08832323.2011.622814
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
On the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic
Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From a Survey
of Faculty and Students
William M. Baker , Edward J. Lusk & Karyn L. Neuhauser
To cite this article: William M. Baker , Edward J. Lusk & Karyn L. Neuhauser (2012) On
the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From
a Survey of Faculty and Students, Journal of Education for Business, 87:5, 275-289, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.622814
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.622814
Published online: 05 Jun 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2247
View related articles
Citing articles: 14 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:04
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 275–289, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.622814
On the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic
Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From a Survey
of Faculty and Students
William M. Baker
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA
Edward J. Lusk
State University of New York, Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, New York; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA
Karyn L. Neuhauser
Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas, USA
The authors investigated faculty and student perceptions regarding the use of cell phones
and other electronic devices in the classroom. Students differed markedly from faculty, with
students exhibiting much greater acceptance of in-class use of technology. Among students, the
authors found that gender affected perceptions. Specifically, male students were more accepting
of in-class use of technology than were female students. Also, graduate students were more
disturbed by off-task use of laptop computers in class than their undergraduate counterparts.
This research should be of interest to postsecondary educators and administrators in attempting
to bridge the student-faculty generation gap, and in formulating policies regarding the use of
electronic devices in the classroom.
Keywords: cell phones, cell-phone policies, laptops, MP3 players, students versus faculty,
technology
For more than five decades, educators have known that electronic devices are essential elements of education in business
(American Accounting Association, 1960). Transistor radios
gave way to portable audio cassette players (e.g., the Sony
Walkman), which subsequently gave way to today’s MP3
players (e.g., the Apple iPod). Laptop and netbook computers have made computer technology more portable and more
affordable for today’s students. Bulky paper date books, address books, and scheduling calendars have been replaced
by personal digital assistants (PDAs), and cell phones have
been ubiquitous on college campuses for at least a decade
(“Prime numbers,” 2000). Smart phones function not only as
cell phones but also offer many MP3, laptop, and PDA features in one device. Today, there is no doubt that electronic
Correspondence should be addressed to William M. Baker, Appalachian
State University, Department of Accounting, 3112 Raley Hall, Walker COB,
Boone, NC 28608, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
devices are commonplace across all college campuses. But
should the use of these electronic devices be commonplace
in the classroom? This research seeks to shed light on that
question.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pedagogical Help—Or Hindrance?
Educators are constantly seeking ways to improve the learning experience for students, so it is no surprise that most of the
research concerning electronic devices in the classroom focuses on pedagogical enhancements. As early as 1983 (Technology Section), Clarkson University provided computers for
students and expected students to routinely use them. In the
mid-1990s, schools such as Wake Forest University began to
develop and implement strategic plans that included personal
computers for students (Brown, Burg, & Dominick, 1998),
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
276
W. M. BAKER ET AL.
arguing that they were necessary for collaborative learning
and computer literacy.
Today, most pedagogical research concerning laptops focuses on whether they do, indeed, offer pedagogical advantages. For example, Brown et al. (1998), Brown and Petitto
(2003), and Hall and Elliott (2003) attempt to convince all
business-faculty members that classroom instruction using
laptops is practically a necessity, whereas Elwood, Changchit, and Cutshall (2006) observed that, although laptop usage may be ubiquitous, programs and strategies for using
laptops in the classroom are not. Elwood et al. developed a
model that suggests that whether students embrace the use
of laptops depends on three factors: (a) perceived usefulness,
(b) perceived ease of use, and (c) perceived change. Although
the model appears to address the central issues, the authors
noted that its practical applications are limited to use as a
basis for discussion. No indication as to how to implement
the model, or consistently measure the effects of its three
factors, is provided.
Skolnik and Puzo (2008) studied students and faculty who strongly indicated that laptop computers enhance
instruction—mainly by enhancing spreadsheet skills and providing the opportunity to record notes electronically—but
found that laptops in the classroom may increase academic
dishonesty, and on average, 15% of students lose focus on
class topics and drift away to other computer applications.
Lectures accompanied by PowerPoint slides most often resulted in off-task activities, suggesting that passive learning
creates the greatest opportunity for students to be distracted
by the laptop technology. Fried (2008) pointed out that, in a
number of cases reported in the popular press, faculty members and universities have sought to prohibit or restrict laptop
use in the classroom. In her research she found that students using laptops frequently engage in multitasking, but
student learning—as measured by self-reported understanding of course material and overall course performance—is
negatively affected, and laptop use is distracting to fellow
students. Hembrooke and Gay (2003) focused solely on the
effects of multitasking using laptops, and also concluded that
laptop use decreases learning in the college classroom. Wurst,
Smarkola, and Gaffney (2008) reached a similar conclusion
when studying honors and nonhonors college students.
There is less research concerning the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages of other electronic devices. However,
Kulesza, DeHondt, and Nezlek (2010) argued that reliance on
contemporary technologies in the classroom does not guarantee a better learning experience and may actually result in
decreased student interest in learning, excessive dependence
on technology, lower student engagement, and increased distraction, at least for some students. Bugeja (2008) argued
that although new technologies—including cell phones, laptops, music players, and game consoles—keep individuals
connected, they also keep them constantly distracted. Furthermore, he suggested that the new challenge to academia
lies in the pervasive unwillingness to do anything about it.
