Cell Phone Policy Research Articles

Cell Phone Use in American Civics and History Classrooms

The use of digital devices in K-12 classrooms has become increasingly contested with their ubiquity. This study examines policies governing cell phone use in elementary and secondary school civics, social studies, American government, and history classes in the United States. Cell phone policies implemented by teachers differ vastly across and even within schools. Data from an original national survey of civics and history teachers conducted by the Civic Education Research Lab at Georgetown University were used to examine cell phone policies nationwide. While there was near universal agreement among teachers about the importance of digital tools for learning, the propriety of using cell phones for instruction was hotly contested. Grade level and school characteristics, such as school size, Title I status, and one-to-one school programs, were better predictors of cell phone policies than teacher characteristics. Teachers with more years of experience were the most likely to institute strict cell phone policies. These findings indicate that there is no one-size-fits-all policy for cell phones and provide insights for teachers and schools for adapting workable strategies given the school context.

The cell phone quandary

Cell phones are used by almost everyone and have become an integral part of our daily life. They are an almost universal instrument for gathering and transmitting information. The amount of bacteria crawling on a typical cell phone has been a point of contention, although studies show that they contain at least 10 times the amount of bacteria found on most toilet seats. As medical workers in hospital and clinic settings, we use our cell phones extensively, for paging, texting, calling, and recreational activities; thus, the risk of contamination by pathogens is a legitimate issue. Cell phones in the operating room may give patients the impression that they are not the main priority or the center of care, in addition to being a potential source of infection. Cell phones also have been found to be the number-one productivity killer in workplaces, amongst a long list of other distractions. All workers must be fully aware of their Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance responsibilities and obligations, including the protection of health information, while using their cell phones at workplaces. On clinic or hospital grounds, reasonable diligence and strict adherence to cell phone policies may help us maintain greater safety, productivity, and professionalism, resulting in better service for our patients.

“Cell Phones Under the Table”: Meeting Students’ Needs to Reduce Off-Task Smartphone Use Through Faculty–Student Collaboration

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

Cell Phone Policy in a Public High School

Cell Phone Policy in a Public High School

Cell phone policies for the dental office

Cell phone policies for the dental office

Cell phone policies for the dental office

Cell phone policies for the dental office

Cell phone use policies in the college classroom: Do they work?

Abstract Our study examined the efficacy of lenient and restrictive cell phone policies. We expected that a lenient policy would be associated with lower quiz scores, greater anxiety, and lower GPA. Additionally, we expected students to self-report using their phones mostly for non-academic purposes. We gave one introductory psychology section a restrictive cell phone use policy while another section was given a lenient policy. We observed how often students used their phones during class in both conditions. At the end of the class period, students took a short quiz over the lecture material. Afterward, they were given a survey that measured demographics, attitudes about cell phone use in class, academic motivation, cell phone use domains, and anxiety. In the restrictive policy condition, students used their cell phones in class at a similar rate as in the lenient policy condition, suggesting that the restrictive cell phone policy was ineffective. Students operated their phones an average of about seven times during the 50-minute class period, mostly for non-academic purposes. Our results contribute to a body of literature showing that electronic devices distract students and decrease the efficacy of the learning environment.

NLRB Opinions on Social Media and Cell Phone Policies

The National Labor Relations Board continues to issue advisory opinions regarding the legality of common employer policies under the National Labor Relations Act, including two recent answers to questions on social media and cell phone use.

A behavioral economic analysis of media multitasking: Delay discounting as an underlying process of texting in the classroom

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the decision making process underlying texting in the classroom from a behavioral economic perspective. A sample of 136 undergraduate students completed a novel delay-discounting task involving a hypothetical scenario in which, after receiving a text message, they rated their likelihood of replying to the text message immediately versus waiting until the class is over to reply. The scenario presented several delays (ranged from 1 to 75 min) under two cell-phone-policy conditions (with and without a policy that banned in-class cell phone use). Participants also completed a behavioral assessment of impulsivity with a delay-discounting task involving hypothetical money and a self-reported assessment of the dispositional trait of impulsivity. The results show that the decrease in the likelihood of waiting to reply as a function of the delay was well described by a hyperboloid delay-discounting function. The rates of discounting were greater for students who self-reported higher frequencies of texting in the classroom as well as under the condition without the cell phone policy. Students who self-reported higher frequencies of texting in the classroom were more impulsive in both behavioral and self-reported measures of impulsivity. These results support the conclusion that the decision making underlying texting in the classroom can be well characterized using the delay-discounting paradigm and that texting in the classroom is fundamentally an impulsive choice, and that a behavioral economic approach is useful for investigating the decision-making process underlying texting in the classroom, and potentially other forms of media multitasking.

