M Elliott. 2003. Diffusion of Technology into the Teaching Process: Strategies to
Encourage Faculty Members to Embrace the Laptop Environment. Journal of Education
for Business 78(6): 301-307.
Hembrooke, H and G Gay. 2003. The Laptop and the Lecture: the Effects of Multitasking in
Learning Environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 15(1): 1-19.
Kulesza, J, G DeHondt II, and G Nezlek. 2010, More Technology, Less Learning?, forthcoming
Information Systems Education Journal.
Manthe, T E. 2009. Effects of Communication with Family on Adaptation to College of First-
Year College Students. (PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota).
Obringer, S J and K Coffey. 2007. Cell Phones in American High Schools: A National Survey.
Journal of Technology Studies 33(1): 41-47.
Prensky, M. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5): 1-2.
Quan-Hasse, A. 2007. University Students’ Local and Distant Social Ties: Using and Integrating
Modes of Communication on Campus. Information, Communications and Society 10(5):
671-693.
Skolnik, R and M Puzo. 2008. Utilization of Laptop Computers in the School of Business
Classroom. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 12(2): 1-10.
Technology Section. 1989. Campus Life: Clarkson; Copying Software Becomes As Easy As
Buying A Soda. The New York Times 138: June 18.
Wagner, E D. 2005. Enabling Mobile Learning. EDUCAUSE Review 40(3): 41-53.
Willey, L and D D Burke. 2011. A Constructivist Approach to Business Ethics: Developing a
Student Code of Professional Conduct. Journal of Legal Studies Education 28(1): 2-38.
Wurst, C, C Smarkola, and M A Gaffney, 2008, Ubiquitous Laptop Usage in Higher Education:
Effects on Student Achievement, Student Satisfaction, and Constructivist Measures in
Honors and Traditional Classrooms. Computers & Education 51(4): 1766-1783.

29
 Table 1: Demographic characteristics of sample
This table summarizes the responses to the first eight questions of the survey instrument (Q1-Q8) which asked
whether the respondent was a student or professor, what the respondents major or area of teaching expertise was,
what year the student was in college (e.g., freshman, sophomore, grad student) or what title the professor held, the
respondent’s gender, age, race, ethnicity, and student’s grade point average.

North New
All All % NC % NY % Texas TX %
Carolina York
Full sample by gender:
Female 389 40.3% 132 34.6% 143 46.0% 114 41.8%
Male 577 59.7% 250 65.4% 168 54.0% 159 58.2%
Total 966 100.0% 382 100.0% 311 100.0% 273 100.0%
Student sample by gender:
Female 360 41.2% 118 35.3% 137 46.9% 105 42.3%
Male 514 58.8% 216 64.7% 155 53.1% 143 57.7%
Total 874 100.0% 334 100.0% 292 100.0% 248 100.0%
Faculty sample by gender:
Female 29 31.5% 14 29.2% 6 31.6% 9 36.0%
Male 63 68.5% 34 70.8% 13 68.4% 16 64.0%
Total 92 100.0% 48 100.0% 19 100.0% 25 100.0%
Student sample by age:
Under 23 641 73.3% 260 77.8% 252 86.0% 129 52.0%
23-29 188 21.5% 64 19.2% 37 12.6% 87 35.1%
30-39 31 3.5% 7 2.1% 2 0.7% 22 8.9%
Over 40 15 1.7% 3 0.9% 2 0.7% 10 4.0%
Total 875 100.0% 334 100.0% 293 100.0% 248 100.0%
Faculty sample by age:
Under 23 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
23-29 2 2.1% 2 4.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
30-39 17 17.9% 8 16.0% 6 30.0% 3 12.0%
Over 40 76 80.0% 40 80.0% 14 70.0% 22 88.0%
Total 95 100.0% 50 100.0% 20 100.0% 25 100.0%
Student sample by rank:
Undergrad 757 85.9% 276 82.4% 298 100.0% 183 73.8%
Graduate 124 14.1% 59 17.6% 0 0.0% 65 26.2%
Total 881 100.0% 335 100.0% 298 100.0% 248 100.0%
Student sample by race:
Asian 77 9.0% 4 1.2% 47 16.6% 26 10.7%
African Amer. 73 8.5% 8 2.4% 15 5.3% 50 20.7%
White 663 77.5% 311 94.0% 204 72.1% 148 61.2%
All other 43 5.0% 8 2.4% 17 6.0% 18 7.4%
Total 856 100.0% 331 100.0% 283 100.0% 242 100.0%
Student sample by grade point average (GPA):
< 2.00 3 0.3% 0 0.0% 2 0.7% 1 0.4%
2.00-2.49 84 9.7% 23 6.9% 28 9.6% 33 13.4%
2.50-2.99 249 28.7% 96 29.0% 88 30.2% 65 26.4%
3.00-3.49 325 37.4% 135 40.8% 119 40.9% 71 28.9%
3.50-4.00 207 23.8% 77 23.3% 54 18.6% 76 30.9%
Total 868 100.0% 331 100.0% 291 100.0% 246 100.0%

