J. technol. behav. sci.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-017-0034-2
Frequency of College Student Smartphone Use: Impact
on Classroom Homework Assignments
R. Terry Furst 1 & Douglas N. Evans 1 & Nicole M. Roderick 1
# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017
Abstract This mixed method study considers the effect of
high-frequency (HF) smartphone use on homework behavior.
Analyzing 393 surveys and an additional 210 semi-structured
interviews conducted with undergraduates, this study explores
the relationship between excessive smartphone use and home-
work at a college in New York City. Bivariate analyses indicate
that students who check their phone more than 39 times a day
report that smartphone use interferes with homework compared
to those who check their phones less than 39 times a day. Semi-
structured interviews also indicate excessive smartphone use
interferes with homework. Other factors such as employment,
number of courses taken, amount time spent at school, family
obligations, and socializing all appear to affect if and when
homework is undertaken. Nested within this web of obligations
and activities is the frequency of smartphone use, which HF
smartphone users claim interferes with homework. This re-
search illuminates how often students use smartphones in rela-
tion to their daily life and their class assignments. The findings
provide teachers, administrators, counselors, students, and other
preliminary indication of how smartphones influence the initi-
ation and completion of class assignments.
Keywords Smartphones . Homework . College students .
Distraction . High-frequency use
An exploratory study of undergraduate smartphone frequency
use was undertaken at a college in New York City. Using
mixed methods, we surveyed and conducted semi-structured
* Douglas N. Evans
devans@jjay.cuny.edu
1
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 W. 59th Street BMW Suite
605.10, New York, NY 10019, USA
interviews to probe the association between smartphone use
and the initiation and completion of homework assignments.
We proffer that exploring behaviors associated with high-
frequency use (HF) and low-frequency use (LF) of
smartphones may provide insight into how smartphone use
impedes initiating and completing homework assignments.
Class discussions (first author) with students suggest that ex-
cessive use of smartphones may hinder starting and complet-
ing classroom assignments. Research supports this observa-
tion (Tossell et al. 2015; David et al. 2015). Our survey also
indicates many students (76%) believe smartphones interfere
with homework. Investigators use frequency of checking
smartphones as a means to explore the Bstate of mind^ of
students, internet addiction, gaming disorder, excessive social
media engagement, and a variety of other mobile technologies
(Ben-Yehuda et al. 2016). Repetitive smartphone use appears
to be a good predictor of behaviors that generate adverse con-
sequences for mental and physical health (Demirci et al. 2014;
Choi et al. 2012, Lepp et al. 2013; Wilmer et al. 2017). It has
also been related to addiction and directly connected to home-
work via the expenditure and management of time. Frequency
of use provides a basis for the distinction between HF and LF
smartphone use categories.
A relationship with smartphones and social media starts
with students in their early teenage years. Reading and
responding to text messages, texting, surfing the internet, vis-
iting social media, and posting comments can consume a
much as Bnine to eleven hours of your day^ (Sales 2016, p.
10). BChatting, texting, friending, blogging, vlogging^ are a
central part of adolescent behavior, providing a digital conduit
for emotional expression that may be rooted in the social need
to communicate and to gain social approval among peers
(Barth 2015, p. 201). Compulsive smartphone use is well de-
veloped by the time students enter college. The magnetic lure
of smartphone use may be too much to resist. It can be likened

to Ba mental itch constantly in need of being scratched^ (Wu
2016, p. 186). In this exploratory study of undergraduate stu-
dents at a 4-year college in New York City, it is not surprising
that high-frequency use of smartphones is extant and may be
associated with a failure to start and complete homework
assignments.
High-frequency smartphone use may be suggestive of ad-
diction. It is associated with the completion and quality of
homework because homework requires time and focus and
smartphone use is one of many possible distractions (Reed
and Reay 2015). Multitasking—switching from one program
to another or texting while doing other tasks—is widespread
among students and is detrimental to focusing on a single task
(David et al. 2015). It is reasonable to assert that multitasking,
responding to notifications, texting, and seeking internet con-
tent unrelated to homework will have a deleterious effect on
homework. To probe the association of smartphone use and
the initiation and completion of homework, considering stu-
dent frequency of smartphone use is a useful starting point.
The answer to the following questions will help illuminate
the inquiry: Do HF smartphone users perceive that
smartphones interfere with their work on class assignments?
Is HF and LF use linked to initiation or completion of home-
work assignments? Is working or not working associated with
HF or LF use? Does HF use relate to keeping smartphones on
while studying?
Methods
We used an exploratory mixed methods approach to broaden
the analytical research lens and explore smartphone use and its
effect on homework (Al-Barashdi et al. 2015; Creswell 1994).