Student learning with permissive and restrictive cell phone policies: A classroom experiment

Student learning with permissive and restrictive cell phone policies: A classroom experiment

Noncompliance and dissent with cell phone policies: a psychological reactance theoretical perspective

ABSTRACTThis study employed Brehm’s psychological reactance theory (PRT) to understand why students do or do not choose to follow classroom cell phone policies. Results (N = 750) from this study demonstrate that when instructors discourage cell phone use for noninstructional reasons, students feel their autonomy has been threatened. These perceptions of freedom threat ultimately induce a reactance process, leading sequentially to negative cognitions and anger, which predict policy noncompliance. This reactance process is also predictive of students’ enactment of other uncivil classroom behaviors (i.e., instructional dissent). Theoretical implications are discussed, and practical suggestions are given for instructors hoping to increase cell phone policy compliance and limit reactance among students in the classroom.

The Effects of Cell Phone Use and Emotion‐regulation Style on College Students' Learning

SummaryCell phones are becoming an inevitable part of the classroom, but extant research suggests that using cell phones in the classroom impairs academic performance. The present study examined the impact of different cell phone policies on learning and emotion‐regulation style. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: cell phone usage allowed, cell phone possession allowed but without usage, cell phones removed, and a no‐instruction control group. All participants watched a 20‐minute lecture and were sent text messages to mimic classroom distractions. Afterward, participants took a multiple‐choice test and filled out questionnaires assessing their level of obsessiveness, nomophobia, and mindfulness. Participants who had their cell phone taken away performed best on the test with no other differences. None of the emotional‐regulation measures moderated the results. These findings provide important insight as to how cell phone policies can optimize learning in the classroom.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Calling in at work: Acute care nursing cell phone policies.

Calling in at work: Acute care nursing cell phone policies.

Dial D for Distraction: The Making and Breaking of Cell Phone Policies in the College Classroom

Cell phones are nearly ubiquitous in the college classroom. This study asks two primary questions regarding the making and breaking of in-class cell phone policies. In what manner are students using their phones and how can faculty members minimize the potential for phone-related distractions? To answer these questions we analyze original survey data from nearly 400 college students across multiple public and private universities to better understand the students' impulse to use their phones during class. Results from the survey demonstrate that more than 80% of students use their phone at least once per class and that students generally believe this to be an acceptable practice. These student data are supplemented with survey data from close to 100 college faculty to evaluate a range of policy options for dealing with this issue. From this analysis, it is clear that the policies most frequently implemented by instructors are typically perceived by students as the least effective.

Do You Need a Cell Phone Policy?

Do You Need a Cell Phone Policy?

Calling off Cell Phones

IN APRIL 2006 New York City school district added to its 26-page code of student conduct, which included ban on beepers, pagers, and other personal communications devices, prohibition against bringing cell phones to school authorization. On 13 July 2006, Chancellor's Parent Advisory Council and eight parents of children in New York City public schools filed suit in state court, challenging cell phone rule. While recognizing that cell phones in school could substantially disrupt learning process, plaintiffs claimed that enforcing ban on use, not possession, of cell phones within schools would be both sufficient and appropriate to address this problem. They based their claim on New York law that provides for judicial review of actions of administrative agencies and on constitutional doctrine concerning parents' liberty to rear--including communicate with--their They sought declaratory relief, injunction against the wholesale confiscation of cell phones found in possession of New York City public school students, and attorney's fees. On 7 May 2007, New York trial court judge Lewis Bart Stone issued detailed decision in favor of defendant district. (1) As preliminary matter, Judge Stone cleared away various procedural impediments to prompt decision on merits. For example, he denied both sides' requests for factual investigations, concluding that additional information was not necessary for fair resolution of issue. Similarly, he denied two applications to submit amicus curiae (friend of court) briefs, pointing out what he perceived to be abuse of this privilege in recent years. Judge Stone observed: Unfortunately, process has deteriorated and some of those claiming to be amici are really enemies posing in friend's clothing. As for New York's law that provides for judicial review of actions of administrative agencies, Judge Stone identified applicable standard as whether disputed rule has rational basis. After pointing out dizzying pace at which cell phones continue to evolve beyond their original format as mere portable telephones, so that they now offer e-mail capacity, Internet access, Bluetooth capability, and built-in cameras, Judge Stone concluded that rule did have rational basis: problems of enforcing plaintiffs' proffered alternative of ban on cell phone use. Comparing schools to judicial institution, which has extensive resources for security and whose clientele are adults, rather than children who lack mature self-control, Judge Stone observed that federal courts had banned possession of cell phones within their buildings and that his New York court's ban on use of cell phones had not stopped distractions and disturbances that these devices cause in courtroom. Judge Stone found additional rational basis in need for rule to address dynamism of cell phone technology. He explained that allowing phones with only basic telephone features would pose offsetting problems for both school personnel and parents, at least in an urban public school system of million children. While recognizing that parents and children have come to increasingly rely on cell phones, Judge Stone observed that plaintiffs had not proposed a practically viable alternative which could be appropriately ordered by court to be applicable to all of schools in New York City to ban only use but permit possession of cell phones in school, and he pointed to special-circumstances exception provided in without authorization condition of district's cell phone policy. Finally and significantly, Judge Stone made clear that proper forum for weighing and choosing among alternative policy choices is legislature or school board, not judiciary. With regard to constitutional claims, Judge Stone first clarified that plaintiffs' challenge was limited to modality of parent/child communication and that neither State nor Federal constitutions include any express 'constitutional right to bear cell phones. …