Wagner (2005) argued that laptop and notebook computers
and cell phones are the most important hardware issue on
most campuses these days and points out the potential for
these devices to encourage or enable cheating, interfere with
deeper learning, and inhibit critical thinking and effective
communication.
Braguglia (2008) conducted a survey on cell phone use
on college campuses. However, her work differs from ours
in that (a) her sample consisted of only 84 undergraduate
business majors at a single university and (b) her survey
was much shorter, focused only on cell phone use, and in
many cases focused on different aspects of cell phone use.
Interestingly, in the two instances in which her study overlaps
with ours, her findings are quite different. For instance, she
found that 45% of students reported spending more than 4 hr
a day on their cell phone whereas we found that only 19%
of undergraduates reported spending more than 3 hr a day
on their cell phone. Also, 54% of her respondents reported
using their cell phone in every class whereas only 31% of
undergraduate students in our survey reported use in almost
every class.
When it comes to MP3 players, existing research has focused on the advantages and disadvantages of podcasting.
Students seem to place some importance on the availability of podcast recordings of class lectures (Guertin, Bodek,
Zappe, & Kim, 2007). McKinney, Dyck, and Luber (2009)
concluded that students learn more from a podcast (that they
can view more than once) than they do with a one-time
lecture—but this additional learning only occurs when the
students take notes during the podcast (as they would in
class) and view the podcast more than once.
Overall, the research on technology in the classroom is
inconclusive and still in the early phase despite its seeming
importance due to the large role it now plays in our everyday
lives, particularly in the lives of the under-25 crowd. This
research sets out to fill some of the gaps in the literature,
provide up-to-date information, and offer practical guidance
for handling the use of technology in the classroom.
Faculty–Student Differences
When it comes to cell phones, research concerning the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages is still quite new
and inconclusive. End, Worthman, Mathews, and Wetterau
(2010) used an experimental design to show that a ringing
cell phone impairs student performance. Both groups of test
subjects watched an instructional video, took notes on the
video, and then took a multiple-choice test over material presented in the video. One group’s viewing of the video was
interrupted by a ringing cell phone whereas the other group’s
was not. Students in the ringing condition group were significantly more likely to have omitted information in their notes
and were significantly less likely to give the correct answer
on the test.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
According to Bugeja (2007), some instructors have
outlawed electronic devices in their classrooms with positive
results. Bugeja argued that soon all faculty members will
include policies regarding the in-class use of electronic
devices on their syllabi. However, Gilroy (2003) argued that
the opinions of faculty regarding the use of cell phones in
the classroom are quite diverse, with some faculty members
wishing to ban them and others feeling that even guidelines
on cell phone use are overly restrictive and unnecessary. It
seems that whether and which aspects of cell phone usage
are disruptive is unclear, and we believe students and faculty
likely differ in their opinions on this matter. To understand
these issues, it is important to carefully investigate these
differences in perceptions.
In a study focusing on young people ages 11–17 years
and their parents, Devitt and Roker (2009) found that parents
and children believe cell phones are essential for keeping
in touch with each other. Similarly, Bauman (2009) found
that college students who use electronic devices to keep in
touch with their family are extremely satisfied with that approach, and that these students tend to be more successful
academically. In addition, Manthe (2009) found that they
adjust better to college life and are less likely to drop out,
whereas Quan-Hasse (2007) concluded that electronic social
interaction is entrenched in such students’ lives and therefore,
when teachers prohibit the use of electronic devices during
class time, students may think teachers are unfair. Obringer
and Coffey’s (2007) survey found that 84% of American high
schools have a written policy on cell phone use and 76% do
not permit cell phone use by students. Unlike elementary and
secondary schools, most universities have seemingly been
slow to develop cell phone use policies, presumably because
college students are viewed as adults who can wisely govern
their own use of this technology. However, when undergraduate students in a business ethics and corporate responsibility course at Western Carolina University were required to
design a student code of professional ethics as a semester
project, the students chose to include a section on the use of
technology and to provide within that section, guidelines on
the use of cell phones (Willey and Burke, 2011).
Prensky (2001) provided a rationale for the inherent differences in perspective between students and faculty. Even if
faculty members regularly use electronic devices, because
they are from an older generation that did not grow up
depending upon such devices, they are digital immigrants.
Members of the millennial generation1—which encompasses
the majority of today’s students—are digital natives. Although digital immigrants know how to use electronic devices, digital natives are so accustomed to such devices that
they have essentially become similar to bodily appendages,
and digital natives feel that attempts to remove these appendages at any time are irrational or wrong. Domitrek and
Raby (2008) explored differences among teachers, administrators, and students from Prensky’s viewpoint and found
that students view electronic devices as (a) essential ele-
277
ments of social life, (b) necessary at all times for safety, and
(c) integral factors in everyday life. Teachers—even if they
qualify as digital immigrants—view electronic devices as
take-it-or-leave-it devices that are unnecessary in the classroom. Students are troubled by inconsistencies demonstrated
by teachers; they witness teachers using cell phones in other
areas where they are forbidden (e.g., hospitals), and see them
using MP3 players while they work. Also, by and large, administrators are neither digital immigrants nor digital natives,
and their views are different from teachers and students. In
short, most students are digital natives, most teachers are digital immigrants, and most administrators are neither. Ironically, though, it is the administrators who create most of
the policies forbidding electronic devices in the classroom,
without ever consulting students or teachers.