The study was approved by the college IRB and conducted by
student research assistants in the first author’s class on drug
use and abuse, which had a field research project requirement.
The second and third authors were involved in data entry,
analysis, and interpretation. Students were required to take a
research with human subjects course and obtain a certificate of
completion from the Colloborative Institutional Training
Initiative (CITI). They were trained in-class how to define a
research problem, adopt a theoretical framework, design sur-
vey questions, administer surveys, conduct interviews, and
analyze data. They were also required to write a research re-
port explaining their findings. Students were asked to describe
in their research report the conditions under which they ob-
tained an interview. One student described how he obtained
one of his five required interviews:
I saw a female sitting on the steps with an Apple com-
puter opened on her lap that was loaned from the college
computer lab. I knew it was a loaner because it has a
campus computer logo on it. On the step next to her was
J. technol. behav. sci.
what appeared to be her bag and a bunch of different
books open, textbooks, and notebooks. She was the spit-
ting image of a college student trying to do her home-
work but to my surprise, she had an iPhone gripped
tightly as she was texting away. I had been rejected four
times that day while trying to make-up some attention
grabber, so I decided to try the least preferred route –
straight up ask her for a few minutes of her time.
We are confident that the in-class training adequately pre-
pared student research assistants to collect survey data.
Our methodological approach is to analytically integrate
closed-ended survey questions and semi-structured interview
questions to better understand the relationship between the
frequency of smartphone use and the initiation and completion
of homework assignments. The collection of both qualitative
and quantitative data describes different facets of smartphone
use and how it relates to starting and completing homework
(Creswell 1994). We use quotes from our interviews to sup-
port our analysis, which subsumes a symbolic interactionist
orientation. Coding was done by the first author, who sought
out themes in reference to questions raised, such as
smartphone use being responsible for ceasing homework as-
signments and pre-homework activities. Both methodological
approaches add Bscope and breadth^ to a study (Creswell
1994, p. 175).
The first phase of the research endeavors to capture college
student’s frequency of smartphone use and their specific uses
of smartphones (social media, texting, internet surfing, etc.)
through survey responses. Close-ended survey questions tease
out the effects of frequency of smartphone use, number of
hours studying, number of classes taken, amount of time de-
voted to leisure time, time devoted to studying, concomitant
use of the phone while studying, and whether students work.
These are some of the dimensions explored in the research
reported here.
An understanding of the initiation and completion of home-
work assignments is a daunting research undertaking.
Comparing quantitative and qualitative data engenders a clear-
er picture of factors affecting students doing homework. It
facilitates convergence of responses to both semi-structured
and closed-ended questions, increasing the chance of explor-
ing different facets of the phenomena (Creswell 1994).
Comparisons of responses to semi-structured and closed-
ended questions enable us to expand our understanding of
respondents’ sentiments when queried about how they ap-
proach doing homework.
Our qualitative research questions are as follows: What
kind of routines do students engage in before starting and
completing homework? Are there conditions that prompt or
thwart students to start or complete homework? Do student’s
believe that professors inspire them to do homework? By
linking the answers to these questions and others through
J. technol. behav. sci.
qualitative and quantitative analysis, we can obtain a more
detailed understanding of how smartphone use affects stu-
dents’ approaches to doing homework and perhaps provide
some insight into the compelling allure of smartphones.
Survey Design
Survey questions inquired about the number of times checking
smartphones per day, which is the independent variable used
to determine HF and LF use categories. To deepen the inquiry
into homework practices, the dimension of personal habits
was a point of inquiry. Other queries included number of clas-
ses enrolled in, amount of hours attending school, amount of
time spent studying on weekends, number of hours studying
on weekdays, amount of time spent on leisure including TV
watching, if students keep their smartphone on while study-
ing, whether they use smartphones while studying, if their
smartphone interferes with homework, amount of time spent
on social media, whether they work or not, and the number of
days they work per week. Some survey questions and re-
sponses were informative: How many times do you check
your smartphone during the day? (mean of responses =
39.46). Has the use of your smartphone ever interfered with
starting or completing your homework assignment? (n = 615
or 71% responded yes). Do you have your smartphone on
while studying? (n = 613 or 83% responded yes).
Semi-structured interviews conducted by student re-
searchers asked other students to describe their daily work
and school routines, aiming to discern in detail students’
habits and similarities in behavior before they initiate home-
work and while working on homework. Interviewers also que-
ried respondents about their daily activity routines before
starting homework, whether smartphone use interfered with
starting and completing homework, fears associated with
passing a class, whether professors inspired them to do home-
work, and changes in their study habits since high school. Of
equal interest are students’ descriptions of conditions under
which they are impeded from either initiating or completing
homework. We conjecture that students engage in different
habitual activities before starting homework (Duhigg 2012).
