Article

Journal of Educational Technology

Systems
“Cell Phones Under 2021, Vol. 49(4) 487–500
! The Author(s) 2021
the Table”: Meeting Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Students’ Needs to DOI: 10.1177/0047239520985449
journals.sagepub.com/home/ets

Reduce Off-Task
Smartphone Use
Through Faculty–
Student Collaboration

Brook Batch1 , Jacqueline Roberts1,

Alex Nakonechnyi1, and
Rebecca Allen2

Abstract
While technology offers educators many affordances to provide students with rich
educational experiences, literature and empirical experience indicates that students’
unstructured cell phone usage may have adverse impacts on student achievement
and create a contagious climate of distraction. This research project seeks to under-
stand students’ unstructured cell phone usage, faculty response, and foster improved
student–faculty communication to determine concrete interventions to off-task
smartphone usage. For the purposes of this study, we surveyed and interviewed
faculty and undergraduate students at two small private universities in the United
States. Findings suggest that students and faculty recognize the limitations of punitive
cell phone policies and desire intervention. Giving students’ movement alternatives

Rebecca Allen is now at the Center for IT Engagement, Mount St. Joseph University, Cincinnati, Ohio,
United States.
1
Center for IT Engagement, Mount St. Joseph University, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
2
School of Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
Corresponding Author:
Brook Batch, Center for IT Engagement, Mount St. Joseph University, 5701 Delhi Road, Cincinnati,
OH 45233, United States.
Email: Brook.Batch@msj.edu
488 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49(4 )

and offering faculty more training in using smartphones as educational tools may be
acceptable solutions.

Keywords
off-task cell phone use, unstructured smartphone use, cell phone policies, higher
education, action research

Integrating innovative uses of social media and smartphone-based assignments

with undergraduate-level lectures both inside and outside of the classroom is
thought to be beneficial to student learning and engagement (Dahdal, 2020; Pai
et al., 2017). However, smartphone usage in university classrooms can inevitably
lead to distraction—such as checking emails, sending text messages, or using
social media during class for off-task purposes. Studies indicate anywhere from
81% to 90% of students report using their phone at least once per lecture for
off-task purposes (Berry & Westfall, 2015; Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018). Literature
and empirical experience indicate unstructured in-classroom cell phone use
could result in negative educational outcomes. Students who use cell phones
for off-task purposes seem to take notes in class less frequently, earn lower test
scores, and lower experience grades overall (Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018).
Ultimately, off-task smartphone use is thought to negatively impact student
engagement by creating a cycle of progressive failure, disengagement, and dis-
couragement (Langmia & Glass, 2014).
Yet students themselves are aware of the potential problems of unstructured
cell phone usage and often identify such use as problematic (Froese et al., 2012).
According to Berry and Westfall (2015), over 80% of students reported being
aware of classmates’ off-task cell phone usage, and 15% found this observation
negatively impacted their learning. Therefore, given that both faculty and stu-
dents would like to reduce off-task smartphone usage (Langmia & Glass, 2014),
creative solutions involving instructor–student cooperation and collaboration
may be merited.
However, because of power differentials, students and faculty may be unlike-
ly to negotiate collaborative solutions to the off-task smartphone usage prob-
lem. Creating “arenas for dialog” by involving a third party to act as a go-
between for students and faculty (Greenwood & Levin, 2007, p. 135) enables
opportunities to compare and contrast faculty and student opinions as well as
facilitate communication between these two groups with the goal of identifying
productive approaches aimed at solving a mutually held problem. Therefore,
this research asked: How can we foster improved communication between fac-
ulty and students to find mutually satisfactory solutions to off-task smartphone
Batch et al. 489

usage? What solutions might work well in our local context? In answering these
questions, this article will address the existing literature on students’ off-task
smartphone usage, overviewing the efficacy of cell phone policies and current
intervention methods. Then, we will describe our research theory, methods and
participants as well as present the results of our student and faculty surveys and
analysis of the subsequent follow-up interviews with a sample of surveyed stu-
dents and faculty. Finally, we will discuss our findings, study limitations, and
future intervention plans and research directions. This article presents an oppor-
tunity for higher education faculty and researchers to rethink their approaches
to technology distractions in the classroom and potentially move toward col-
laborative solutions that may have fewer downsides than punitive approaches.
Specifically, we present a variety of options found acceptable at our institutions
and invite the reader to contemplate the application of these off-task cell phone
reduction strategies within their own institution.

