This article was downloaded by:[116.227.252.224] On:26 February 2014,At:01:43 Publisher:Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH,UK Communication Education Publication details,including instructions for authors and Communication subscription information: Education http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20 The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student Learning Jeffrey H.Kuznekoff Scott Titsworth Published online:12 Feb 2013. To cite this article:Jeffrey H.Kuznekoff Scott Titsworth(2013)The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student Learning,Communication Education,62:3,233-252,DOl: 10.1080/03634523.2013.767917 To link to this article:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the "Content")contained in the publications on our platform.However,Taylor Francis, our agents,and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions,claims, proceedings,demands,costs,expenses,damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research,teaching,and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution,reselling,loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions
This article was downloaded by: [116.227.252.224] On: 26 February 2014, At: 01:43 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Communication Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20 The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student Learning Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff & Scott Titsworth Published online: 12 Feb 2013. To cite this article: Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff & Scott Titsworth (2013) The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student Learning, Communication Education, 62:3, 233-252, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2013.767917 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Communication Education V%l.62,N6.3huy2013,pp.233-252 Routecge Tayfor f.Franxi Ceoup The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student Learning Jeffrey H.Kuznekoff Scott Titsworth In this study,we examined the impact of mobile phone usage,during class lecture,on student learning.Participants in three different study groups (control,low-distraction, and high-distraction)watched a video lecture,took notes on that lecture,and took two learning assessments after watching the lecture.Students who were not using their mobile 名 phones wrote down 62%more information in their notes,took more detailed notes,were able to recall more detailed information from the lecture,and scored a full letter grade and a half higher on a multiple choice test than those students who were actively using their mobile phones.Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed. Keywords:Texting;Student Learning;Texting in the Classroom;Technology;Mobile Phone In modern classrooms,instructors face many challenges as they compete for students' attention among a variety of communication stimuli.Rapid growth of mobile computing,including smart phones and tablets,presents a double-edged problem: papeojuMo along with previously unimaginable access to information come previously unfore- seen distractions.Of wide concern to many instructors is the potential distraction caused by students using their mobile devices to text,play games,check Facebook, tweet,or engage in other activities available to them in a rapidly evolving digital terrain.That concern has potential merit;recent statistics from the Pew Foundation show that the median number of daily texts for older teens rose from 60 in 2009 to 100 in 2011 (Lenhart,2012).Moreover,64%of teens who own cell phones have texted during class,even in schools where cell phones are technically banned (Lenhart,Ling,Campbell,Purcell,2010).Those texts potentially come at the expense of learning,as texting during class reduces students'ability to self-regulate and give sustained attention to classroom tasks(Wei,Wang,Klausner,2012). Jeffrey H.Kuznekoff(Ph.D.,Ohio University)is an Adjunct Faculty Member in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University,where Scott Titsworth(Ph.D.,University of Nebraska)is Dean of the Scripps College of Communication.Jeffrey H.Kuznekoff can be contacted at jk248508@ohio.edu ISSN 0363-4523(print)/ISSN 1479-5795(online)C2013 National Communication Association htp:/dk.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917
The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student Learning Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff & Scott Titsworth In this study, we examined the impact of mobile phone usage, during class lecture, on student learning. Participants in three different study groups (control, low-distraction, and high-distraction) watched a video lecture, took notes on that lecture, and took two learning assessments after watching the lecture. Students who were not using their mobile phones wrote down 62% more information in their notes, took more detailed notes, were able to recall more detailed information from the lecture, and scored a full letter grade and a half higher on a multiple choice test than those students who were actively using their mobile phones. