Cell Phones in Schools

1. Cell Phones in Schools • Moderator: • Eric Dubow, PhD, Research Professor, University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research; Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Bowling Green State University; edubow@bgsu.edu • Panelists: • Madeleine George, PhD, Post-Doctoral Research Assistant, Psychological Sciences, Purdue University; georg107@purdue.edu • Arnold Glass, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Rutgers University; aglass@psych.rutgers.edu Digital Media and Developing Minds Conference, Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, Long Island, NY, October 17, 2018.

2. Cell Phone Bans in Schools? • In 2017, nearly 79% of people in the U.S. from ages 12 to 17 had a smartphone, up from 62% three years earlier, according to market research firm eMarketer. In France, 86% of people in that age range had a smartphone in 2017, up from 59% three years earlier. • September 2018, a new French law will ban students from preschool to age 15 from using smartphones on school grounds. • France’s Education Minister: “We want children to rediscover the real, that connection to the concrete, to nature, to do doing things with their hands, to contact with other human beings,” Mr. Blanquer said. • New York City banned student cellphones in public schools for a decade, but ended the unevenly enforced rule in 2015 because of complaints from parents who wanted to be able to reach their children. (WSJ, August 13, 2018, “France Takes On Cellphone Addiction With a Ban in Schools”)

3. 79% of US youth, 12-17, have smartphones • 44% of teens say they often check for messages or notifications as soon as they wake up • 57% feel they often or sometimes have to respond to messages from other people immediately • 31% of teens say they lose focus in class because they are checking their cellphone • 42% say they feel anxious when they do not have their cell phone • 25% say they feel lonely when they do not have their cell phone Adolescent Cell Phone Use Pew, August 22, 2018: interviews with 1,058 parents who belong to the panel and have a teen ages 13 to 17, as well as interviews with 743 teens

4. Thoughts from Principals • Semi-Rural High School, Midwest University Town, AP Participation Rate 21%, Minority Enrollment 17%, FRL 33%, Rank 152/822, Approx. 830 students • Policy: • We allow cell phones and electronic devices in all common areas. In addition, we allow them in classrooms where a teacher has a green sign of "Yes". Many teachers do not allow them at all and they have a red sign stating "No". Because we do not have a one to one computer ratio for each student, student cell phones substitute for computers for electronic textbooks, assignments, and classroom management tools such as Google Classroom (the high school equivalent to Blackboard). We have electronic vocabulary assignments and multiple other uses accessed by the student's cell phone. Most students access their Mathematics Books through their phone/device. • Concerns: • One of my few concerns is academic integrity and teachers enforcing this policy consistently. It is always the human element that is the weakness in our policy. We see university students accessing everything from their phones and devices, we do not want our students to be at a disadvantage when they matriculate to a university. We give up some control by our policy, but teachers must manage this wisely. We have a few that do not.

5. Thoughts from Principals • Suburban High School, Outside of a Midwest City (300,000), AP Participation Rate 49%, Minority Enrollment 21%, FRL 23%, Rank 50/822, Approx. 1,100 students • Policy: • We have no official cell phone policy other than they are permitted unless the teacher instructs otherwise. A growing number of teachers ask students to put phones in some type of holder at the front of the classroom before the bell rings. (In the era of 1-1 Chromebooks, the cell phone is truly not needed for any academic purpose.) We have found that students have "burn" phones that they put in the holders and keep their real phones on their person. This can be to communicate with friends or to cheat. Eliminating phones doesn't eliminate distractions. Even with software to allow teachers to monitor which tabs are open on students' computer screens, they still find ways to keep chats open. • Concerns: • My personal opinion is that the cell phone needs to stay in the locker (or some alternative). It is a pipe dream at this point because students are so dependent upon them, and parents are no better. They text their students constantly throughout the day. I would eliminate them because nearly every news flash that comes up on their phones is negative and there is a substantial amount of bullying that takes place on social media. These days, if a fight breaks out, no one tries to help...they just get their phones out and start recording. • I've been looking into Yondr pouches which have become increasingly more popular in court rooms and concerts. They allow a person to keep their phone, but not use it until it is unlocked. I doubt I will move forward with it because the company endorses a phone free zone for the school, which, as I mentioned, is probably not currently possible in our community.