Literature Review
Off-task cell phone usage in university classrooms has been addressed through a
variety of university and classroom policies (Tatum et al., 2018). In the U.S.
context, one of the primary reactions to off-task cell phone usage is to publish a
policy banning such usage in course syllabi, but even so, the efficacy of such
policies is debated. One study surveyed students and faculty from six institutions
of higher education, focusing on students’ cell phone use and the effectiveness of
classroom cell phone policies (Berry & Westfall, 2015). While surveyed faculty
identified syllabi policies and public/private reprimands as the most effective
approaches to address unstructured cell phone usage, students indicated that
syllabi policies and smartphone confiscation/banishment from the classroom
could be the best deterrent of this off-task behavior. Furthermore, while over
60% of surveyed faculty included cell phone policies in their syllabi, students did
not feel these policies made a positive impact (Berry & Westfall, 2015).
Nevertheless, Bolkan and Griffin (2017) reported that students may be less
likely to use smartphones in class if an instructor had a cell phone policy that
was routinely enforced.
Yet, punitive classroom management approaches can have unintended con-
sequences, so it may be important to consider solutions to off-task smartphone
usage that are nonpunitive and voluntary. Katz and Lambert (2016) discovered
many students readily participate in cell phone policies that allow students to
willingly surrender their phones at the beginning of a lecture in exchange for
extra credit points. Likewise, researchers introduced smartphone-based personal
response systems in an undergraduate classroom to determine how using cell
phones as educational tools impacts student academic performance (Ma et al.,
2018). Survey response and grade analysis suggests students earned higher
scores while using smartphones as educational tools; in addition, most students
490 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49(4 )

reported that using smartphones in class positively impacted their learning (Ma
et al., 2018).

Theoretical Framework
The literature on off-task cell phone usage is notably oriented around the mea-
surement of student behaviors. Yet, before implementing approaches to reduce
cell phone usage, faculty might consider why students may use cell phones to
begin with. According to Strayhorn (2012), college students’ sense of belonging
is created by their perceived social support, feeling of connectedness with others
in an academic community, and experience of feeling respected and valued by
faculty and peers. When students do not feel as though they belong in a class-
room environment, they may be more inclined to engage in off-task behaviors,
such as texting or connecting with friends through social media, as a way to
satisfy their need to belong. Therefore, students may require a greater sense of
belonging and ownership in the classroom environment for cell phone policies to
be effective.
Classroom climate may influence student off-task cell phone usage as well.
Students’ willingness to use smartphones for off-task purposes may stem from
inconstant cell phone policy enforcement. Mager (1997) stresses that because
students often learn behaviors through modeling, faculty should ensure that
there are no contradictions between what is expected of students and the behav-
iors actually tolerated within the classroom. Mager suggests inconsistently
enforced policies are likely to result in students feeling resentful and confused,
thus damaging classroom climate. With the need for consistency identified, we
are faced with the question of how feasible such consistent policy enforcement
would actually be in university classes, many of which are quite large.

Methods
Thus far, we have established that both faculty and students desire less unstruc-
tured cell phone usage in the classroom. The real difficulty, however, is deter-
mining how to achieve this reduction. Faculty and students’ perceptions as to
which policies may be best vary, and punitive approaches can be hard to enforce
or result in unintended consequences. Perhaps, fostering a sense of cooperation
and communication may be helpful. Yet, due to power differentials, it is unlikely
that students and faculty will jointly plan approaches to off-task smartphone
usage. Given these consideration, we implemented an action research approach
of creating “arenas for dialog” (Greenwood & Levin, 2007, p. 135). In such an
approach, data on possible solutions to the problem are collected from stake-
holder groups separately. The researcher(s) then facilitate back-and-forth com-
munication between the groups, until a solution that is mutually acceptable to
all parties is found.
Batch et al. 491

Participants and Settings

Participants included 34 undergraduate students and 11 faculty from two small,
private universities in the United States. Both of these institutions are Catholic
institutions with a humanitarian mission. The student survey sample included 3
first-year students, 10 second-year students, 9 third-year students, and 12
fourth-year students. Students were representatives of 19 majors. Faculty par-
ticipating in the survey portion of the study have been teaching in higher edu-
cation between 5 and 40 years. Following the survey, we conducted one-on-one
interviews with six students and three faculty from the primary participating
university.