No Phone Zone

This article reports the results of a survey of cell phone policies in university libraries conducted over a three-month period in 2005. The authors sought information about the libraries' problems regarding cell phone use and attendant noise by students and other library users. The authors began with an 18-question survey of one hundred libraries, with at least one library from every state. When the response was low, the authors expanded their research by looking at every library Web page that had the word “University” in its title. Finally, they contacted several larger libraries that had policies banning cell phone use altogether to see whether they worked. Most respondents found cell phone noise a problem. Most respondents indicated that public service staff and security officers enforced the policies; comments from the original survey were insightful concerning compliance solutions.

Technological Tools — Or Weapons?

CHRISTOPHER Klump is a student at Nazareth Area High School, which is in northeastern Pennsylvania. The high school has a policy that permits students to carry, but not use or display, cell phones during school hours. On 17 March 2004, Christopher's cell phone fell out of his pocket during a morning class. Considering the device displayed, his teacher enforced the policy by confiscating Christopher's cell phone. Later that day, assistant principal Margaret Grube and the teacher allegedly accessed Christopher's cell phone directory, found the names of nine other students, and used its keys to call the other students to determine whether any of them was violating the school's cell phone policy. (1) They also accessed Christopher's text messages and voice mail. In doing so, they used the cell phone's America Online Instant Messaging feature to converse, without identifying themselves as anyone other than Christopher, with his younger brother. They then allegedly deleted their phone calls and messages from the cell phone's memory card. They returned the cell phone to Christopher at the end of the school day without further discussion. On March 22, Christopher's parents had a meeting with the teacher, assistant principal, and assistant superintendent about the events of the 17th. During the meeting, assistant principal Grube told them that, while she was in possession of the cell phone, Christopher received a text message from his girlfriend requesting that he get her a f***in' tampon. The term tampon, Grube later averred, is slang for a large marijuana cigarette, thus prompting her subsequent actions with the cell phone to investigate possible drug use at school. At the next meeting of the board of education, the parents inquired about Christopher's situation, but the board issued a no-comment response. The parents hired an attorney, who wrote the superintendent demanding that Grube and the teacher be disciplined. When reporters for the local newspaper and for the Philadelphia NBC affiliate television station contacted him for confirmation of the parents' story, the superintendent allegedly told them that the investigation of Christopher for drug use or distribution was ongoing. On or about 1 July 2004, Christopher's parents filed suit in state court on his behalf against the teacher, the assistant principal, the superintendent, and the district. Their suit consisted of a whole host of claims, including alleged violations of Pennsylvania's wiretapping statute and the Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause. On 29 July 2004, the district defendants had the case removed to federal court and, once there, filed a motion for dismissal. On 30 March 2006, the federal district court issued its decision in response to the dismissal motion. (2) First, the court granted the motion with regard to two of the three claims under Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, ruling that Christopher lacked standing under the act for the claim concerning the alleged interception and use of the instant messages. The right to sue under this provision of the act belongs only to the person with whom the communication originated (in this case, Christopher's brother), not with the recipient of the message (i.e., Christopher). On the other hand, the claim based on the alleged access to Christopher's stored voice mail and text messages survived the dismissal motion, because the court interpreted the applicable section of the act as providing standing for both the sender and the recipient. Christopher's claim premised on the alleged accessing of his cell phone directory and voice mail log failed because these sources are not communications and thus are not covered under the act. Second, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claim that the superintendent was liable for slander per se and that he had also engaged in invasion of Christopher's common law right to privacy by disseminating statements that portrayed him in a false light to his classmates and the community at large. …

Driving distracted while in your employ: Liability involving cell phones.

This article provides an overview of potential liability to an employer arising out of employee cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle. It briefly describes cell phone technology and reviews in relevant part several prominent studies on the topic. Illustrated for comparison purposes are various statutes and legislative enactments or proposals addressing cell phone use in motor vehicles, as well as common law principles generally applicable to the same. Finally, considerations are identified to assist an employer in an analysis of the degree of risk imposed by employee cell phone use, a decision whether to implement a cell phone policy, and a determination of the content of any such policy.

Ban or bandwidth? Has your hospital changed its cell phone policy?

Ban or bandwidth? Has your hospital changed its cell phone policy?