thesis statement about using cellphones in school

The Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom Can Help Students Learn Better Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

It is undeniable that today’s world revolves around technology due to its growth over the past decades. Mobile phones as a part of technology have become increasingly common in modern society. Today, it is impossible to imagine an adolescent or an adult without a cell phone. Students have started to use mobile phones in classrooms, which has raised many concerns among teachers, schools’ authorities, and parents. While there are several disadvantages of the utilization of technology during classes, the advantages of it prevail.

The benefits of technology for students are evident. First, mobile phones can substitute textbooks and notebooks, which may have a positive impact on individuals’ health as they do not have to carry heavy bags to schools. Students can download learning materials in electronic form and use them during classes. Moreover, they can find the information faster and save time to perform other important tasks. Second, with the help of mobile phones, students can have access to their textbooks, lectures, and notes anywhere and at any time. They can read on the bus on their way to school, which may increase the time they dedicate to the analysis of the learning materials and help them to reflect on the topics of discussions.

Furthermore, students can use mobile phones as dictionaries in language classes. It may save their time and ensure that the long learning process does not discourage them. Also, they can download applications that are designed to assist in acquiring new language skills.

It is necessary to mention that students can use mobile phones as organizational or planning tools. They can plan their time based on the deadlines, arrange their activities and track their grades and performance in class. While many students use notebooks for such purposes, the utilization of mobile phones allows for having all the information in one place and ensuring that no important data is lost. Moreover, teachers can be involved in the organizational process too by sharing the necessary information about due dates and requirements via applications. It may improve teacher-student relationships and increase individuals’ performance in class.

There are several drawbacks associated with the use of mobile phones in the classroom. The primary one is that they can distract students from learning, as they may prefer to play games or use social networks. Moreover, individuals can become aggressive if the teachers or school authorities try to forbid the use of technology in class. To eliminate the possible negative outcomes, it is necessary for students to learn how to avoid distraction while working with mobile phones.

For example, they can delete unnecessary applications or restrict their use during classes. Apart from that, students can improve their performance by studying the factors that can cause distraction and avoiding them. Teachers and schools’ authorities should also consider investigating the benefits of the technology to prevent the establishment of unnecessary policies related to its use in the classroom.

The use of mobile phones in the classroom can improve student’s performance and help them to have better learning outcomes. It can save their time, prevent them from carrying heavy bags with textbooks and notebooks and increase the accessibility of course materials. The possible drawbacks of the use of technology in class are individuals’ distraction and aggression. However, students can eliminate the disadvantages of the utilization of mobile phones by avoiding the factors that can cause negative learning outcomes.

• Technology Integration Process in Education: Repton School in Dubai
• Computers Will Not Replace Teachers
• Mobile Phone Use and Driving: Modelling Driver Distraction Effects
• Apple MacBook Pro
• Moleskine Social Data Analysis
• Technology Leadership: School Personnel Management
• Education Redefined Under the Influence of the Internet
• The Effects of Integrating Mobile Devices with Teaching and Learning on Students’ Learning Performance
• Massive Open Online Courses
• Intelligent Tutoring Systems in Pittsburgh Urban Math Project
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, July 18). The Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom Can Help Students Learn Better. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-mobile-phones-in-the-classroom-can-help-students-learn-better/

"The Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom Can Help Students Learn Better." IvyPanda , 18 July 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-mobile-phones-in-the-classroom-can-help-students-learn-better/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom Can Help Students Learn Better'. 18 July.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom Can Help Students Learn Better." July 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-mobile-phones-in-the-classroom-can-help-students-learn-better/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom Can Help Students Learn Better." July 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-mobile-phones-in-the-classroom-can-help-students-learn-better/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom Can Help Students Learn Better." July 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-use-of-mobile-phones-in-the-classroom-can-help-students-learn-better/.

Why Cell Phones Should Be Allowed in Schools — 11 Reasons Based on 16 Research Studies

However, I think that cell phones can play a very beneficial role in a classroom, especially when used effectively. I’ve stretched the ‘rules’ in the past and let my students pull out their phones for various classroom lessons and activities, and I’m definitely glad I did!

If we don’t let kids use cell phones in the classroom, how will they ever learn to use them responsibly in a workplace? Every adult I know uses their phone all day every day. Let’s prepare kids for the real world. — Matthew B. Courtney, Ed.D. (@mbcourtneyedd) August 7, 2022

You can watch this video below. It contains a brief retelling of the article.