Procedures, Sources of Data, and Data Analysis

Data were collected through a mixed methods design which first employed
instructor and student surveys and then used follow-up interviews with a
subset of both groups (Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2015). The surveys primarily
sought to determine the local prevalence of off-task smartphone usage and
began to explore the possible reasons for such usage; data collected through
the survey informed the development of instructor and student interview ques-
tions. The interviews served to confirm the data found through the surveys, but
also to explore the feasibility and desirability of possible solutions to off-task
smartphone usage, gather perspectives on the possible solutions and facilitate a
dialog between students and faculty to promote a collaborative solution.

Surveys. The surveys were administered through Qualtrics XM, an online survey
software. Both the student and instructor surveys were piloted prior to being
administered. Students were incentivized to participate via a gift card drawing;
faculty volunteered to participate without incentive. The student survey was
comprised of nine questions that gathered both quantitative and qualitative
data. Table 1 summarizes these questions. Eleven faculty participated in the
survey; the faculty survey consisted of six questions that gathered quantitative
and qualitative data. Table 2 summarizes these questions.

Interviews. After survey completion, students and faculty at the primary partic-
ipating institution were asked if they would be willing to complete a follow-up
interview. These interviews were recorded and were transcribed using, Temi, an
audio transcription service. The interview transcriptions were coded using
MAXQDA 2018 and analyzed for themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Six students participated in follow-up interviews and were asked a series of
questions including whether they would be less inclined to use their smartphones
in class if they were able to participate in an activity such as knitting and
crocheting for charity, playing with fidget toys, or taking scheduled movement
492 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49(4 )

Table 1. Student Survey Questions.

Number Question Response types

1 What’s your current grade level? Closed: select “freshman,”

2 What’s your major?
3 How many of your professors
enforce cell phone policies
4 How do your professors enforce
their cell phone policies (e.g.,
do nothing, ask students to
put their phones away,
deduct participation/grade
points . . . )?
5 Select the reason(s) why you or
a classmate might use a cell
phone during class:
6 Do you or your classmates hide
cell phones from professors
during class?
7 Do you feel like students should
be able to openly use their cell
phones in class?
8 How often do you use your cell
phone in class for entertain-
ment purposes?
9 Please select which course(s)
you’d be MOST likely to use
your cell phone in:
“sophomore,” “junior,” “senior”
Open-ended: short answer
Closed: select “less than half,” “half”
or “more than half”
Open-ended; short answer
Closed: select one or more:
“emergencies (e.g., checking for
messages about a sick relative or
friend), “entertainment purposes
(e.g., because the class is too
boring),” “educational purposes
(e.g., to look up information
related to the class/because of
classroom activities),” or “social
purposes (e.g., responding to
messages, checking social media
. . .)”
Closed: select “yes” or “no”
Closed: “definitely not”; “maybe if
it’s for educational purposes,”
“probably yes,” “definitely yes”
Closed: “never,” “in a few courses,”
“every class”
Closed: “it doesn’t matter,” “major
related courses,” “nonmajor-
related courses”

breaks. In addition, students were asked if these intervention strategies or any

additional activities might help increase their level of focus in class. Faculty were
also asked if they were willing to try these same strategies. Moreover, faculty
were asked why higher education faculty might be reluctant to implement such
intervention techniques in their classrooms.
Batch et al. 493

Table 2. Faculty Survey Questions.