One of the most comprehensive studies of cell phone use
in the college classroom was done by Campbell (2006), who
examined the perceptions of faculty and students across all
college disciplines and majors regarding policies banning
cell phones in classrooms, ringing of cell phones during
class, complaints regarding cell phone use during class, and
the likelihood of cheating using mobile phones. Campbell
reported that faculty and students “generally reported negative attitudes about mobile phones in college classrooms” (p.
286). Participants regarded ringing cell phones as a problem
that was serious enough to necessitate policies prohibiting
in-class use. Though not as commonly perceived as a problem, cell phones were sometimes also perceived as catalysts
for cheating or sources for complaints. Campbell linearly
combined several variables—including age, sex, and phone
usage—and explained differences between faculty and students. Further analysis led to reclassifying age in four quartiles. At this point, age was a dominant predictor variable.
Further, the first quartile, which corresponded to the millennial generation, was far less negative than the remaining
quartiles in its perceptions regarding ringing, antiuse policies, cheating, and complaining.
Garcia (2007) provided additional evidence that faculty
and students view electronic devices differently when it
comes to classroom use. She noted that most of today’s
students are members of the millennial generation and
argued that this generation needs sufficient gadgetry “to
stay in virtually uninterrupted contact with the world”
(p. 13). Millennials believe that all learning should be
inundated with technology. Students of this generation view
electronic devices as a must, and believe that the Internet is
like oxygen. Classroom education has long been criticized
for being disjointed from the real world. Millennials
believe that classrooms without an abundance of electronic
devices are even more unrealistic and artificial. This strong
disconnection is made even stronger when teachers do not
embrace technology 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
Garcia (2007) also noted that today’s faculty members,
most of whom are baby boomers, still believe lectures
can be useful, even though lectures benefit only slightly
278
W. M. BAKER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
from technology. Millennials view PowerPoint slides as
poor disguises for lecture-based instruction. Millennials
also hold a negative view of lecturers as authoritarian
figures or bosses and prefer instead to learn from mentors.
When faculty members set forth rules regarding the use of
electronic devices in the classroom, the authoritarian image
is deepened. In short, millennials believe that lectures create
a learning barrier, and banning technology in the classroom
reinforces that barrier. At the same time, faculty members
believe millennials lack discipline and maturity and thus
need rules regarding the use of electronic devices. It is
important that university professors as a profession, begin to
address and reconcile these competing viewpoints.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In recent years, researchers have begun to recognize the importance of studying the use of electronic devices in the
classroom. However, the research in this area is incomplete,
even though more and more students are bringing electronic
devices into the classroom. Thus, we sought to shed light
on the following research question using a comprehensive
survey:
Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of faculty
members and students regarding the use of electronic
devices in the classroom?
Theoretical research, whether based on generational differences (millennials vs. baby boomers), or familiarity with
the technologies (digital immigrants vs. digital natives), suggests that perceptual differences exist between students and
faculty members. The existing research suggests that faculty
may perceive electronic devices to be less appropriate in the
classroom than students, but no research exists that suggests
either students’ or faculty members’ perceptions are normatively superior. However, a first step is to determine whether
student perceptions do, indeed, differ from faculty perceptions. As such, the following research question was posed:
Research Question 2: Do perceptions regarding the use of
electronic devices in the classroom differ between students and faculty members?
Researchers have pointed out the importance of demographic variables and how they affect perceptions regarding
electronic devices. Manthe (2009) argued that electronic devices are strong catalysts in students’ adaptation to college
life, and that their effects as catalysts differ between males
and females. Campbell (2006) used a linear combination of
age and gender along with electronic device usage to study
perceptions of the appropriateness and misuse (via cheating)
of mobile phones. To fully understand faculty and student
perceptions, the effects of demographic variables such as
gender, age, and faculty rank on perceptions must be examined. This led to the third research question.
Research Question 3: Do demographic characteristics affect
perceptions concerning the use of electronic devices in
the classroom?
RESEARCH METHODS
To investigate perceptions concerning the use of electronic
devices, we used an eight-page survey consisting of 55
questions. The first page of this survey instrument contains
instructions for completing the survey. The survey itself
consists of four sections. Eight questions designed to collect
demographic data are contained in the first section. Data
about the availability of technology, and how often it is used,
are gathered using eight questions in the second section.