Procedure
Over the course of one academic year, we conducted a two-
phase mixed method research study. The first author
embarked on class research projects on smartphone use in
seven anthropology classes over this time. Some students en-
gaged in qualitative research while others students conducted
quantitative research. The sequencing of the methods was not
intentional but rather depended on student interest. Student
researchers selected a purposive sample of students at a col-
lege in New York City for participation in these studies. In
some classes, students conducted face-to-face interviews with
10 other students using a survey instrument. In the other clas-
ses, students conducted five to seven semi-structured inter-
views. Students recorded and transcribed these interviews.
Students interviewed other students at different times and
locations on campus. Respondents had to own a smartphone
to be eligible for participation. After obtaining consent, stu-
dent researchers administered either a closed-ended question-
naire or a semi-structured interview. A pseudonym was
assigned to each participant to maintain confidentiality.
Respondents received verbal explanation on the nature and
confidentiality of the survey or interview. The surveys took
approximately 15 minutes to complete. Student researchers
entered paper responses into Survey Monkey. Semi-structured
interviews lasted approximately 15 minutes. Interviews were
voice-recorded and transcribed.
Results
Survey Results
The survey sample consisted of 867 students, including 417
males (48%) and 450 females (52%). The mean age of the
sample was 22 years with a range of 18 to 39 years.
Demographically, the sample consisted of 217 white respon-
dents (25%), 126 African-Americans (15%), 306 Hispanic
respondents (35%), 103 Asians, (12%), 75 mixed race respon-
dents (9%), and 40 who listed Bother^ (4%) (see Table 1).
The survey sample was separated into four groups based on
the number of times that respondents reported checking their
smartphones each day: high-frequency phone users (n = 176),
medium-high (n = 237), medium-low (n = 237), and low
(n = 217). Only HF and LF users are included in this report;
thus, analyses only reflect these cases (n = 393). Bivariate
analyses are based on comparisons between HF and LF users
with the following dependent variables: smartphone interfer-
ence with homework, keeping phone on while studying, using
one’s phone while studying, weekday hours devoted to study,
amount of studying on weekends, working or not, amount of
time watching TV, amount of leisure time, and the amount of
time expended on social media. Frequencies are also included
in the results.
From the standpoint of HF use, 135 respondents (76%)
report that smartphone use does interfere with homework
compared to 135 LF users (62%). The difference is signifi-
cant, t(392) = 3.02, p = .003. There was a significant differ-
ence between students who are HF users in that 153 (86%)
report they keep their smart phones on while doing homework
compared to 175 LF users (81%), t(392) = 3.32, p = .001. HF
users (n = 132, 75%) also use their smartphones significantly
more while doing homework compared LF users (n = 133,
61%), t(392) = 3.94, p = .001. LF users report studying sig-
nificantly more during the week than HF users, t(392) = 2.16,
 J. technol. behav. sci.

Table 1 Survey sample starting homework vary. Common activities undertaken be-
descriptives Total 394
fore starting homework, include, but are not limited to the
Age following: eating, doing chores, showering, video gaming,
Range 16–33 watching TV, texting, and cell phone talking with friends. In
Mean 21 addition, working, the number of classes taken, watching TV,
Gender presence on social media, notifications, and familial distrac-
Male 208 53% tions all play a part in student’s initiating and completing
Female 186 47% homework assignments. Semi-structured interviews suggest
Ethnicity some students develop strong study habits while others do
Caucasian 107 27% not. The following categories are derived from the semi-
Black 62 16% structured questions and from textual analyses of the tran-
Hispanic 132 34% scripts: interference of smartphone’s effect on starting and
Asian 45 11% finishing homework, daily habits preceding starting home-
Mixed 27 7% work, passing and failing classes, and changes in study habits
Other 21 5% since high school.
Number of classes enrolled in
For the qualitative portion of the study, 387 semi-structured
1–3 46 12%
interviews were conducted. However, only 210 of them had
4 152 39%
complete socio-demographic information (see Table 3). We
removed the 177 surveys with incomplete demographic data
5 160 41%
from analyses. For ease of qualitative analysis, a random num-
6–8 36 9%
ber generator is selected every fourth interview, resulting in 52
Employment status
completed interviews.