Number Question Response types

1 How many years have you been Open-ended: short answer

teaching in higher education?
2 What is the average class size you
teach?
3 Have you noticed students using cell
phones for unstructured pur-
poses in any of your classes this
semester?
4 Why do you think students are
MOST likely to use their cell
phones in class?
5 Do you enforce cell phone policies
in your classrooms? If so, how do
you respond to policy violations?
6 How likely are you to implement
educational uses for cell phones
in your lectures (e.g., assessment
apps like Kahoot!; as tools in
breakout group activities)?
Closed: select “less than 20” or
“more than 20”
Closed: select “yes” or “no”
Closed: select one or more:
“emergencies (e.g., checking for
messages about a sick relative or
friend), “entertainment purposes
(e.g., because the class is too
boring),” “educational purposes
(e.g., to look up information
related to the class/because of
classroom activities),” or “social
purposes (e.g., responding to
messages, checking social media
. . . )”
Open-ended: short answer
Closed: select “I’m already doing
this,” “somewhat likely,” “less
likely,” or “not likely.”

Results
In the survey, students indicated that faculty often do not enforce cell phone
policies. Only 26% of students felt that cell phone policies were enforced at least
“more than half” of the time, 20% of students felt that cell phone policies were
enforced about “half the time,” and the remaining 54% of students felt that cell
phone policies were enforced less than half the time. When students were asked
how faculty enforce cell phone policies, there were 9 mentions of inaction such
as “do nothing,” 24 mentions of verbal reminders such as “ask student to put
phones away,” and 5 mentions of punitive consequences such as “points
docked” or “ask them to leave the class.” However, despite student perceptions
of lacking cell phone policy enforcement, eight out of nine faculty stated that
they enforce cell phone policies. Instructor survey data showed most faculty
494 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49(4 )

enforce cell phone policies through verbal reminders (63%), point and grade
reduction (27%), as well as device confiscation (10%).
Students felt that cell phones should not be used for nonessential purposes in
class; over 50% of students felt that in-class cell phone use should be for edu-
cational use only. Yet this belief that unstructured cell phone usage should be
avoided did not seem to translate to student behavior. Over 70% of students
self-reported using cell phones in class for off-task purposes. Over half of sur-
veyed students shared that they used smartphones to keep in touch with friends
and family in the event of a crisis. In contrast, faculty identified that students are
most likely to use their cell phones for social or entertainment purposes. Only
one faculty member identified that students may be using their cell phone for
emergency-related purposes.
Boredom may be a major driver of student cell phone usage. Approximately
62% of surveyed students felt that they were more likely to use their cell phones
in nonmajor classes, whereas only 3% felt that they would be more likely to use
their phones in major classes, and the remaining 34% felt that it did not matter.
Every student interviewed identified boredom as one of the main motivating
factors to why they or a classmate would use a cell phone during class. One
student stated, “. . . most of the time [students use cell phones] just because we’re
bored and if you’ve already lost me, then I feel like there’s no point in paying
attention.”
Students and faculty did agree on the benefits of clear and consistent imple-
mentation of cell phone policies. The majority of students wanted faculty to
enforce cell phone policies. Interviewed students shared stories about how class-
mates’ cell phone use had proved distracting; one student described being dis-
tracted by “hip hop music blaring” from a classmate’s headphones. The same
student continued, “if you’re going to have rules, then be . . . stricter about it
and don’t be so wishy washy.” Like students, faculty saw a need for consistent
cell phone policy enforcement. One instructor stated:

I think they [policies] are ineffective if you state the policy but don’t follow up . . . if
they [students] have heard the policy and they start following it and then they see
that other students are looking at their phones . . . the policy is not a policy.

Another instructor suggested students use their cell phones in class despite
existing classroom policies because, “they think they can get away with it, using
them whenever they want.”
Faculty expressed a sense of helplessness or lack of responsibility for
implementing cell phone off-task usage reduction strategies. Regarding feasibil-
ity, one instructor explained, “to try and get something most people like and
are engaging in is really challenging because they’re all over the place as far
as what their preferences are.” Another instructor stated, “[if students are] psy-
chologically bound to the phone. I don’t think interventions are going to help.”
Batch et al. 495