The demographics questions and the general questions
about technology usage each presented a number of possible
responses to the particular question. In the demographics
section, there were five questions for which we could not be
completely sure that our menu of choices encompassed every
possibility and therefore respondents were given a choice of
“other.” Respondents were expected to indicate their choice
by placing a check mark in the appropriate blank. The third
section of the survey is the longest, consisting of 33 questions,
and is designed to collect information from all participants on
their perceptions of the appropriateness of using technology
in the classroom. In this section, 30 questions required a response indicating whether the respondent agreed or disagreed
with the statement based on a 5-point Likert-type scale, two
questions offered a menu of choices (including a choice of
“other” in which the respondent could fill in the blank), and
a final open-ended question left space for the respondent to
indicate any additional comments they wished to make. The
Likert-type scale corresponded to responses of 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the fourth and final section,
students were asked to answer six questions about their usage
of technology in the classroom.2 These questions consisted
of a menu of choices and students were expected to indicate
their choice by placing a check mark in the appropriate
blank. With the exception of questions 13 and 14, which
are discussed only in the text, and question 49, which was
an open-ended question allowing respondents to make any
additional comments, all survey questions are shown in the
tables.3
We conducted seven distinct pilot tests, and the discriminant validity of the questionnaire was strong. Given that only
2 out of 978 questionnaires were eliminated due to illogical
response pair testing, the respondents displayed a uniform
understanding of the questionnaire.
This survey was administered to students and professors
at three public universities located in New York, North
Carolina, and Texas after it had been pilot-tested in all three
locations. At all three universities, students were asked
to complete the survey at the beginning of a regular class
period, whereas faculty surveys were distributed to faculty
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
mailboxes and via email asking them to complete and return
the survey within a two-week timeframe.4 Participation was
entirely voluntary and respondents received no credit or
other types of incentive for participating. The choice of the
number of classes at each university was designed to elicit a
total number of responses in the range of 250–350 students
from each university.
The appropriate sample size for the study was set so as to
accomplish two goals. First, the sample size provided a 95%
confidence interval with precision of 2% of the Likert-type
scale range; this was judged to be sufficient to provide useful demographic information. Second, the sample size was
designed to provide power of at least 80% for nondirectional
(i.e., conservative) two-sample mean difference tests. The
overall expectation based on these two goals was thus determined to be a sample size of at least 200 respondents per
university. This sample size was more than achieved for each
university, so the confidence intervals and the power of the
statistics are conservatively bounded at the design parameters
indicated previously.
RESULTS
We received 978 completed surveys—882 from students and
96 from faculty members. The totals reported for each question in the tables do not always equal the total number of respondents because some respondents returned surveys without answering certain questions or in a very small number
of instances chose more than one response when only one
response was permitted (e.g., on Likert-type scale questions).
Demographic Profile
Demographic data are reported in Table 1. The distribution across higher education institutions is roughly equal but
there are somewhat fewer respondents from the Texas school
(27.9% of the sample) and somewhat more from the North
Carolina school (39.6% of the sample), with the remaining
32.5% from the New York school. Not surprisingly, far more
students (882 total) than faculty (96 total) participated in
the survey. Of the 874 student participants responding to the
question about gender, 41.2% were women whereas 58.8%
were men. Of the 92 faculty participants responding to this
question, 31.5% were women whereas 65.6% were men. This
is not surprising given that the majority of business faculty
in higher education are men5 and that many business school
classes attract a larger number of men than women.
For the overall sample, about three quarters of the student
respondents were under 23 years old. However, the proportion of students in this age group was higher at the New York
school, which served only undergraduates, and considerably
lower (only about one half the sample) at the Texas school.
The vast majority of students for the full sample and at each
school were under 30. Not surprisingly, the age distribution
279
was quite different for faculty with most being over 40 (80%
of the full sample and 70–88% at each school). Only two
faculty members, or 2.1%, out of the 95 responding to this
question were under 30.
Of the students responding to the question about whether
they are undergraduate or graduate students, 85.9% indicated
undergraduate standing whereas 14.1% indicated graduate
standing. However, the proportions at the North Carolina
and Texas schools were actually about two thirds undergraduate versus one third graduate students whereas the New
York school sample was composed entirely of undergraduate
students because the business school there did not have a
graduate program.
About three quarters of the sample indicated their race
to be Caucasian whereas about 9% indicated Asian, 8.5%
indicated African American, and 5% indicated other races. A
much larger proportion of the North Carolina school sample
indicated Caucasian, 94%, whereas the New York school
sample had a larger proportion of Asian students, 16.6%,
and the Texas school sample had a much larger proportion of
African American students, 20.7%.
Students were also asked to self-report their overall grade
point average (GPA). For the full sample, 24% indicated a
GPA of 3.50 or higher, 37% reported a GPA of 3.00–3.49,
29% reported a GPA of 2.50–2.99, and 10% reported a GPA
of 2.00–2.49. Only 3 students out of 868 responding to this
question reported a GPA below 2.00. GPA distributions were
roughly similar across schools.
Access to and Use of Technology
Table 2 shows respondents’ access to and use of technology. Consistent with the notion that access to technology is
widespread, 90% of the respondents owned a laptop computer (Q9), 99% had a cell phone (Q11), and 83% owned
an MP3 player (Q15). Although laptop ownership was quite
common among faculty and students, faculty are much more
likely to own a desktop computer (79% of faculty vs. 30%
of students). Not surprisingly, faculty more often had access
to computers at work (75% of faculty vs. 19% of students)
whereas students more frequently indicated access to computers through school (22% of faculty vs. 56% of students).