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed. Keywords: Texting; Student Learning; Texting in the Classroom; Technology; Mobile Phone In modern classrooms, instructors face many challenges as they compete for students’ attention among a variety of communication stimuli. Rapid growth of mobile computing, including smart phones and tablets, presents a double-edged problem: along with previously unimaginable access to information come previously unforeseen distractions. Of wide concern to many instructors is the potential distraction caused by students using their mobile devices to text, play games, check Facebook, tweet, or engage in other activities available to them in a rapidly evolving digital terrain. That concern has potential merit; recent statistics from the Pew Foundation show that the median number of daily texts for older teens rose from 60 in 2009 to 100 in 2011 (Lenhart, 2012). Moreover, 64% of teens who own cell phones have texted during class, even in schools where cell phones are technically banned (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). Those texts potentially come at the expense of learning, as texting during class reduces students’ ability to self-regulate and give sustained attention to classroom tasks (Wei, Wang, & Klausner, 2012). Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff (Ph.D., Ohio University) is an Adjunct Faculty Member in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University, where Scott Titsworth (Ph.D., University of Nebraska) is Dean of the Scripps College of Communication. Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff can be contacted at jk248508@ohio.edu ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2013 National Communication Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917 Communication Education Vol. 62, No. 3, July 2013, pp. 233252 Downloaded by [116.227.252.224] at 01:43 26 February 2014
234 J.H.Kuznekoff and S.Titsworth Cell phones,and the broader array of digital mobile devices,pose unique communication challenges for both users and those with whom they interact.Some critics argue that texting and other digital communication behavior potentially diminish key social skills like effective listening.As one commentator noted,"We think of phones as a communication tool,but the truth is they may be just the opposite"(Skenazy,2009,np).Other views suggest that people are adapting to new communication norms in an increasingly digital world,learning to quickly attend to, process,and respond to multiple and sometimes simultaneous messages (Davidson, 2011).Given the many possible ways that digital communication tools will continue to influence practices of teaching and learning(Schuck Aubusson,2010),instructional communication scholars should enact programmatic research to understand how these tools impact classroom communication and subsequent learning outcomes. The present study builds on past research by examining whether texting or posting to a social network site has negative impacts on students'note-taking behaviors and subsequent performance on exams.Participants took part in simulated classroom conditions where they watched a recorded lecture,took notes over the lecture,and were then tested over lecture content.There were three conditions in the study:a control group and two experimental groups.The control group simply watched the lecture,took notes on the lecture,and answered exam questions over lecture content. Et:I0 The other two groups engaged in the same activities as the control group,but also took part in simulated texting/Facebook interactions during the lecture;one group had a low frequency of texts/posts,and another had a high frequency.By using simulated text messages and Facebook posts,the objective of the study was to determine what effects,if any,these distractions had on student learning. Literature Review Mobile Phone Usage and Features papeojuMo Modern phones have a variety of features that simply were not possible years ago: Mobile phones are not just for voice communication anymore(Ishii,2006).College students can access the Internet,send or receive text messages,check email,and even video chat with others quite literally from the palm of their hand.In addition, students can access a variety of social network sites(SNS)from their mobile phones. Scholars boyd and Ellison (2008)explain that SNS are online services that allow people to create a profile,create a list of other users who share a connection with the user,and view the lists of connections created by others within that system.For the purposes of the current study,we use the technical term SNS in place of other terminology (e.g.,social networking sites)because SNS better conveys the way in which users communicate with others via these systems.boyd and Ellison note that other terms,like social networking sites,emphasize relationship initiation and users forming connections with others with whom they might not normally have come in contact.However,the term SNS better conveys the way in which users communicate with other people they have connected with.As boyd and Ellison put it,"They are