6. Thoughts from Principals • Suburban High School, Outside of a Midwest City (300,000), AP Participation Rate 38%, Minority Enrollment 14%, FRL 11%, Rank 71/822, Approx. 1,400 students • Policy (excerpts): • Students may use electronic devices (EDs) before and after school, during after school activities (e.g. extra-curricular activities) and at school-related functions as long as they do not create a distraction, disruption or otherwise interfere with the educational environment. Additionally, students in grades 6-8 may use EDs during lunch break. High school students are permitted to use EDs in-between classes and during lunch break. Devices are to remain inaudible at all times during the school day; ringers must be silenced, headphones must be used as needed and students are not to talk on the phone. Use of EDs, except approved educational devices, at any other time is prohibited and they must be powered completely off (i.e. not just placed into vibrate or silent mode) and stored out of sight • Students using their own electronic devices on school property or at a school-sponsored activity must use only the "Guest" wireless Internet access provided by the District. The "Guest" wireless Internet access is filtered so that students cannot access inappropriate materials during the school day or on school property. • Students are prohibited from using EDs to capture, record or transmit the words (i.e. audio) and/or images (i.e., pictures/video) of any student, staff member or other person in the school or while attending a school-related activity, without express prior notice and explicit consent for the capture, recording or transmission of such words or images. • Students are prohibited from using an ED in any way that might reasonably create in the mind of another person an impression of being threatened, humiliated, harassed, embarrassed or intimidated. See Policy 5517.01 – Bullying and Other Forms of Aggressive Behavior. In particular, students are prohibited from using their EDs to: (1) transmit material that is threatening, obscene, disruptive or sexually explicit or that can be construed as harassment or disparagement of others based upon their race, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation/transgender identity), age, disability, religion or political beliefs; and (2) send, share, view or possess pictures, text messages, emails or other materials of a sexual nature (i.e., sexting) in electronic or any other form. Violation of these prohibitions shall result in disciplinary action. Furthermore, such actions will be reported to local law enforcement and child services as required by law.

7. Thoughts from Principals • Suburban Junior High School and High School, Outside of a Midwest City (300,000), AP Participation Rate 74%, Minority Enrollment 17%, Rank 5/822, Approx. 450 students (Grades 7-12) • Policy: • We are a one-to-one school where each student is issued a school laptop. We have a very robust Acceptable Use Policy but getting students to focus requires a lot of policing by teachers. We have a no cell phone policy during the day. Students can use them at lunch. • Our art department was the first to utilize laptops 15 years ago through classes like Digital Photography and Graphic Design. Anecdotally, they would report a greater interest in technology free art projects. • Concerns: • We have had fewer cell phones in recent years but I think that it’s due to the accessibility of text, internet, and games via their laptops. Teachers do complain about the amount of screen time students have at school.

8. Thoughts from Principals • Urban High School, Midwest City (300,000), AP Participation Rate 19%, Minority Enrollment 58%, FRL 93%, “Unranked”, Approx. 930 students • District-Wide Policy: • Due to the disruption that electronic device use causes during the course of the school day, the following DISTRICT-WIDE guidelines have been developed. Classroom use may be permitted by individual teachers for educational purposes. Said policies will be stated in the syllabus and posted in the classroom. Personal use is prohibited during instructional time. Personal use is only permissible between classes and during a student’s lunch hour. • When wearing ear buds, students must have one ear free from ear buds at all times. • Concerns: • I know they are a huge problem in general as some students just cannot part with them. Overall, they are a huge disruption in the learning process.

12. Student Cell Phone Use and Academic Achievement in Secondary Schools • Beland and Murphy (2015): London School of Economics and Political Science Study • Compared changes in test scores across and within 91 secondary schools before and after cell phone bans were introduced in Great Britain from 2000-2012 in 4 cities • National Pupil Database tracks all students • Following a ban, student test scores improved by end of compulsory schooling (age 16) by 6.41% of a standard deviation. • No significant gains in student performance if a ban is not widely complied with. • Effect is driven by the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils. • Students in the lowest quartile of prior achievement gain 14.23% of a standard deviation; students in the top quartile are unaffected

13. Lister-Landman, K., Domoff, S., & Dubow, E. F. (2017). The role of compulsive texting in adolescents' academic functioning. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6, 311-325. • 403 students • 211 females, 192 males • 211 8th graders (M 13.81 years, SD 0.53; 99 males and 112 females) and 192 11th graders (M 16.82 years, SD 0.48 year;93 males, 99 females) • 85% response rate • households with two parents (n 267, 68%) • primarily Caucasian (n 331, 83%)