Cell phone ownership was ubiquitous in both groups but
there is a larger proportion of faculty who did not own a cell
phone (5%) than students (
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
On the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic
Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From a Survey
of Faculty and Students
William M. Baker , Edward J. Lusk & Karyn L. Neuhauser
To cite this article: William M. Baker , Edward J. Lusk & Karyn L. Neuhauser (2012) On
the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From
a Survey of Faculty and Students, Journal of Education for Business, 87:5, 275-289, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.622814
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.622814
Published online: 05 Jun 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2247
View related articles
Citing articles: 14 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:04
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 275–289, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.622814
On the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic
Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From a Survey
of Faculty and Students
William M. Baker
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA
Edward J. Lusk
State University of New York, Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, New York; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA
Karyn L. Neuhauser
Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas, USA
The authors investigated faculty and student perceptions regarding the use of cell phones
and other electronic devices in the classroom. Students differed markedly from faculty, with
students exhibiting much greater acceptance of in-class use of technology. Among students, the
authors found that gender affected perceptions. Specifically, male students were more accepting
of in-class use of technology than were female students. Also, graduate students were more
disturbed by off-task use of laptop computers in class than their undergraduate counterparts.
This research should be of interest to postsecondary educators and administrators in attempting
to bridge the student-faculty generation gap, and in formulating policies regarding the use of
electronic devices in the classroom.
Keywords: cell phones, cell-phone policies, laptops, MP3 players, students versus faculty,
technology
For more than five decades, educators have known that electronic devices are essential elements of education in business
(American Accounting Association, 1960). Transistor radios
gave way to portable audio cassette players (e.g., the Sony
Walkman), which subsequently gave way to today’s MP3
players (e.g., the Apple iPod). Laptop and netbook computers have made computer technology more portable and more
affordable for today’s students. Bulky paper date books, address books, and scheduling calendars have been replaced
by personal digital assistants (PDAs), and cell phones have
been ubiquitous on college campuses for at least a decade
(“Prime numbers,” 2000). Smart phones function not only as
cell phones but also offer many MP3, laptop, and PDA features in one device. Today, there is no doubt that electronic
Correspondence should be addressed to William M. Baker, Appalachian
State University, Department of Accounting, 3112 Raley Hall, Walker COB,
Boone, NC 28608, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
devices are commonplace across all college campuses. But
should the use of these electronic devices be commonplace
in the classroom? This research seeks to shed light on that
question.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pedagogical Help—Or Hindrance?
Educators are constantly seeking ways to improve the learning experience for students, so it is no surprise that most of the
research concerning electronic devices in the classroom focuses on pedagogical enhancements. As early as 1983 (Technology Section), Clarkson University provided computers for
students and expected students to routinely use them. In the
mid-1990s, schools such as Wake Forest University began to
develop and implement strategic plans that included personal
computers for students (Brown, Burg, & Dominick, 1998),
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
276
W. M. BAKER ET AL.
arguing that they were necessary for collaborative learning
and computer literacy.
Today, most pedagogical research concerning laptops focuses on whether they do, indeed, offer pedagogical advantages. For example, Brown et al. (1998), Brown and Petitto
(2003), and Hall and Elliott (2003) attempt to convince all
business-faculty members that classroom instruction using
laptops is practically a necessity, whereas Elwood, Changchit, and Cutshall (2006) observed that, although laptop usage may be ubiquitous, programs and strategies for using
laptops in the classroom are not. Elwood et al. developed a
model that suggests that whether students embrace the use
of laptops depends on three factors: (a) perceived usefulness,
(b) perceived ease of use, and (c) perceived change. Although
the model appears to address the central issues, the authors
noted that its practical applications are limited to use as a
basis for discussion. No indication as to how to implement
the model, or consistently measure the effects of its three
factors, is provided.
Skolnik and Puzo (2008) studied students and faculty who strongly indicated that laptop computers enhance
instruction—mainly by enhancing spreadsheet skills and providing the opportunity to record notes electronically—but
found that laptops in the classroom may increase academic
dishonesty, and on average, 15% of students lose focus on
class topics and drift away to other computer applications.
Lectures accompanied by PowerPoint slides most often resulted in off-task activities, suggesting that passive learning
creates the greatest opportunity for students to be distracted
by the laptop technology. Fried (2008) pointed out that, in a
number of cases reported in the popular press, faculty members and universities have sought to prohibit or restrict laptop
use in the classroom. In her research she found that students using laptops frequently engage in multitasking, but
student learning—as measured by self-reported understanding of course material and overall course performance—is
negatively affected, and laptop use is distracting to fellow
students. Hembrooke and Gay (2003) focused solely on the
effects of multitasking using laptops, and also concluded that
laptop use decreases learning in the college classroom. Wurst,
Smarkola, and Gaffney (2008) reached a similar conclusion
when studying honors and nonhonors college students.
There is less research concerning the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages of other electronic devices. However,
Kulesza, DeHondt, and Nezlek (2010) argued that reliance on
contemporary technologies in the classroom does not guarantee a better learning experience and may actually result in
decreased student interest in learning, excessive dependence
on technology, lower student engagement, and increased distraction, at least for some students. Bugeja (2008) argued
that although new technologies—including cell phones, laptops, music players, and game consoles—keep individuals
connected, they also keep them constantly distracted. Furthermore, he suggested that the new challenge to academia
lies in the pervasive unwillingness to do anything about it.