Employed 267 68%
Student acknowledgement among HF smartphone users
Unemployed 127 32%
that it interferes with homework was a pervasive theme in
Number of times per day checking
smartphone the semi-structured interviews. It was also the case in the
Low frequency (1–18) 217 55% survey where 71% (n = 615) of students reported that
High frequency 177 45%
smartphone use interferes with starting and completing home-
(55–150) work assignments. A 19-year-old white female described how
smartphone use affects her homework:

p = .032. However, there was no significant difference be-
tween HF and LF users in terms of the amount of time they
study on the weekends, t(392) = 1.24, p = .218. For some HF
student respondents, perhaps this weekend study time is to
compensate for weekday failure to undertake and complete
homework assignments. There was no significant difference
between LF and HF users in terms of the amount of TV they
watch per day, t(392) = 1.93, p = .055. HF and LF users report
no significant differences in the amount of leisure time per
day, t(392) = −.025, p = .806 (see Table 2.).
From survey frequencies, when HF and LF collectively
check their smartphones they first tend to text (n = 383,
42%), followed by social media use (n = 314, 36%), and then
email (n = 107, 12%). When time spent on social media is
calculated, there was no significant difference between LF and
HF users, t(392) = −1.87, p = .062 (see Table 2). It is far from
conclusive that HF smartphone use has an impact on starting
homework, but HF use may influence completing homework.
Semi-Structured Interview Results
Analyses of semi-structured interviews suggest that activities
leading to the start of homework are highly variable. Cues for
Oh it distracts me. Yeah, yeah, I always get
tempted to see what’s on Twitter and Instagram
and stuff. Well I usually just check what other
people posted. Like what they’re doing and stuff.
I don’t post stuff often.
A 23-year-old male described how a smartphone affects his
homework:
My friends calling me wanting me to come out with
them, then I just waste a lot of time out with them and
when I get back I'm already tired and I don't feel like
doing my homework. It is a big distraction, especially
because if I get text messages from my friends or I start
checking my social media, I get completely off track
from my homework.
A 21-year-old African American female also pointed out
how her smartphone distracts her from homework:
I be on Snapchat and Facebook the most. There’s always
something interesting or entertaining going on and that
distracts me from doing my homework. Sometimes
J. technol. behav. sci.

Table 2 Comparison of low- and

high-frequency users Item Low-frequency High-frequency t tests

Users (% yes) Users (% yes) t df p

Phone interferes with homework 62% 76% 3.02 392 .003

Phone on while studying 81% 86% 3.32 392 .001
Use phone while studying 61% 75% 3.94 392 .001
Study on the weekends 57% 63% 1.24 392 .218
Do you work 66% 70% 0.66 392 .509
Mean hours Mean hours
Hours of study—weekday 2.64 2.25 2.16 392 .032
Hours of TV watching 2.03 1.73 1.93 392 .055
Hours of leisure time 3.70 3.76 −0.25 392 .806
Time spent on favorite social media 0.63 0.76 −0.25 392 .806

people call me to tell me gossip and I end up taking a A 20-year-old Hispanic female describes her failure to
longer break from my homework than I expected to. maintain her focus on completing her homework. She states:

An 18-year-old Hispanic female’s comments echo the
above remarks:
I find myself using my phone as an escape when I’m
doing my homework. When I am typing an essay and I
only have left a paragraph I use my phone. But it can be
a distraction too because I go on social media and start
texting back my friends.
[It is] distracting. I’m not going to lie but I would pick it
up constantly while reading assignments, therefore mak-
ing me start from the beginning and trying to finish
without getting distracted. Something about just want-
ing to constantly look on social media or answer a text.
A 22-year-old white male expresses his frustration about
not finishing his homework:

I get distracted easily. Like it’s really bad. I always end

up doing something like texting or browsing Facebook
when I’m doing homework and I never end up finishing.
Table 3 Interview
sample descriptives Total 210
In an effort to explore habitual activities that may or may not
Age affect initiation of starting homework, students were asked
Range 17–34 about their daily routines before starting homework.
Mean 21 Depending on work, home chores, and responsibilities, there
Gender are a variety of activities and times of the day that students
Male 82 39% start homework. Before starting homework, some students
Female 128 61% eat, play video games, shower, or check their smartphones.
Ethnicity Watching TV before starting homework is also a relatively
Caucasian 40 19% common activity. Going on social media and texting are also
Black 29 14% common before and after starting homework. Some students
Hispanic 93 44% establish a routine before commencing homework while
Asian 16 8% others are more arbitrary if and when they initiate homework.