Cell Phones in School — Teachers’ Thoughts

Many teachers and parents are on the fence about whether to let students have cell phones in school . More and more teachers are beginning to see the potential learning benefits mobile phones can offer to their students and are advocating for gadget use in the classroom. In this video, Sam from New EdTech Classroom Why we should allow students to use cell phones in schools.

Below are what some teachers have shared about using mobile phones in the classroom:

”We need to embrace these changes and instead of trying to separate that reality from an outdated vision of a classroom, we need to find a way to optimize the educational experience for the connected kids of the future. We can’t disconnect them from the world between the hours of 8am – 3pm everyday. Don’t be scared. You have to leave your comfort zone and take a risk. The same thing you ask your students to do. Take a risk and see what the future may look like and then change your teaching to ensure that the technology is used as a tool and not just a distraction.” —Tim Floyd, Education Awesomeness

“I’ve also seen the value that cell phones can bring to education. Students who might not have access to computers at home can type and submit essays on their phones. Students can quickly look up some information and verify its validity. Furthermore, students can also use their cell phones to collaborate with their peers.” —Christina, The Darling English Teacher

“When students have access to technology and social media, they have access to empowerment and leadership online. As educators, we need to empower our students to use technology for good. When students are given the chance to use their cellphones in class as a learning tool, we can teach them how to positively influence and impact other people online.” —Amanda, EDTech Endeavors

“When students have access to technology and social media, they have access to empowerment and leadership online. As educators, we need to empower our students to use technology for good. When students are given the chance to use their cellphones in class as a learning tool, we can teach them how to positively influence and impact other people online.” — A.J. Juliani , the Director of Technology & Innovation for Centennial School District

Why Should Phones be Allowed in School — 11 Reasons

There is a lot of debate about whether phones should be allowed in schools. While there are some cons to letting your students use cell phones in class, I feel that the benefits of using gadgets can outweigh these cons. As long as you have solid classroom management and set clear expectations for students using their mobile phones, I think you’ll find that there are many benefits  to letting your students use them.

1. Providing an Additional Tool for Learning

Phones are already banned. The parents are worried about these bans because of the very high chance there is a school shooting and their child is unable to call for help. https://t.co/TxpJfrUgJn — Anosognosiogenesis (@pookleblinky) June 6, 2023

While detractors may argue against the distractions phones might pose academically, the security and peace of mind they offer, especially in dire situations, make a compelling case for their presence in the school environment.

3. Improved Communication

Interestingly, a study from the School of Business highlighted another crucial dimension to this trend. Beyond the teacher-student dynamic, students are proactively forming educational bonds with their peers through their phones. They often initiate and manage class-based groups on various social platforms, allowing for an organized exchange of study materials and collaborative learning, devoid of any official oversight. Such initiatives underscore the instrumental role cell phones play in modern education, fostering a holistic and communal approach to learning.

4. Organization

5. can save schools money.

In conclusion, embracing the capabilities of cell phones in the academic realm presents a win-win scenario. It offers students the convenience and immediacy of digital access while allowing educational institutions to optimize resources, reduce costs, and promote sustainability.

6. Good for the Environment

7. prepares students for the future, 8. can create digitally responsible citizens, 9. can help students when studying.

“In my classes, I let students take pictures of the digital whiteboard, too. If an assignment description or important PowerPoint slide has been up long enough and I am ready to move on, before doing so, I invite kids to snap a picture. This allows them to refer back to the slide at home if necessary.” — Chad Donohue , National Education Association

10. Accessibility and Personalized Learning

11. boosts creativity and innovation, 7 ideas how cell phones can be used effectively in the classroom, 1. scanning qr codes, 2. using educational apps, 3. collaborating on assignment, 4. completing surveys and quizzes, 5. providing feedback to others, 6. augmented reality experiences, 7. recording and editing multimedia projects, digital etiquette for students in the classroom.

Put your phone down when someone is talking to you and make eye contact with the speaker. Don’t text while you are walking. Be aware of your surroundings and don’t get distracted from someone or something important. Silence your phone when you are in class. Remove your headphones if someone is trying to talk to you. Don’t post on social media during the school day. Be a good digital citizen and avoid getting into any digital drama. Know the cell phone policy for each of your teachers, and respect it when in their classroom. Don’t make your teacher, classmates, friends, or family secondary to your phone.

Useful Resources

Final thoughts.