Echoing the faculty’ sense of infeasibility, one student asserted “ . . . people are
just going to get on their cell phones anyways. It’s [enforcing cell phone policies]
is kind of a pointless task.” Students and faculty also pointed out that it may not
be an instructor’s place or responsibility to enforce such policies. One instructor
said, “they [other faculty] would feel like we’re coddling our students,” and in a
similar anti-enforcement vein, one student pointed out: “I think at this level . . . -
they [faculty] try to treat you like adults and you’re paying for college and if you
don’t want to pay attention, that’s on your dime.” One instructor suggested that
actively trying to mitigate cell phone usage would be a “burden on faculty.”
Interestingly, students seemed more open to cell phone usage reduction strate-
gies than faculty. Most students thought that one or more of the proposed inter-
vention methods would help increase their focus and level of engagement and
potentially reduce their desire to use their cell phones for unstructured purposes.
However, there was not a clear intervention method that would consistently work
for the majority of students. The most widely accepted interventions were sched-
uled movement or bathroom breaks and in-class activities that utilize technology—
specifically smartphones—within lectures. Students expressed mixed interest in the
knitting for a cause activity; while one student said, “knitting would be kinda cool,”
another stated, “if you were trying to get somebody to like knit, they would just call
you a loser.” Students responded to the fidget toy suggestion in a similar manner.
One student supported the inclusion of fidget toys and said, “pop sockets are . . . a
really good fidget thing . . . I really like playing [with] pop sockets.” Several students
expressed an interest in having more hands-on learning experiences and interactive
discussions. One student said, “I wish they [faculty] did more hands-on learning
stuff instead of just lecture and videos [to help me] retain the information more.”
Another student stated, “I feel like my ADHD kicks in and then I’m like, I gotta do
something cause I can’t like pay attention.”

Discussion
Having gathered data from both faculty and students, we aimed to identify off-
task smartphone reduction strategies that are mutually acceptable to both stake-
holder groups. Organization and contemplation of the data revealed significant
discrepancies as well as convergences in student and instructor attitudes and
opinions toward smartphones in class. Concerning discrepancies, as can be seen
in Table 3, faculty feel that they already enforce cell phone policies, even though
students do not feel that faculty do so. Moreover, faculty may be underestimat-
ing students’ need to stay connected to loved ones for emergent situations. It is
noteworthy that both faculty and students feel that cell phone policies ought to
be enforced consistently even though such enforcement could be difficult.
Likewise, students and faculty agree upon the utility of smartphones as educa-
tional tools, although faculty feel that they use smartphones as educational tools
frequently, while students feel that faculty should do so more often.
496 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49(4 )

Table 3. Differences and Similarities in Students and Faculty Cell Phone Usage Opinions.

Students’ prevailing Faculty’s prevailing

Theme perspectives perspectives

Frequency of cell phone Policies enforced less than Most faculty state they
policy enforcement half the time enforce the policies
routinely.
Instructor reactions to Primarily do nothing, when Most often verbal
off-task cell phone use they do react, verbal warnings
warnings
Reasons for cell phone Why do you think students Almost all cell phone
usage are usage is about enter-
More than half of students tainment or social
use cell phone for enter- media
tainment/social media in
class, but also more than
half feel it is important to
have them to keep in touch
for an emergency
Reasons for lack of policy More than half of students Almost all cell phone
enforcement use cell phone for enter- usage is about enter-
tainment/social media in tainment or social
class, but also more than media.
half feel it is important to
have them to keep in touch
for an emergency.
Frequency of cell phones Faculty rarely use cell phones Most faculty feel they
used as educational as educational tools. already do this
tools.
Need to enforce cell The policies need to be consistently enforced.
phone policies
Reasons for lack of May be futile; not instructor’s right/responsibility.
enforcement.

Contrary to instructor perceptions, the students involved in our study were

already aware of such policies and want policies to be enforced even though
faculty state they routinely enforce such policies. This difference in student and
instructor perception may stem from the type of action most often taken in
response to student off-task cell phone usage—verbal warnings. If verbal warn-
ings go unnoticed, they are likely ineffective.
However, in suggesting consideration of moving away from verbal warnings as
a response to off-task cell phone usage, we do not endorse additional punitive
methods of enforcement. Deducting points from students, though often cited on
Batch et al. 497