Mixed 12 6% A 19-year-old Asian female described her daily routine
Other 20 9% before starting homework: BBefore starting my homework, I
Number of classes enrolled in wouldn't be able to do homework without setting up and get-
1–4 101 48% ting ready first. Does that make sense?^ Another student, a 21-
5–8 109 52% year-old Hispanic female, echoes the above sentiment about
Employment status starting homework: BBefore starting homework, I always like
Employed 151 72% to organize my room and eat before I start.^ The interviewer
Unemployed 59 28% then asked, BDo you do this every day before doing home-
work?^ The student replied:

I have never really thought about it, but now that I am
thinking about it I realize that I always do that…. I don’t
think I would be able to concentrate until I do whatever I
need to do beforehand. It would just stay on my mind
until I get it done. When my anxiety gets bad it’s really
hard to concentrate on my homework. I get writer’s
block and it takes me hours to finish my homework.
A Hispanic male, age 20, explained his arbitrary approach
to starting homework:
It changes almost every day. I have other obligations and
things to do. So I basically just do it whenever I get a
chance. I might do some before my classes or in the
night or like when I have a break during the day.
A Hispanic female, age 22, describes her approach to
starting homework. She notes:
It’s extremely random, depends what I get caught up
doing. No [it is] never the same. I work crazy hours
and especially during the fall holiday hours conflict a
lot with the availability and flexibility. I have to do
things.
Interviews suggest that some students have daily routines for
starting homework while others appear not to. Working a job,
the number of courses taken, the amount of time spent at
school, family obligations, and socializing all appear to affect
when and if homework is undertaken. Nested within this com-
plex web of activities is the frequency of smartphone use.
According to student responses, HF smartphone use appears
to interfere with homework.
Responses to questions about passing classes elicited a
range of sentiments about student’s academic confidence in
passing classes and their ability to do homework. At one end
of the spectrum, students express confidence and even over-
confidence in passing classes. At the other end of the contin-
uum students express anxiety about their abilities to pass
courses. They were asked if their professors inspire them to
do homework. A majority said they did not. This is troubling
but understandable given the abhorrence of homework assign-
ments and competing domains for student’s attention, and
their involvement in diverse activities, including but not lim-
ited to working, Bhanging out^ with friends, playing video
games, watching TV, listening to music, household and famil-
ial chores, and social media. Concomitant with this phenom-
enon is that the majority of students said when they were in
high school, they thought that doing homework was not im-
portant. However, they generally believe that undergraduate
work demands more attention. A 21-year-old white male stu-
dent expressed his confidence in passing courses: BNo [fear].
If I never fail then that means what I’m doing is working. I
J. technol. behav. sci.
never study unless I’m struggling but I never struggle.^ A 26-
year-old African American was less confident about passing a
course:
Yes I always do, like sometime these classes are not that
easy. It's very difficult to understand so I try my best to
pass and to get better…. the fear of knowing that I'm
going to still pushes me to try harder so that I don't feel
[anxious].
We thought that the influence of professors may prompt stu-
dents to do homework. However, a majority of students do not
believe their professors inspire them to do homework. A 19-
year-old Hispanic male student told why his professors do not
inspire him to do homework:
No, not really, only if they bore me. I hate when profes-
sors got that monotone voice, shit puts me to sleep …
They don’t inspire me to do much of anything. I could
care less though… because I have a big ego honestly,
size of a dinosaur. My ego doesn’t have anything to do
with homework. If I’m going to do it I’m gonna do it. If
I’m not gonna do it I’m not gonna do it.
At the other end of the spectrum of responses, a 24-year-old
white student believes her professors inspire her to do home-
work. She states:
I guess some do. Some… mmm… like if it’s a
very… like if it’s a class where I feel like I have
to do the reading or I’m going to be left out be-
hind you know I’m going to do the reading. Or if
there’s quizzes on the reading, I’m probably going
to do them more often.
Interviews suggest that a minority of students have not
changed their study habits from high school to college, while
a majority has changed their habits. A female Hispanic stu-
dent, age 22, described how her study habits have changed
since high school: BI did change my study habits… cause now
I actually have to study and in high school I didn’t really have
to study, it was easy.^ A 23-year-old female Hispanic echoed a
similar sentiment:
Yes, maybe a little bit. I am definitely more focused now
than I was in high school because I am in college at this
point. I have to take it more serious because I pay for
school.
An 18-year-old white female noted that her study habits
have not changed: BIt stayed the same I think. Yeah, I follow
the same routine mostly. Only difference is I would do home-
work in school mostly because I got home later.^
J. technol. behav. sci.
A 19-year-old male Hispanic pointed out that his lack of
study habits has not changed: BI never studied in high school. I
was kinda just there, and now in college I haven’t changed.^ A
23-year-old African American male related how he has
changed his study habits:
Um, time management for the most part, I usually find a
specific time to do my homework, a specific place to do
it and just be a little more responsible than I was a few
years ago. Because I want to pass this class so I can take
the class I need to take, and you know from there get a
degree, so I can get a job, get a lot of money and be
happy.