Cell phones, and the broader array of digital mobile devices, pose unique communication challenges for both users and those with whom they interact. Some critics argue that texting and other digital communication behavior potentially diminish key social skills like effective listening. As one commentator noted, ‘‘We think of phones as a communication tool, but the truth is they may be just the opposite’’ (Skenazy, 2009, np). Other views suggest that people are adapting to new communication norms in an increasingly digital world, learning to quickly attend to, process, and respond to multiple and sometimes simultaneous messages (Davidson, 2011). Given the many possible ways that digital communication tools will continue to influence practices of teaching and learning (Schuck & Aubusson, 2010), instructional communication scholars should enact programmatic research to understand how these tools impact classroom communication and subsequent learning outcomes. The present study builds on past research by examining whether texting or posting to a social network site has negative impacts on students’ note-taking behaviors and subsequent performance on exams. Participants took part in simulated classroom conditions where they watched a recorded lecture, took notes over the lecture, and were then tested over lecture content. There were three conditions in the study: a control group and two experimental groups. The control group simply watched the lecture, took notes on the lecture, and answered exam questions over lecture content. The other two groups engaged in the same activities as the control group, but also took part in simulated texting/Facebook interactions during the lecture; one group had a low frequency of texts/posts, and another had a high frequency. By using simulated text messages and Facebook posts, the objective of the study was to determine what effects, if any, these distractions had on student learning. Literature Review Mobile Phone Usage and Features Modern phones have a variety of features that simply were not possible years ago: Mobile phones are not just for voice communication anymore (Ishii, 2006). College students can access the Internet, send or receive text messages, check email, and even video chat with others quite literally from the palm of their hand. In addition, students can access a variety of social network sites (SNS) from their mobile phones. Scholars boyd and Ellison (2008) explain that SNS are online services that allow people to create a profile, create a list of other users who share a connection with the user, and view the lists of connections created by others within that system. For the purposes of the current study, we use the technical term SNS in place of other terminology (e.g., social networking sites) because SNS better conveys the way in which users communicate with others via these systems. boyd and Ellison note that other terms, like social networking sites, emphasize relationship initiation and users forming connections with others with whom they might not normally have come in contact. However, the term SNS better conveys the way in which users communicate with other people they have connected with. As boyd and Ellison put it, ‘‘They are 234 J. H. Kuznekoff and S. Titsworth Downloaded by [116.227.252.224] at 01:43 26 February 2014
Mobile Devices and Learning 235 primarily communicating with people who are already part of their extended social network"(2008,p.211).Thus far,survey data indicate that young adults are highly active users of SNS and other communication tools like text messaging. Texting,the ability to send short messages to another person,is perhaps one of the more popular features of modern cell phones.Roughly 94%of 18-34-year-olds report that they send or receive text messages using their phones,and 63%of this age group access the Internet using their phone(Zickuhr,2011).There is little question that students'communication habits regularly lead them to text while in class. Research conducted by the Pew Internet American Life Project found that 14-17- year-olds who text typically send and/or receive roughly 60 text messages a day. Furthermore,64%of teens with mobile phones have texted in class,and 23%access SNS via their phone(Lenhart,2010).Indeed,researchers at one university found that 62%of students admitted that they had texted while in class (Ransford,2009). Campbell(2006)reported that young people ages 18-23 are more tolerant of mobile phones in the classroom when compared to older age brackets.Essentially,"Young people tend to have very positive perceptions of mobile phones and regard the technology as an important tool for social connection"(Campbell,2006,p.290). Besides texting,accessing the Internet and SNS has become a prolific commu- nication activity among college students.Research shows that roughly 75%of online Et:I0e adults (18-24 year olds)have profiles on an SNS,and 89%of online adults use those sites to keep in touch with friends (Lenhart,2009).In regard to teens,77%of teens report that they contact their friends daily via text messaging,and 33%do so via SNS (Lenhart,2010).Statistics from Facebook,which as of June 2011 had over 500 million active users,documents that over 50%of the users log in each day(Facebook,2011). According to Facebook's own statistics,over 250 million active users access Facebook through a mobile device,and "People that use Facebook on their mobile devices are twice more active on Facebook than non-mobile users"(Facebook,2011,p.1).In 五 short,one might reasonably conclude that students'use of Facebook during class peojuM would be similar to rates of texting.However,posting to Facebook and sending a text message do serve different purposes.For example,a text message is typically sent to one recipient and is inherently interpersonal in nature.A Facebook post,or a status update,is generally viewable by a wider audience or even publicly available.Although texting and posting can serve different purposes,the physical act of both activities on a mobile device is fundamentally the same(i.e.,users engaging in communication activities via their mobile device).Because texting and posting both require the user to actively interact with her/his mobile device,these potentially distinct commu- nication activities would reasonably manifest in similar ways and with similar effects. As such,the remainder of this article will use the term texting/posting to refer to both activities.This labeling approach provides conceptual clarity while also incorporating both forms of communication. Clearly,texting/posting offers new communication channels that are frequently used by young adults to stay in contact with others.This ability to stay connected with others has allowed today's college students to remain constantly connected to other people,something that was not the case even a decade ago.As a practical