My principal seems to have an old-school thought process about cell phones in school and has completely banned them from being out in the classroom. I’d like to let my students use them for instructional purposes. Any tips on how to change her thinking?

That is tough. I’d start by finding some other teachers in your building that share your opinion and come up with a plan to present to your principal together. Bringing data, like what I shared in the article, about how cell phones can benefit students in class could help you make your point.

I love the artice and am using it for an assingment if you see it your name or website will be on it.

Thanks for the article it is truly an elaborate article, thanks for sharing it.

yes, this is fab

my teacher does not allow phones

my whole state banned phones in class TvT

I feel like you should be able to use your phone at passing periods and breaks and also lunch.

this is a common question people ask me I 57 year old male once allowed my kids to have phones in class but one pranked called the police so I say no

This is a nice source for my citation C: Thank you.

I am writing a speech to present to my class to persuade the teachers to allow more phone usage in class, thank you for your point of view and the information.

You’re welcome!

thanks so much! this will help a lot with a project I’m doing

I am making a debate speech this is really helpful thank you!

I was not born with this new technology, cell phone, I had to learn it. Now, I am a teacher and honestly, it is great as a tool for students to use but it’s also a deterrent. Like my wife says, “You give a mouse a cookie and they will ask you for a glass of milk”. Students seem to confuse rights with privilege. My students honestly believe that they have the right to use a phone whenever they want, this includes during a class, versus asking permission. Unfortunately, others do not use it appropriately. I have no problems with the use of cell phones, as long as it is for academic achievement, but not as a school alternative (ignore teacher and ignore daily task).

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us! We completely agree about the inappropriate use of phones.

thank you! so much i don’t know what i would do without this information!

Thank you for this essay

The essay has good information but I want more. You are telling me about the technology benefits but that’s what the Chromebooks are for. So if you could give me a stronger argument I would definitely agree.

Thanks for letting us know. We will take your wishes into consideration

Students can not handle these devices!!!!

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I still believe there are many ways to get students’ attention in the classroom rather than on the phone.

I always enjoy the creative ways technology can be used in schools. The mix of video talks, blog ideas and teacher input this post are great ways to share ideas. Thanks for the modern takes on how to use phones in the classroom, it is refreshing!

My pleasure!

I NEED THIS FOR MY ESSAY. THANK YOU!

I believe that cell phones in schools should be friends not enemys

thank you so much

We need our phones for SAFETY ?

This was very cool and so many good reasons why we should be able to use our phones in class!

This was very helpful imformation

I appreciate this article it is so supportive and believes in this article thanks ✌

four big guys is crazy lol four big guys and they grab on my thighs

i agree they should allow phones in school but just when were are really stuck or bored. so that is why i think that.

Hey! Thank you! I needed this for my ELA class argumentative writing prompt, this information was very useful. Since my school has a no phone-in-class rule, I can’t even have it with me in my bag! The only time I have on it during weekdays is at home and on the bus. But anyways this information was essential for my project. Thank you! 😀

You’re welcome!?

This is so helpful for argumentative essays! Thank you!

Thay can be good use for kids that walk home from school or to school or both.

In many school districts, the students borrow laptops, so they don’t need cell phones. Teachers may use software to restrict the laptops to their selected educational websites. Cell phones have disrupted learning, so they must be banned or jammed in the classroom. However, when students aren’t distracted by cell phones, they will gradually become worse at running around, yelling, and fighting, like they did before their cell phone addictions. We need consistent discipline. Disruptive students should learn with fun programs on a computer in separate rooms, instead of infecting other students with bad attitudes. After a year of learning on a computer, they can try the classroom again. We also need online video in the classrooms, so everyone, especially parents, can see the discipline problems in schools. When white schools have strict discipline and cell phone bans, but minority schools don’t, which students will get the high-paying better jobs? This is racism.

I agree with this as a student! But unfurtently my school is very old school so they banned cellphones.

Thank you for this helped me with a essay im doing for school. 🙂

i agree so much?

thank you for the info cause i have been having trouble finding an article like that and i found one so thank you!?

I forgot to put that i’m having a debate about using cell phones in class.

Im a current high school student and honestly what I’ve seen is the exact opposite of this. first period English is just a majority of people being on their phones. Unless a teacher is very strict about phones usually nothing is done about it. Honestly my parents disallowing me to bring my phone to school is what changed my grades for the better for the rest of the school year up until now. Also, some students might argue for these points but it’s usually only used as a scapegoat to make the excuse of “Oh but this article says it’s good to use phones!” Still, I’ve seen phones do so much more negatives than positives as well as the points listed here barely ever being utilized.