Frequency of smartphone use was not specifically queried in
the semi-structured interviews, but nevertheless it is plausible
that HF use is related to initiating and completing homework.
Discussion/Conclusion
Given the increasing prevalence of smartphone use, many
students succumb to an immersion in the digital world, regard-
less of their awareness of negative consequences of not initi-
ating or completing homework (Schwartz 2015). A survey
across the US found that 52% of smartphone users check their
phones Ba few times an hour^ (Newport 2015). Students in
this study report on average check their smartphones nearly 40
times per day, and when they access social media, they spend
almost 50 minutes on social media app(s) and/or site(s).
Earlier the question was raised: Do students have a need to
continuously access their devices? It seems that they do ac-
cording to the number of times each day that students check
their smartphones as well as their propensity to spend consid-
erable time on social media. A cognitive scientist argues that
in the behavioral training of animals, if behavior is not
rewarded it will gradually disappear. Operant conditioning
experiments with pigeons and mice indicate that if a behavior
is required, the method to ensure consistency of that behavior
is to give the animal a reward only sometimes and at random
intervals, periodically withhold a reward, then re-introduce the
reward. Thus, Bonce all rewards for the behavior are re-
moved… the animals work harder to obtain the reward and
take longer to give up the behavior^ (Stafford 2006, p. 2). The
logic is that the animal should not get used to performing the
behavior and receiving a reward; otherwise, it will stop
performing the behavior as soon as the reward ceases.
Occasionally, the animal’s effort should produce a reward so
that it is unaware when the reward will appear. Intermittent
rewards reinforce the behavior, establishing a repetitive be-
havioral process. In humans, there is a similar phenomenon:
repetitive checking of smartphones and emails, knowing that
sometimes we may be rewarded with an amusing web link,
image, or good news in the form of messages or Blikes.^
Alternatively, the lack of contact or new material is the ab-
sence of a reward (Stafford 2006, p. 2). From a similar per-
spective, Duhigg (Duhigg 2012, p. 19–20) argues persuasive-
ly that individuals develop habits through a behavioral Bloop.^
The loop consists of a cue, routine, and reward (see Wood and
Neal 2007). He points out that over time this behavioral pat-
tern Bbecomes more and more automatic^ and notes that
Bhabits are not destiny….Habits can be ignored, changed, or
replaced.^
It is likely that HF checking of smartphones may impact the
amount of time and attention students devote to starting or
finishing homework. Related to this phenomenon is multitask-
ing, or in this instance, using a smartphone while studying.
Multi-tasking, particularly texting, deflects the boredom of
homework and can be emotionally and socially satisfying
(David et al. 2015). The conundrum of the apparent need to
be continually digitally connected while being responsible for
the completion of homework is an ongoing phenomenon
among students (Levine et al. 2007). Yet, research has indi-
cated that there is a negative relationship between multitask-
ing and academic performance. A study of this topic focused
on student’s Bability to learn from typical university lectures…
and emailing, MSN messaging…Facebook use via computer
were all investigated as well.^ Findings indicate that students
who engaged in multitasking Bwith any of the technologies
was associated with lower scores on following tests compared
to those that did not multitask^ (Wood et al. 2012).
Workplace demands for greater productivity have grown
over the last several decades and they have affected the allo-
cation of people’s time (Schor 1991). As students attempt to
balance work, school, and their social life, they appear to
resort to compressing time needed for these activities by mul-
titasking. The idea that the ubiquity of multitasking is a
Bgenerational thing^ is not entirely accurate. In bygone days,
it was not unusual for students to listen to radio or watch TV
while attempting to do homework. Today, numerous electron-
ic and digital capabilities of smartphones greatly facilitate
navigating different social media websites and applications,
such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, while trying to
complete classroom assignments. We found these distractions
through our survey results, which indicated that 28% of stu-
dents watch TV while doing homework and 83% keep their
smartphones on while working on homework.
Frequency of smartphone use matters. Students who are HF
users report that they keep their smartphones on more while
doing homework compared to LF users, suggesting the possi-
bility that HF users are more likely to be distracted from com-
pleting their homework assignments. Associations among these
variables are significant. Analyses of open-ended interviews
confirm this. Interestingly, HF users do not study less on week-
ends and do not engage in more TV watching than LF users. For
some students, perhaps this compensates for weekday failure to

undertake and complete assignments. HF smartphone users may
also be yielding to FOMO (fear of missing out) to their focus on
maintaining social relationships through a continual presence on
social media (Sales 2016, p. 31–32).