primarily communicating with people who are already part of their extended social network’’ (2008, p. 211). Thus far, survey data indicate that young adults are highly active users of SNS and other communication tools like text messaging. Texting, the ability to send short messages to another person, is perhaps one of the more popular features of modern cell phones. Roughly 94% of 1834-year-olds report that they send or receive text messages using their phones, and 63% of this age group access the Internet using their phone (Zickuhr, 2011). There is little question that students’ communication habits regularly lead them to text while in class. Research conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 1417- year-olds who text typically send and/or receive roughly 60 text messages a day. Furthermore, 64% of teens with mobile phones have texted in class, and 23% access SNS via their phone (Lenhart, 2010). Indeed, researchers at one university found that 62% of students admitted that they had texted while in class (Ransford, 2009). Campbell (2006) reported that young people ages 1823 are more tolerant of mobile phones in the classroom when compared to older age brackets. Essentially, ‘‘Young people tend to have very positive perceptions of mobile phones and regard the technology as an important tool for social connection’’ (Campbell, 2006, p. 290). Besides texting, accessing the Internet and SNS has become a prolific communication activity among college students. Research shows that roughly 75% of online adults (1824 year olds) have profiles on an SNS, and 89% of online adults use those sites to keep in touch with friends (Lenhart, 2009). In regard to teens, 77% of teens report that they contact their friends daily via text messaging, and 33% do so via SNS (Lenhart, 2010). Statistics from Facebook, which as of June 2011 had over 500 million active users, documents that over 50% of the users log in each day (Facebook, 2011). According to Facebook’s own statistics, over 250 million active users access Facebook through a mobile device, and ‘‘People that use Facebook on their mobile devices are twice more active on Facebook than non-mobile users’’ (Facebook, 2011, p. 1). In short, one might reasonably conclude that students’ use of Facebook during class would be similar to rates of texting. However, posting to Facebook and sending a text message do serve different purposes. For example, a text message is typically sent to one recipient and is inherently interpersonal in nature. A Facebook post, or a status update, is generally viewable by a wider audience or even publicly available. Although texting and posting can serve different purposes, the physical act of both activities on a mobile device is fundamentally the same (i.e., users engaging in communication activities via their mobile device). Because texting and posting both require the user to actively interact with her/his mobile device, these potentially distinct communication activities would reasonably manifest in similar ways and with similar effects. As such, the remainder of this article will use the term texting/posting to refer to both activities. This labeling approach provides conceptual clarity while also incorporating both forms of communication. Clearly, texting/posting offers new communication channels that are frequently used by young adults to stay in contact with others. This ability to stay connected with others has allowed today’s college students to remain constantly connected to other people, something that was not the case even a decade ago. As a practical Mobile Devices and Learning 235 Downloaded by [116.227.252.224] at 01:43 26 February 2014
236 J.H.Kuznekoff and S.Titsworth matter,instructors remain concerned that such connection to the social world disconnects students from learning,leading some to ban all electronic communica- tion devices from lectures(Steinfatt,2009).Both theoretical and empirical evidence supports this concern,suggesting that students potentially split their attention in ways that cause them to miss important details presented during class,an outcome that could have potentially damaging effects on their achievement (Kraushaar Novak,2010;Wei et al.,2012). Classroom Attention Recent studies exploring the effects of texting/posting on student learning outcomes have relied on information processing theory (see Mayer,1996)as a basis for arguing that texting can cause distractions that hamper student learning.Briefly,information processing identifies attention,working memory,short-term memory,long-term memory,and metacognition as key resources used by individuals when they learn new information.Because