30
 Table 2: Access to and use of electronic devices in general

All All % Students Students % Faculty Faculty %

Q9: Do you have access to a computer? (More than one answer may be chosen for this question)
Own a desktop 337 34.5% 261 29.6% 76 79.2%
Own a laptop 875 89.5% 798 90.5% 77 80.2%
Computer at work 237 24.2% 165 18.7% 72 75.0%
Computer at school 575 58.8% 494 56.0% 21 21.9%
No 5 0.5% 5 0.6% 0 0.0%
Q10: Computer use on a typical day when school is in session
None 39 4.0% 39 4.5% 0 0.0%
< 1 hour 73 7.5% 73 8.3% 0 0.0%
1-2 hours 241 24.8% 232 26.5% 9 9.4%
2-4 hours 342 35.2% 312 35.7% 30 31.3%
4-6 hours 175 18.0% 148 16.9% 27 28.1%
> 6 hours 101 10.4% 71 8.1% 30 31.3%
Total 971 100.0% 875 100.0% 96 100.0%
Q11: Do you own a cell phone?
Yes 959 98.8% 868 99.2% 91 94.8%
No 12 1.2% 7 0.8% 5 5.2%
Total 971 100.0% 875 100.0% 96 100.0%
Q12: Cell phone use on a typical day
None 13 1.3% 4 0.5% 9 9.5%
< 10 minutes 103 10.7% 56 6.4% 47 49.5%
10-30 minutes 215 22.2% 192 22.0% 23 24.2%
30-60 minutes 219 22.6% 209 24.0% 10 10.5%
1-2 hours 169 17.5% 165 18.9% 4 4.2%
2-3 hours 89 9.2% 89 10.2% 0 0.0%
> 3 hours 159 16.4% 157 18.0% 2 2.1%
Total 967 100.0% 872 100.0% 95 100.0%
Q15: Do you own an MP3 player?
Yes 798 82.6% 748 85.8% 50 53.2%
No 168 17.4% 124 14.2% 44 46.8%
Total 966 100.0% 872 100.0% 94 100.0%
Q16: MP3 player use on a typical day
None 214 23.0% 164 19.3% 50 61.7%
< 1 hour 348 37.3% 324 38.1% 24 29.6%
1-2 hours 237 25.4% 231 27.1% 6 7.4%
2-4 hours 84 9.0% 84 9.9% 0 0.0%
4-6 hours 29 3.1% 28 3.3% 1 1.2%
> 6 hours 20 2.6% 20 2.4% 0 0.0%
Total 932 100.0% 851 100.0% 81 100.0%

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 24.8%
Used in class 5-10 times per week 128 14.7%
Used in class 1-4 times per week 166 19.0%
Used in class 1-3 times per month 81 9.3%
Rarely used in class 169 19.4%
Never used in class 112 12.8%
Total 872 100.0%
Q52: How often do you use a cell phone during class to check email or text messages?
Used in almost every class 245 28.7%
Used in class 5-10 times per week 148 17.3%
Used in class 1-4 times per week 144 16.8%
Used in class 1-3 times per month 63 7.4%
Rarely used in class 136 15.9%
Never used in class 119 13.9%
Total 855 100.0%
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 0.9%
About once a week 6 0.7%
Every 2-3 weeks 9 1.1%
About once a month 30 3.5%
Once or twice a semester 195 22.8%
Never 607 71.0%
Total 855 100.0%
Q54: How often do you use a laptop during class?
Used in almost every class 26 3.0%
Used in class 5-10 times per week 15 1.8%
Used in class 1-4 times per week 44 5.2%
Used in class 1-3 time per month 67 7.8%
Rarely used in class 229 26.8%
Never used in class 473 55.4%
Total 854 100.0%
Q55: How often do you use an iPod or MP3 player during class?
Used in almost every class 7 0.8%
Used in class 5-10 times per week 3 0.4%
Used in class 1-4 times per week 9 1.1%
Used in class 1-3 time per month 8 0.9%
Rarely used in class 52 6.1%
Never used in class 775 90.7%
Total 882 100.0%