A grasp of how college students use smartphones and how
use relates to homework has to take into consideration how
students organize their day and whether they work or not. In
both cases, managing time fundamentally relates to initiating
and completing homework assignments. Most students
(n = 584, 67%) work an average of 25 h a week and at least
4 days a week. This work commitment may also affect under-
taking homework.
The issues of student’s time management, while relevant to
the frequency of smartphone use and the initiation and com-
pletion homework, is also well beyond the scope of the pres-
ent study. It deserves a separate treatment (see Brigitte and
Christel 2007 for a review of the literature). Similarly, we
did not specifically explore the notion of procrastination.
Notwithstanding, student comments suggest that procrastina-
tion may be another culprit for not undertaking homework. By
procrastination, we mean intentionally putting off doing
homework with the understanding that there could be negative
consequences. It is a way of satisfying short-term pleasures for
the possibility of future hardship (Wang 2015). Semi-
structured interviews suggest that some students establish
weekday habits that precede and trigger starting homework.
Showering, eating, watching TV, doing chores, playing video
games, and engaging in smartphone use are commonly report-
ed activities. These activities may indicate habits that students
use to consistently initiate homework.
The question rose earlier: Is high-frequency smartphone
use indicative of behavioral addiction to smartphones among
students? The simple answer is yes. Yet, it is different than
addiction to psychoactive substances, where there is an over-
whelming physical and psychological need to relieve with-
drawal symptoms (Lindesmith 1968). Both addictions compel
and induce the individual to repeat activities despite adverse
consequences (Ben-Yehuda et al. 2016; Choliz 2010). It is
clear that addiction to psychoactive substances is problematic,
but is HF use of smartphones problematic for students?
Students acknowledge that it Binterferes^ with homework.
From this standpoint, HF smartphone use constitutes an ele-
ment of behavioral addiction: disruption of necessary daily
activities.
Semi-structured interviews indicate the majority of stu-
dents have changed their study habits from high school.
Many students realize that college-level courses are more de-
manding than high school courses, but this does not necessar-
ily mean they are diligent about doing homework. Interviews
also suggest that students who do their homework at approx-
imately the same time each weekday appear to be less distract-
ed from initiating homework by meeting with friends, keeping
their smartphone on, or texting during homework.
J. technol. behav. sci.
It was thought that students may be inspired by their pro-
fessors to undertake homework assignments. Semi-structured
interview responses suggest that most do not believe profes-
sors inspire them to do homework. The reasons for this are not
clear but may be related to how confident students are at
passing their classes. Perhaps student overconfidence breeds
a belief that undertaking homework assignments is not essen-
tial to passing a course, nor is it vital to an overall understand-
ing of the elements of the course.
Results of both survey and semi-structured interviews in-
dicate that HF smartphone use detracts from the completion of
homework. It is less clear if HF and LF smartphone use affects
initiating homework. Initiating homework is affected by the
amount of hours students work, lifestyle activities, family re-
sponsibilities, homework habits, and other unidentified fac-
tors. Nevertheless, it appears that HF smartphone use during
homework interferes with the task.
The quest for a fundamental explanation of the relationship
between students who do not initiate homework and high-
frequency smartphones use is beyond the grasp of the present
study. In addition, the multitude of factors underlying phe-
nomena such as self-regulation, time management, motiva-
tion, and procrastination are also beyond the purview of the
study. Nevertheless, HF smartphone use appears to affect the
completion of homework. The reasons why students fail to
initiate homework are challenges for other researchers to in-
vestigate and perhaps develop a comprehensive elucidation of
the homework enigma. Future researchers should more fully
investigate the ability of smartphones to diminish cognition
and human intelligence (Carr 2017). Research should also
consider addictive aspects of smartphone use and attempt to
define and deconstruct addiction to smartphones. In the mean-
time, this research illuminates aspects of how students use
smartphones in relation to their daily life and their class as-
signments. The findings will provide teachers, administrators,
counselors, students, and others preliminary indication of how
smartphones influence the initiation and completion of class
assignments.
Limitations
A primary limitation of this study is that it is not based on a
random sample. Therefore, it is not representative of the pop-
ulation of college students. Initially, we utilized a mixed meth-
od approach to conduct a survey that would deductively in-
form the qualitative phase of the project (Creswell 1994).