Wagner (2005) argued that laptop and notebook computers
and cell phones are the most important hardware issue on
most campuses these days and points out the potential for
these devices to encourage or enable cheating, interfere with
deeper learning, and inhibit critical thinking and effective
communication.
Braguglia (2008) conducted a survey on cell phone use
on college campuses. However, her work differs from ours
in that (a) her sample consisted of only 84 undergraduate
business majors at a single university and (b) her survey
was much shorter, focused only on cell phone use, and in
many cases focused on different aspects of cell phone use.
Interestingly, in the two instances in which her study overlaps
with ours, her findings are quite different. For instance, she
found that 45% of students reported spending more than 4 hr
a day on their cell phone whereas we found that only 19%
of undergraduates reported spending more than 3 hr a day
on their cell phone. Also, 54% of her respondents reported
using their cell phone in every class whereas only 31% of
undergraduate students in our survey reported use in almost
every class.
When it comes to MP3 players, existing research has focused on the advantages and disadvantages of podcasting.
Students seem to place some importance on the availability of podcast recordings of class lectures (Guertin, Bodek,
Zappe, & Kim, 2007). McKinney, Dyck, and Luber (2009)
concluded that students learn more from a podcast (that they
can view more than once) than they do with a one-time
lecture—but this additional learning only occurs when the
students take notes during the podcast (as they would in
class) and view the podcast more than once.
Overall, the research on technology in the classroom is
inconclusive and still in the early phase despite its seeming
importance due to the large role it now plays in our everyday
lives, particularly in the lives of the under-25 crowd. This
research sets out to fill some of the gaps in the literature,
provide up-to-date information, and offer practical guidance
for handling the use of technology in the classroom.
Faculty–Student Differences
When it comes to cell phones, research concerning the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages is still quite new
and inconclusive. End, Worthman, Mathews, and Wetterau
(2010) used an experimental design to show that a ringing
cell phone impairs student performance. Both groups of test
subjects watched an instructional video, took notes on the
video, and then took a multiple-choice test over material presented in the video. One group’s viewing of the video was
interrupted by a ringing cell phone whereas the other group’s
was not. Students in the ringing condition group were significantly more likely to have omitted information in their notes
and were significantly less likely to give the correct answer
on the test.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
According to Bugeja (2007), some instructors have
outlawed electronic devices in their classrooms with positive
results. Bugeja argued that soon all faculty members will
include policies regarding the in-class use of electronic
devices on their syllabi. However, Gilroy (2003) argued that
the opinions of faculty regarding the use of cell phones in
the classroom are quite diverse, with some faculty members
wishing to ban them and others feeling that even guidelines
on cell phone use are overly restrictive and unnecessary. It
seems that whether and which aspects of cell phone usage
are disruptive is unclear, and we believe students and faculty
likely differ in their opinions on this matter. To understand
these issues, it is important to carefully investigate these
differences in perceptions.
In a study focusing on young people ages 11–17 years
and their parents, Devitt and Roker (2009) found that parents
and children believe cell phones are essential for keeping
in touch with each other. Similarly, Bauman (2009) found
that college students who use electronic devices to keep in
touch with their family are extremely satisfied with that approach, and that these students tend to be more successful
academically. In addition, Manthe (2009) found that they
adjust better to college life and are less likely to drop out,
whereas Quan-Hasse (2007) concluded that electronic social
interaction is entrenched in such students’ lives and therefore,
when teachers prohibit the use of electronic devices during
class time, students may think teachers are unfair. Obringer
and Coffey’s (2007) survey found that 84% of American high
schools have a written policy on cell phone use and 76% do
not permit cell phone use by students. Unlike elementary and
secondary schools, most universities have seemingly been
slow to develop cell phone use policies, presumably because
college students are viewed as adults who can wisely govern
their own use of this technology. However, when undergraduate students in a business ethics and corporate responsibility course at Western Carolina University were required to
design a student code of professional ethics as a semester
project, the students chose to include a section on the use of
technology and to provide within that section, guidelines on
the use of cell phones (Willey and Burke, 2011).
Prensky (2001) provided a rationale for the inherent differences in perspective between students and faculty. Even if
faculty members regularly use electronic devices, because
they are from an older generation that did not grow up
depending upon such devices, they are digital immigrants.
Members of the millennial generation1—which encompasses
the majority of today’s students—are digital natives. Although digital immigrants know how to use electronic devices, digital natives are so accustomed to such devices that
they have essentially become similar to bodily appendages,
and digital natives feel that attempts to remove these appendages at any time are irrational or wrong. Domitrek and
Raby (2008) explored differences among teachers, administrators, and students from Prensky’s viewpoint and found
that students view electronic devices as (a) essential ele-
277
ments of social life, (b) necessary at all times for safety, and
(c) integral factors in everyday life. Teachers—even if they
qualify as digital immigrants—view electronic devices as
take-it-or-leave-it devices that are unnecessary in the classroom. Students are troubled by inconsistencies demonstrated
by teachers; they witness teachers using cell phones in other
areas where they are forbidden (e.g., hospitals), and see them
using MP3 players while they work. Also, by and large, administrators are neither digital immigrants nor digital natives,
and their views are different from teachers and students. In
short, most students are digital natives, most teachers are digital immigrants, and most administrators are neither. Ironically, though, it is the administrators who create most of
the policies forbidding electronic devices in the classroom,
without ever consulting students or teachers.