32
 Table 4: Responses to perceptual questions about cell phones
Difference test
All Student Faculty
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 <.0001
Q18: Using a cell phone to send text messages or check email in class is never appropriate.
Mean response 3.21 3.07 4.49 <.0001
Q19: Using a cell phone to send text messages or check email in class is appropriate when the lecture is not interesting.
Mean response 2.45 2.53 1.63 <.0001
Q20: Cell phone use in class is appropriate only if it does not involve talking, beeping, or other noises.
Mean response 3.03 3.18 1.71 <.0001
Q23: Cell phone use in class is appropriate only if it is done quietly and the phone is being used to look up information that is
relevant to the class material being discussed.
Mean response 3.08 3.16 2.40 <.0001
Q24: It is appropriate for a student to send or answer email or to text using a cell phone during class.
Mean response 2.67 2.79 1.64 <.0001
Q30: It is disruptive when another student’s cell phone goes off (rings or makes other noises) in class.
Mean response 4.13 4.07 4.69 <.0001
Q31: Students who let their cell phones ring or make other noises in class are being rude or disrespectful.
Mean response 4.08 4.03 4.51 <.0001
Q21: Any use of cell phones in class is generally disruptive to the learning process.
Mean response 3.30 3.18 4.34 <.0001
Q22: Certain types of cell phone use in class can assist in the learning process.
Mean response 3.00 3.08 2.33 <.0001
Q27: If the instructor asks students to turn off their cell phones during class, students should be required to do so.
Mean response 3.77 3.67 4.64 <.0001
Q33: As part of the campus emergency alert system, cell phones are critical to my safety and should be left on at all times.
Mean response 3.77 3.87 2.94 <.0001
Q29: It is appropriate for instructors to prohibit the use of cell phones during an exam.
Mean response 4.48 4.45 4.81 <.0001
Q28: It is appropriate for instructors to collect students’ cell phones during an exam.
Mean response 2.01 1.95 2.40 .0002
Q36: Cell phones can potentially be used by some students to gain an unfair advantage on quizzes or exams.
Mean response 3.93 3.87 4.45 <.0001
Q34: It is okay for instructors to answer a cell phone call during class as long as they leave the classroom.
Mean response 2.92 3.07 1.54 <.0001
Q35: It is okay for students to answer a cell phone call during class as long as they leave the classroom. .
Mean response 3.15 3.30 1.81 <.0001
Q45: Instructors should allow the use of a cell phone in class as long as the device is completely silent.
Mean response 3.17 3.31 1.85 <.0001

Yes response % of total sample

Q50: How many times does a cell phone have to ring during a class before it becomes disruptive to you?
Once 336 38.5%
Twice 312 35.8%
Three times 152 17.5%
Four or more times 47 5.4%
Ringing cell phones are not disruptive 24 2.8%
Total 871 100.0%
No response 11 1.3%

33
 Table 5: Responses to perceptual questions about laptop computers
Difference test
All Student Faculty
p-value
Q37: Laptop computers are useful and should be permitted in the classroom.
Mean response 4.00 4.03 3.76 .0077
Q38: Laptop computers are useful and their use in class should be a required part of every course.
Mean response 2.55 2.61 2.05 .0001
Q39: The use of laptops in class creates an unfair advantage for those students who own laptops over those students who do
not.
Mean response 2.87 2.86 2.90 .7420
Q25: It is distracting when other students surf the web during class using a laptop computer.
Mean response 3.14 3.01 4.32 .0001
Q41: It is disruptive when other students surf the web using a laptop during class.
Mean response 3.21 3.12 4.08 .0001
Q40: It is appropriate for a student to send or answer email using a laptop during class.
Mean response 2.64 2.71 1.70 .0001
Q46: Instructors should allow the use of a laptop in class as long as the device is completely silent.
Mean response 3.56 3.63 2.96 .0001
Q42: It is appropriate for an instructor to insist that students close or put away their laptops during class.
Mean response 3.23 3.14 3.91 .0001

Table 6: Responses to perceptual questions about MP3 players

Difference test
All Student Faculty
p-value
Q43: Students should be allowed to listen to iPods or MP3 players during class.
Mean response 1.69 1.73 1.30 .0001
Q44: Students should be allowed to listen to iPods or MP3 players during an exam or quiz.
Mean response 1.78 1.83 1.32 .0001
Q47: Instructors should allow the use of an iPod or MP3 player in class as long as the device is completely silent.
Mean response 2.10 2.16 1.53 .0001