15. Compulsive Texting? • Texting items on a 5-point scale • 1=never, 2=hardly ever, 3=sometimes, 4=most of the time, 5=always • Average score of 3.00 or higher: 7% of the sample • Equivalent to saying “sometimes” for every item • Average score of 4.00 or higher: 1% of the sample • Equivalent to saying “most of the time” for every item

16. Table 3 Correlations Among Frequency of Texting, Compulsive Texting, and Academic Adjustment Variables

17. Bradbury, S., Domoff, S. E., & Dubow, E. F. (in press). How do adolescents learn cyber-victimization coping skills? An examination of parent and peer coping socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. • 329 7th and 8th grade students in one public junior high school in a suburban area in the Midwest region of the U.S. • 49% male; 70% white • 19% of students at the school are eligible for free or reduced lunches • 92% response rate

19. Coping with Cyber-Bullying • Perceived peer coaching of coping strategies is more strongly related to actual coping than perceived parent strategies for: • Distraction (e.g., I keep my mind off it by exercising, playing video games, seeing friends, doing a hobby, watching TV) • Retaliation (e.g., Yell at that person through the internet, text messaging, or a cell phone to let off steam) • Seeking peer support (e.g., Ask another kid who had this problem what he or she did)

20. Adolescents’ phone ownership, social media use, and achievement Children and Screens Conference College of health and human services Department of Psychological sciences

21. Mobile phones and social media in the classroom • Does owning a mobile phone/having a social media account relate to academic achievement? • How about perceived problems with social media usage related to school? • How much are adolescents texting during school hours?

22. Representative sample of 2104 young adolescents (aged 10-15) in North Carolina George, MJ, Jensen, M, Russell, M, Gassman-Pines, A, Copeland, W, Hoyle, R, and Odgers, CL. (under review). Young adolescents’ digital technology use, impairments, and outcomes in a representative sample

23. Access to mobile phones and social media begins early

24. Do adolescents who own a mobile phone have poorer achievement and adjustment? .07 .05

25. Do adolescents with social media accounts have poorer achievement and adjustment? -.04 -.08 -.09 .18 .17 .08 .06 -.05

26. Do phones/social media use impair functioning in and out of the classroom? • 91% felt at least occasional 1+ perceived impairment • 42% often felt 1+ perceived impairment • 26% perceived online to offline spillover problems • 10% felt nervous about going to school due to social media use • 4% got in trouble at school due to social media use • Perceived impairment and spillover consistently linked to achievement and wellbeing

27. Getting in trouble at school due to social media use is linked to broad adjustment problems -.07 -.04 -.06 -.11 -.14 -.13 .29 .28 .12 .10

28. Who is more likely have school problems due to phone/social media use? • Girls • 13% vs 7% of boys felt nervous • 5% vs 3% of boys got in trouble • Black adolescents and poor adolescents • 7% of Black vs 3% of White adolescents got in trouble at school • 6% with free/reduced lunch vs 3% not-disadvantaged got in trouble at school

29. Current directions: BlackBerry project School hours avg ~100 texts

30. Thank You georg107@purdue.edu, madeleine.george@alumni.duke.edu

31. The Course-Embedded Experimental Paradigm -> • To test factors that may influence exam performance, a within-student, within-question, design counter-balanced across the two sections is always employed. • Question sets contain four or more (usually multiple-choice) questions such that all of their answers are implied by the same fact statement or principle. • Online pre-lesson question during 48 hours prior to relevant lecture • Classroom post-lesson question shortly after slide with answer • Online review question a week after lecture • Unit Exam question • Final Exam question

32. Assessing the Effect of Dividing Attention in the Classroom • Two sections of a course met Tuesdays and Thursdays back-to-back. • On Tuesdays, except for answering classroom questions, cell phones, tablets, and laptops were banned from one section. • On Thursdays the electronic devices were banned from the other section.

33. The use of an electronic device for a nonacademic purpose during class reduces exam performance for corresponding final exam questions from 87% to no more than 80% The effect of dividing attention is insidious because it is long-term. It doesn’t affect classroom performance but subsequent exam performance. * *

34. The use of electronic devices for nonacademic purposes during class also reduces exam performance for students in the class who did not use electronic devices. * * * *

35. An increasing number of students receive no benefit from online homework, incredibly doing more poorly on exam questions than pre-lesson questions, reducing exam performance from 86% to 77%

36. In the past decade, the percent of students who receive no benefit from homework has increased from 14% to 55%