One of the most comprehensive studies of cell phone use
in the college classroom was done by Campbell (2006), who
examined the perceptions of faculty and students across all
college disciplines and majors regarding policies banning
cell phones in classrooms, ringing of cell phones during
class, complaints regarding cell phone use during class, and
the likelihood of cheating using mobile phones. Campbell
reported that faculty and students “generally reported negative attitudes about mobile phones in college classrooms” (p.
286). Participants regarded ringing cell phones as a problem
that was serious enough to necessitate policies prohibiting
in-class use. Though not as commonly perceived as a problem, cell phones were sometimes also perceived as catalysts
for cheating or sources for complaints. Campbell linearly
combined several variables—including age, sex, and phone
usage—and explained differences between faculty and students. Further analysis led to reclassifying age in four quartiles. At this point, age was a dominant predictor variable.
Further, the first quartile, which corresponded to the millennial generation, was far less negative than the remaining
quartiles in its perceptions regarding ringing, antiuse policies, cheating, and complaining.
Garcia (2007) provided additional evidence that faculty
and students view electronic devices differently when it
comes to classroom use. She noted that most of today’s
students are members of the millennial generation and
argued that this generation needs sufficient gadgetry “to
stay in virtually uninterrupted contact with the world”
(p. 13). Millennials believe that all learning should be
inundated with technology. Students of this generation view
electronic devices as a must, and believe that the Internet is
like oxygen. Classroom education has long been criticized
for being disjointed from the real world. Millennials
believe that classrooms without an abundance of electronic
devices are even more unrealistic and artificial. This strong
disconnection is made even stronger when teachers do not
embrace technology 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
Garcia (2007) also noted that today’s faculty members,
most of whom are baby boomers, still believe lectures
can be useful, even though lectures benefit only slightly
278
W. M. BAKER ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
from technology. Millennials view PowerPoint slides as
poor disguises for lecture-based instruction. Millennials
also hold a negative view of lecturers as authoritarian
figures or bosses and prefer instead to learn from mentors.
When faculty members set forth rules regarding the use of
electronic devices in the classroom, the authoritarian image
is deepened. In short, millennials believe that lectures create
a learning barrier, and banning technology in the classroom
reinforces that barrier. At the same time, faculty members
believe millennials lack discipline and maturity and thus
need rules regarding the use of electronic devices. It is
important that university professors as a profession, begin to
address and reconcile these competing viewpoints.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In recent years, researchers have begun to recognize the importance of studying the use of electronic devices in the
classroom. However, the research in this area is incomplete,
even though more and more students are bringing electronic
devices into the classroom. Thus, we sought to shed light
on the following research question using a comprehensive
survey:
Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of faculty
members and students regarding the use of electronic
devices in the classroom?
Theoretical research, whether based on generational differences (millennials vs. baby boomers), or familiarity with
the technologies (digital immigrants vs. digital natives), suggests that perceptual differences exist between students and
faculty members. The existing research suggests that faculty
may perceive electronic devices to be less appropriate in the
classroom than students, but no research exists that suggests
either students’ or faculty members’ perceptions are normatively superior. However, a first step is to determine whether
student perceptions do, indeed, differ from faculty perceptions. As such, the following research question was posed:
Research Question 2: Do perceptions regarding the use of
electronic devices in the classroom differ between students and faculty members?
Researchers have pointed out the importance of demographic variables and how they affect perceptions regarding
electronic devices. Manthe (2009) argued that electronic devices are strong catalysts in students’ adaptation to college
life, and that their effects as catalysts differ between males
and females. Campbell (2006) used a linear combination of
age and gender along with electronic device usage to study
perceptions of the appropriateness and misuse (via cheating)
of mobile phones. To fully understand faculty and student
perceptions, the effects of demographic variables such as
gender, age, and faculty rank on perceptions must be examined. This led to the third research question.
Research Question 3: Do demographic characteristics affect
perceptions concerning the use of electronic devices in
the classroom?
RESEARCH METHODS
To investigate perceptions concerning the use of electronic
devices, we used an eight-page survey consisting of 55
questions. The first page of this survey instrument contains
instructions for completing the survey. The survey itself
consists of four sections. Eight questions designed to collect
demographic data are contained in the first section. Data
about the availability of technology, and how often it is used,
are gathered using eight questions in the second section.