34
Table 7: Recommendations for policy and instructor response to use of electronic devices in
the classroom
Difference test
All Student Faculty
p-value
Q48: It is appropriate for instructors to criticize or make demeaning comments to students who use cell phones, laptops,
iPods or MP3 players in class.
Mean response 2.16 2.16 2.20 .9195
All (%) Students (%) Faculty (%)
Q26: Concerning the use of electronic devices in the classroom…(more than one answer may be chosen)
University policy should prohibit all use of electronic devices during
129 13.3% 82 9.4% 47 49.5%
classes unless such use is specifically required by the course instructor
A consistent written policy that would apply to all classes should be
166 17.1% 130 14.9% 36 37.9%
established by the university
The policy should be solely determined by the course instructor 592 61.2% 537 61.5% 55 57.9%
The policy should be determined democratically (e.g., by a student vote)
219 22.6% 217 24.9% 2 2.1%
on a class-by-class basis.
The policy should be included on the course syllabus. 688 71.1% 612 70.1% 76 80.0%
The policy should be discussed in class. 645 66.6% 594 68.0% 51 53.7%
Q32: If a student’s cell phone rings during class, the instructor should… (more than one answer may be chosen)
Ignore it. 341 35.2% 310 35.5% 31 32.3%
Make a joke or otherwise call attention but in a light-hearted way. 513 52.9% 472 54.0% 41 42.7%
Discuss the interruption with the student right then. 184 19.0% 160 18.3% 24 25.0%
Speak with the student in private after class. 465 47.9% 417 47.7% 48 50.0%
Impose a grade-based penalty starting with the second offense. 136 14.0% 121 13.8% 15 15.6%

Table 8: Differences in responses to perceptions on cell phone use by gender

Difference test
Students Only All Female Male
p-value
Q31: Students who let their cell phones ring or make other noises in class are being rude or disrespectful.
Mean response 4.03 4.14 3.95 .0027
Q21: Any use of cell phones in class is generally disruptive to the learning process.
Mean response 3.18 3.33 3.08 .0025
Q29: It is appropriate for instructors to prohibit the use of cell phones during an exam.
Mean response 4.45 4.52 4.40 .0296
Q35: It is okay for students to answer a cell phone call during class as long as they leave the classroom. .
Mean response 3.30 3.17 3.39 .0055
Q36: Cell phones can potentially be used by some students to gain an unfair advantage on quizzes or exams.
Mean response 3.87 3.95 3.82 .0525
Q48: It is appropriate for instructors to criticize or make demeaning comments to students who use cell phones, laptops,
iPods or MP3 players in class.
Mean response 2.16 2.05 2.24 .0120
Difference test
Faculty Only All Female Male
p-value
Q48: It is appropriate for instructors to criticize or make demeaning comments to students who use cell phones, laptops,
iPods or MP3 players in class.
Mean response 2.20 1.86 2.35 .0478

35
 Table 9: Differences in responses to perceptions on laptop use by gender
Difference test
Students Only All Female Male
p-value
Q37: Laptop computers are useful and should be permitted in the classroom.
Mean response 4.03 3.96 4.07 .0336
Q38: Laptop computers are useful and their use in class should be a required part of every course.
Mean response 2.61 2.51 2.67 .0190
Q39: The use of laptops in class creates an unfair advantage for those students who own laptops over those students who do
not.
Mean response 2.86 2.97 2.78 .0071
Q25: It is distracting when other students surf the web during class using a laptop computer.
Mean response 3.01 3.14 2.92 .0144
Q41: It is disruptive when other students surf the web using a laptop during class.
Mean response 3.12 3.23 3.03 .0122
Difference test
Faculty Only All Female Male
p-value
Q25: It is distracting when other students surf the web during class using a laptop computer.
Mean response 4.32 3.90 4.52 .0173

Table 10: Differences in responses to perceptions on MP3 player use by gender

Difference test
Students Only All Female Male
p-value
Q43: Students should be allowed to listen to iPods or MP3 players during class.
Mean response 1.73 1.63 1.79 .0077
Q44: Students should be allowed to listen to iPods or MP3 players during an exam or quiz.
Mean response 1.83 1.73 1.90 .0283
Q47: Instructors should allow the use of an iPod or MP3 player in class as long as the device is completely silent.
Mean response 2.16 2.04 2.24 .0090

Table 11: Differences in responses to perceptions on laptop use between undergraduate and
graduate students
Under- Difference test
Students Only All Grad
grad p-value
Q40: It is appropriate for a student to send or answer email using a laptop during class.
Mean response 2.71 2.73 2.63 .3800
Q41: It is disruptive when other students surf the web using a laptop during class.
Mean response 3.14 3.11 3.37 .0200
Q42: It is appropriate for an instructor to insist that students close or put away their laptops during class.
Mean response 3.16 3.13 3.40 .0070

36

View publication stats