syllabi as a possible consequence of off-task cell phone usage, was done infre-
quently. Our study did not explore the precise reasons why such deduction of
points was infrequent, but drawing on our psychological framework previously
stated, negative consequences can often set up a poor classroom climate (Mager,
1997). In our interviews, students articulated that they are often bored.
Interventions that promote positive behaviors, and reduce boredom, may be a
more effective solution. In the university context, students must study subject
matter that may or may not seem relevant or interesting. One potential way
forward is to connect content to felt student needs, aspirations, and real world
applications (deLodzia, 1972). In U.S. higher education, faculty are often subject
matter experts in their areas, but many faculty have received little instruction and
support in developing their pedagogy. Valuing and fostering effective teaching
practices in higher education are overdue; we must provide resources and support
for teachers to hone their practices (Gormally et al., 2014). Incorporating more
smartphone usage for educational activities may be another way to reduce off-
task behaviors, yet promotion of this may not work because faculty may feel that
they are already using cell phones as tools and do not feel that it is feasible or
necessary to reduce student off-task smartphone usage. Telling faculty to do more
of what they feel they already do may not be transformative.
Aside from meeting students’ psychosocial needs, our team identified ways to
reduce learners’ physical discomfort and restlessness. The most widely accepted
solutions by both groups were scheduled movement/bathroom breaks. Letting
students know they will have time to meet their physical needs for a restroom,
water, and movement as well as a chance to connect with classmates and contact
others via their smartphones may increase engagement. Meeting students’ phys-
ical needs in a predictable manner is a psychologically sound practice that may
help students pay more attention to class content. Other interventions such as
knitting and fidget toys were deemed acceptable by some faculty and students
and undesirable by others. A useful approach may be to offer institutional tool
kits, making brief lessons in knitting and fidget toy kits available to classes that
request them. We are currently looking into incorporating request a “knit kit”
and “fidget toy box” functionality into our campus mobile app.

Conclusion
Finding a solution for students’ unstructured smartphone usage in classrooms is
a challenging task that requires innovative approaches and dialog with local
stakeholders. While many faculty had cell phone policies, several students did
not feel that these policies were enforced. Students and faculty expressed varying
levels of interest in potential solutions. As aforementioned, students and faculty
had differing opinions on what an effective intervention, if possible, would
entail. Thus, we intend to implement a number of intervention strategies in
order to bridge the student–instructor communication gap and meet the
498 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49(4 )

unique needs of our students and faculty. Cell phone policies on syllabi may be
difficult to enforce. Students cite boredom as being at the root of many of their
behaviors, while faculty feel that they do implement hands-on, varied tasks;
providing faculty with more ideas for varying their class formats may be helpful.
We also found that scheduled breaks were universally and acceptable interven-
tion. Other intervention methods we explored included the possible offering of
fidget toys and knitting supplies; these potential interventions were welcomed by
some and not by others. A solid approach may be to offer faculty options for
improving class climate and view off-task smartphone usage as a symptom of a
larger problem of disengagement.

Limitations
The data found through this study are limited to the participating institutions;
these data are nongeneralizable and may not be applicable in a larger context.
Furthermore, the findings may not apply to all institutions of higher education.
Because the study’s sample size was small and gathered from two small, private
universities in the United States, it may be beneficial to gather data from a
larger, more diverse study population. The institutions at hand were small
and have very few large, auditorium style classes where off-task cell phone
usage may be perceived as less disturbing as students may interact less with
the instructor. Nevertheless, even in large classes, off-task smartphone usage
divides student attention. Although the findings may not be applicable to all
students’ and faculty members’ experiences, the data found may provide helpful
insights for both students and educators searching to find potential solutions
aimed at addressing the issue of students’ off-task smartphone use.
We also recognize that international universities may have differing policies
regarding student participation and assessment. In the U.S. context, it is
common that a portion of a student’s grade is contingent on his or her partic-
ipation and attendance; worldwide, university student participation and atten-
dance may not be measured, and cell phone policies may be irrelevant. Yet the
underlying problem of student disengagement— evidenced and exacerbated by
smartphone usage—is widely felt in diverse global contexts.