The demographics questions and the general questions
about technology usage each presented a number of possible
responses to the particular question. In the demographics
section, there were five questions for which we could not be
completely sure that our menu of choices encompassed every
possibility and therefore respondents were given a choice of
“other.” Respondents were expected to indicate their choice
by placing a check mark in the appropriate blank. The third
section of the survey is the longest, consisting of 33 questions,
and is designed to collect information from all participants on
their perceptions of the appropriateness of using technology
in the classroom. In this section, 30 questions required a response indicating whether the respondent agreed or disagreed
with the statement based on a 5-point Likert-type scale, two
questions offered a menu of choices (including a choice of
“other” in which the respondent could fill in the blank), and
a final open-ended question left space for the respondent to
indicate any additional comments they wished to make. The
Likert-type scale corresponded to responses of 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the fourth and final section,
students were asked to answer six questions about their usage
of technology in the classroom.2 These questions consisted
of a menu of choices and students were expected to indicate
their choice by placing a check mark in the appropriate
blank. With the exception of questions 13 and 14, which
are discussed only in the text, and question 49, which was
an open-ended question allowing respondents to make any
additional comments, all survey questions are shown in the
tables.3
We conducted seven distinct pilot tests, and the discriminant validity of the questionnaire was strong. Given that only
2 out of 978 questionnaires were eliminated due to illogical
response pair testing, the respondents displayed a uniform
understanding of the questionnaire.
This survey was administered to students and professors
at three public universities located in New York, North
Carolina, and Texas after it had been pilot-tested in all three
locations. At all three universities, students were asked
to complete the survey at the beginning of a regular class
period, whereas faculty surveys were distributed to faculty
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:04 11 January 2016
CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
mailboxes and via email asking them to complete and return
the survey within a two-week timeframe.4 Participation was
entirely voluntary and respondents received no credit or
other types of incentive for participating. The choice of the
number of classes at each university was designed to elicit a
total number of responses in the range of 250–350 students
from each university.
The appropriate sample size for the study was set so as to
accomplish two goals. First, the sample size provided a 95%
confidence interval with precision of 2% of the Likert-type
scale range; this was judged to be sufficient to provide useful demographic information. Second, the sample size was
designed to provide power of at least 80% for nondirectional
(i.e., conservative) two-sample mean difference tests. The
overall expectation based on these two goals was thus determined to be a sample size of at least 200 respondents per
university. This sample size was more than achieved for each
university, so the confidence intervals and the power of the
statistics are conservatively bounded at the design parameters
indicated previously.
RESULTS
We received 978 completed surveys—882 from students and
96 from faculty members. The totals reported for each question in the tables do not always equal the total number of respondents because some respondents returned surveys without answering certain questions or in a very small number
of instances chose more than one response when only one
response was permitted (e.g., on Likert-type scale questions).
Demographic Profile
Demographic data are reported in Table 1. The distribution across higher education institutions is roughly equal but
there are somewhat fewer respondents from the Texas school
(27.9% of the sample) and somewhat more from the North
Carolina school (39.6% of the sample), with the remaining
32.5% from the New York school. Not surprisingly, far more
students (882 total) than faculty (96 total) participated in
the survey. Of the 874 student participants responding to the
question about gender, 41.2% were women whereas 58.8%
were men. Of the 92 faculty participants responding to this
question, 31.5% were women whereas 65.6% were men. This
is not surprising given that the majority of business faculty
in higher education are men5 and that many business school
classes attract a larger number of men than women.
For the overall sample, about three quarters of the student
respondents were under 23 years old. However, the proportion of students in this age group was higher at the New York
school, which served only undergraduates, and considerably
lower (only about one half the sample) at the Texas school.
The vast majority of students for the full sample and at each
school were under 30. Not surprisingly, the age distribution
279
was quite different for faculty with most being over 40 (80%
of the full sample and 70–88% at each school). Only two
faculty members, or 2.1%, out of the 95 responding to this
question were under 30.
Of the students responding to the question about whether
they are undergraduate or graduate students, 85.9% indicated
undergraduate standing whereas 14.1% indicated graduate
standing. However, the proportions at the North Carolina
and Texas schools were actually about two thirds undergraduate versus one third graduate students whereas the New
York school sample was composed entirely of undergraduate
students because the business school there did not have a
graduate program.
About three quarters of the sample indicated their race
to be Caucasian whereas about 9% indicated Asian, 8.5%
indicated African American, and 5% indicated other races. A
much larger proportion of the North Carolina school sample
indicated Caucasian, 94%, whereas the New York school
sample had a larger proportion of Asian students, 16.6%,
and the Texas school sample had a much larger proportion of
African American students, 20.7%.
Students were also asked to self-report their overall grade
point average (GPA). For the full sample, 24% indicated a
GPA of 3.50 or higher, 37% reported a GPA of 3.00–3.49,
29% reported a GPA of 2.50–2.99, and 10% reported a GPA
of 2.00–2.49. Only 3 students out of 868 responding to this
question reported a GPA below 2.00. GPA distributions were
roughly similar across schools.
Access to and Use of Technology
Table 2 shows respondents’ access to and use of technology. Consistent with the notion that access to technology is
widespread, 90% of the respondents owned a laptop computer (Q9), 99% had a cell phone (Q11), and 83% owned
an MP3 player (Q15). Although laptop ownership was quite
common among faculty and students, faculty are much more
likely to own a desktop computer (79% of faculty vs. 30%
of students). Not surprisingly, faculty more often had access
to computers at work (75% of faculty vs. 19% of students)
whereas students more frequently indicated access to computers through school (22% of faculty vs. 56% of students).
Cell phone ownership was ubiquitous in both groups but
there is a larger proportion of faculty who did not own a cell
phone (5%) than students (