learning is a process,diminished capacity with any single resource can impact other resources.Thus,in the case of texting/posting,students' attention can be divided,which can distract attention from on-task behavior.In turn, information processed in working/short-term memory may be incomplete or Et:I0e inaccurate,which could lead to inaccurate or insufficient storage of information in long-term memory. A variety of studies outside of the educational setting provide evidence that texting/posting can impede information processing.For instance,Just,Keller,and Cynkar (2008)found that simulated mobile telephone conversations disrupted driving performance by diverting attention away from the task of driving.Other researchers found that drivers talking on a mobile phone experienced visual distractions,such as failing to notice important visual cues like traffic lights or the environment surrounding road intersections(Trbovich Harbluk,2003).In general, papeojuMo these researchers concluded that "distracting cognitive tasks compete for drivers' attentional resources"(Harbluk,Noy,Trbovich,Eizenman,2007,p.378).Given the evidence surrounding dangers associated with using mobile devices while driving, many states now have laws penalizing drivers who text behind the wheel. Although not life-threatening in the classroom,texting/posting produces negative consequences for students and instructors.Burns and Lohenry (2010)found that both students and instructors identified mobile phone use as a distraction in class, and Campbell(2006)found that students and instructors perceived the ringing of cell phones in class as a problem.Although texting is considerably more covert than actual telephone conversations,a growing body of literature suggests that it is equally problematic. Kraushaar and Novak (2010)explored connections between classroom laptop usage and course achievement.The authors recruited students who voluntarily installed activity-monitoring software onto their laptops.This software recorded what programs were running and the times that each program was in use.Kraushaar and Novak developed a rubric to classify programs as productive or distractive
matter, instructors remain concerned that such connection to the social world disconnects students from learning, leading some to ban all electronic communication devices from lectures (Steinfatt, 2009). Both theoretical and empirical evidence supports this concern, suggesting that students potentially split their attention in ways that cause them to miss important details presented during class, an outcome that could have potentially damaging effects on their achievement (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Wei et al., 2012). Classroom Attention Recent studies exploring the effects of texting/posting on student learning outcomes have relied on information processing theory (see Mayer, 1996) as a basis for arguing that texting can cause distractions that hamper student learning. Briefly, information processing identifies attention, working memory, short-term memory, long-term memory, and metacognition as key resources used by individuals when they learn new information. Because learning is a process, diminished capacity with any single resource can impact other resources. Thus, in the case of texting/posting, students’ attention can be divided, which can distract attention from on-task behavior. In turn, information processed in working/short-term memory may be incomplete or inaccurate, which could lead to inaccurate or insufficient storage of information in long-term memory. A variety of studies outside of the educational setting provide evidence that texting/posting can impede information processing. For instance, Just, Keller, and Cynkar (2008) found that simulated mobile telephone conversations disrupted driving performance by diverting attention away from the task of driving. Other researchers found that drivers talking on a mobile phone experienced visual distractions, such as failing to notice important visual cues like traffic lights or the environment surrounding road intersections (Trbovich & Harbluk, 2003). In general, these researchers concluded that ‘‘distracting cognitive tasks compete for drivers’ attentional resources’’ (Harbluk, Noy, Trbovich, & Eizenman, 2007, p. 378). Given the evidence surrounding dangers associated with using mobile devices while driving, many states now have laws penalizing drivers who text behind the wheel. Although not life-threatening in the classroom, texting/posting produces negative consequences for students and instructors. Burns and Lohenry (2010) found that both students and instructors identified mobile phone use as a distraction in class, and Campbell (2006) found that students and instructors perceived the ringing of cell phones in class as a problem. Although texting is considerably more covert than actual telephone conversations, a growing body of literature suggests that it is equally problematic. Kraushaar and Novak (2010) explored connections between classroom laptop usage and course achievement. The authors recruited students who voluntarily installed activity-monitoring software onto their laptops. This software recorded what programs were running and the times that each program was in use. Kraushaar and Novak developed a rubric to classify programs as productive or distractive 236 J. H. Kuznekoff and S. Titsworth Downloaded by [116.227.252.224] at 01:43 26 February 2014