Future Directions
As aforementioned, there is some skepticism on the part of faculty that off-task
phone interventions could be effective. Yet, students would generally be wel-
coming of such interventions. Our next step is to share our findings with faculty
to help faculty feel confident that students would be accepting of interventions.
We would then like to make tools to intervene—fidget toys, knitting supplies
and mini-lessons, and instructor training—available.
Batch et al. 499

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

ORCID iD
Brook Batch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8315-3971

References
Berry, M. J., & Westfall, A. (2015). Dial D for distraction: The making and breaking of
cell phone policies in the college classroom. College Teaching, 63(2), 62–71.
Bolkan, S., & Griffin, D. J. (2017). Students’ use of cell phones in class for off-task
behaviors: The indirect impact of instructors’ teaching behaviors through boredom
and students’ attitudes. Communication Education, 66(3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03634523.2016.1241888
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Dahdal, S. (2020). Using the WhatsApp social media application for active learning.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(2), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047239520928307
deLodzia, G. (1972). Education, the missing ingredient in management curriculum.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 1972(1), 264–267.
Flanigan, A. E., & Kiewra, K. A. (2018). What college instructors can do about student
cyber-slacking. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 585–597.
Froese, A. D., Carpenter, C. N., Inman, D. A., Schooley, J. R., Barnes, R. B., Brecht,
P. W., & Chacon, J. D. (2012). Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected and
actual learning. College Student Journal, 46(2), 323–332.
Gormally, C., Evans, M., & Brickman, P. (2014). Feedback about teaching in higher ed:
Neglected opportunities to promote change. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2),
187–199. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0235
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Pragmatic action research. In Introduction to
action research: Social research for social change. (2nd ed., pp. 133–150). Sage
Publications.
Katz, L., & Lambert, W. (2016). A happy and engaged class without cell phones? It’s
easier than you think. Teaching of Psychology, 43(4), 340–345.
Langmia, K., & Glass, A. (2014). Coping with smart phone’ distractions’ in a college
classroom. Teaching Journalism & Mass Communication, 4(1), 13.
Ma, S., Steger, D. G., Doolittle, P. E., & Stewart, A. C. (2018). Improved academic
performance and student perceptions of learning through use of a cell phone-based
personal response system. Journal of Food Science Education, 17(1), 27–32.
500 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49(4 )

Mager, R. F. (1997). How to turn learners on . . . without turning them off: Ways to ignite
interest in learning. (3rd ed.). The Center for Effective Performance.
Pai, A., McGinnis, G., Bryant, D., Cole, M., Kovacs, J., Stovall, K., & Lee, M. (2017).
Using Facebook groups to encourage science discussions in a large-enrollment biology
class. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 103–136. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0047239516675898
Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed methods research: A guide to the
field (Vol. 3). Sage Publications.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success
for all students. Routledge.
Tatum, N. T., Olson, M. K., & Frey, T. K. (2018). Noncompliance and dissent with cell
phone policies: A psychological reactance theoretical perspective. Communication
Education, 67(2), 226–244.

Author Biographies
Brook Batch is a first-year educational studies doctoral student at the University
of Cincinnati. She received a bachelor’s degree in English from Thomas More
University. She currently works as a content editor for Mount St. Joseph
University, and conducts research with the University’s Center for IT
Engagement. Her research interests include postsecondary literacy, writing com-
munities, college access, and using technology to engage diverse populations.

Jacqueline Roberts is an associate-director and project manager for the Center of

IT Engagement. In her current role, she leads a variety of projects that focus on
student engagement and retention, as well as community engagement. She
earned a Bachelor of Science in Marketing and a Masters of Business
Administration from Mount St. Joseph University. She is currently pursuing
a doctoral degree in Educational Studies with a focus on Instructional Design
Technology from the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include
student engagement, user experience design for mobile learning, and e-learning
environments.

Alex Nakonechnyi serves as Mount St. Joseph University’s Associate Provost.

He received his PhD in educational studies from the University of Cincinnati.
His research interests revolve around engaging students in learning through
technology.

Rebecca Allen is an assistant professor at Mount St. Joseph University. She

teaches Natural Language Processing and does research at the University’s
Center for IT Engagement. She received her PhD in educational studies from
the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include action research,
resource navigation, and access disparities.