Ideally, the construction of the qualitative questions was to
be based on the results of the survey. This plan faltered due
to a lack of resources. Unfortunately, the frequency tabulation
and analysis of the survey was not completed in time to inform
the construction of the qualitative questions. This resulted in a
missed opportunity to better analytically integrate and
J. technol. behav. sci.
converge deductive and inductive domains of the study. The
focus, for the most part, has been on the analysis of frequency
of smartphone use as an independent variable. This emphasis
may have biased the analysis of semi-structured interviews. It
should be noted that frequency of use is not equivalent to
digital engagement, such as texting, telephonic conversations,
accessing social media, internet browsing, and responding to
notifications. Frequency, or the number of times that someone
accesses his or her phone, can simply mean momentary
checking of one’s phone rather than a more extensive digital
immersion. Thus, it can be a misleading metric unless it is
supported by other explanatory variables.
Acknowledgements We are deeply grateful and thank the student re-
searchers and all their fellow student interviewees who generously
granted interviews. Without their diligent efforts, this study would not
have been possible.
References
Al-Barashdi, H. S., Bouazza, A., & Jabur, N. H. (2015). Smartphone
addiction among university undergraduates: a literature review.
Journal of Scientific Research & Reports, 4(3), 210–225.
Barth, F. D. (2015). Social media and adolescent development: hazards,
pitfalls and opportunities for growth. Clinical Social Work Journal,
43(2), 201–208.
Ben-Yehuda, L., Greenberg, L., & Weinstein, A. (2016). Internet addic-
tion by using the smartphone-relationships between internet addic-
tion, frequency of smartphone use and the state of mind of male and
female students. Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome and
Addiction Science, 2(1), 22–27.
Brigitte, J., & Christel, G. (2007). Time management. Personnel Review,
36(2), 255–276.
Carr, N. (2017). How smartphones hijack our minds. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved October 18, 2017 from https://www.wsj.com/
articles/how-smartphones-hijack-our-minds-1507307811
Choi, H. S., Lee, H. K., & Ha, J. C. (2012). The influence of smartphone
addiction on mental health, campus life and personal relations: fo-
cusing on K university students. Journal of the Korean Data and
Information Science Society, 23(5), 1005–1015.
Choliz, M. (2010). Mobile phone addiction: a point of issue. Addiction,
105(2), 373–374.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed method. London: Sage Publications.
David, P., Kim, J. H., Brickman, J. S., Ran, W., & Curtis, C. M. (2015).
Mobile phone distraction while studying. New Media & Society,
17(10), 1661–1679.
Demirci, K., Orhan, H., Demirdas, A., Akpinar, A., & Sert, H. (2014).
Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the smartphone
addiction scale in a younger population. Bulletin of Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 24(3), 226–234.
Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and
business. New York: Random House.
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., Sanders, G. J., Rebold, M., & Gates, P. (2013). The
relationship between cell phone use, physical and sedentary activity,
and cardiorespiratory fitness in a sample of US college students.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
10(1), 79 Retrieved October 11, 2017 from https://ijbnpa.
biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-10-79.
Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2007). Electronic media
use, reading, and academic distractibility in college youth. Cyber
Psychology & Behavior, 10(4), 560–566.
Lindesmith, A. R. (1968). Addiction and opiates. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Newport, F. (2015). Most U.S. smartphone owners check phone at least
hourly. Retrieved May 1, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/
184046/smartphone-owners-check-phoneleast-hourly.aspx
Reed, P., & Reay, E. (2015). Relationship between levels of problematic
internet usage and motivation to study in university students. Higher
Education, 70(4), 711–723.
Sales, N. J. (2016). American girls: Social media and the secret lives of
teenagers. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Schor, J. (1991). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of
leisure. New York: Basic Books.
Schwartz, T. (2015). Addicted to distraction: The story of how I lost, and
found, my focus. New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2017 from
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/opinion/sunday/addicted-to-
distraction.html
Stafford, T. (2006). Why email is addictive (and what to do about it).
Neuroscience and Psychology News and Views. Retrieved May 1,
2017 from https://mindhacks.com/2006/09/19/why-email-is-
addictive-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Tossell, C. C., Kortum, P., Shepard, C., Rahmati, A., & Zhong, L. (2015).
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him learn:
smartphone use in higher education. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(4), 713–724.
Wang, S. S. (2015). Never procrastinate again: new research sheds light
on the emotions behind our daily tactics and how we can tackle
them. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 18, 2017 from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-stop-procrastinating-start-by-
understanding-whats-really-going-on-1441043167
Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L.E.,& Chein, J.M. (2017). Smartphones and
cognition: A review of researchexploring the links between mobile
technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8(605), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.
00605.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal
interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843.
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., &
Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking
with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers &
Education, 58(1), 365–374.
Wu, T. (2016). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside
our heads. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.