Yes i think they should allow it for many reasons

Coming in from Parker Middle School so I am doing a essay on why we should be able to have phones in schools and even class rooms and I was wondering if you could have your word to support having cell phones in school.

phones are what brought you into this world be thankful

I love the way you used cell phones in the classroom. Me personally-I use mine for extracurriculars.

As a High School teacher, I pretty much dislike the use of cellphones. If used for emergency, yes that’s a legitimate argument and in such case, cell phones need to be accessible to students in case of an emergency. However that would be the only reason cellphones should be allowed in classrooms. I studied high school without a cellphone and I was able to be engaged, organized and learned by using other technologies. This article doesn’t mention the pros and cons of allowing cellphones in classrooms and does not consider if the benefits weigh more than the disadvantages.

Thank you this website is amazing hope I get an A+ for my argumentative essay. Wish Me Luck!

Thanks I will use this for my topic

As a teacher at my school, I can say the cell phones are 99% more a distraction than ever as a learning tool. All the kids on the phones during class is to play video games. and look at non educational sites so that’s why cell phones are banned in my classrooms. I would say if the kids understood accountability and are responsible, then it’s a different discussion.

i can use this for my project . Almost all my classmates try to sneak there phone in class . But they always get in trouble . They don’t need a phone becuase it is can make you fail class and other things that is a proably

Very valid points. I am using you as a source for my essay. Thank you.

Thanks this helped me with my Delve Project

Hi, my name is Eli and I am an 8th grader at Indianola Middle School in Iowa. I am doing a research project about a topic of my choice and I chose to research Should phones be allowed in class. I think you would be a great person to give me more information about this topic because you gave great points and reasons why phones should be allowed in school classrooms.

Thank you so much for this article, Love your work!!!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Information Science and Technology Cell Phones

Cell Phones in School: An Argumentative Perspective

Table of contents, benefits of cell phones in school, drawbacks of cell phones in school, balancing benefits and drawbacks.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Graphic Design
• Advantages of Technology
• Computer Hacking

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

EVs fight warming but are costly. Why aren’t we driving $10,000 Chinese imports?

Toll of QAnon on families of followers

The urgent message coming from boys

Do phones belong in schools.

iStock by Getty Images

Harvard Staff Writer

Bans may help protect classroom focus, but districts need to stay mindful of students’ sense of connection, experts say

Students around the world are being separated from their phones.

In 2020, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 77 percent of U.S. schools had moved to prohibit cellphones for nonacademic purposes. In September 2018, French lawmakers outlawed cellphone use for schoolchildren under the age of 15. In China, phones were banned country-wide for schoolchildren last year.

Supporters of these initiatives have cited links between smartphone use and bullying and social isolation and the need to keep students focused on schoolwork.

77% Of U.S. schools moved to ban cellphones for nonacademic purposes as of 2020, according to the National Center for Education Statistics

But some Harvard experts say instructors and administrators should consider learning how to teach with tech instead of against it, in part because so many students are still coping with academic and social disruptions caused by the pandemic. At home, many young people were free to choose how and when to use their phones during learning hours. Now, they face a school environment seeking to take away their main source of connection.

“Returning back to in-person, I think it was hard to break the habit,” said Victor Pereira, a lecturer on education and co-chair of the Teaching and Teaching Leadership Program at the Graduate School of Education.

Through their students, he and others with experience both in the classroom and in clinical settings have seen interactions with technology blossom into important social connections that defy a one-size-fits-all mindset. “Schools have been coming back, trying to figure out, how do we readjust our expectations?” Pereira added.

It’s a hard question, especially in the face of research suggesting that the mere presence of a smartphone can undercut learning .

Michael Rich , an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and an associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, says that phones and school don’t mix: Students can’t meaningfully absorb information while also texting, scrolling, or watching YouTube videos.

“The human brain is incapable of thinking more than one thing at a time,” he said. “And so what we think of as multitasking is actually rapid-switch-tasking. And the problem with that is that switch-tasking may cover a lot of ground in terms of different subjects, but it doesn’t go deeply into any of them.”

Pereira’s approach is to step back — and to ask whether a student who can’t resist the phone is a signal that the teacher needs to work harder on making a connection. “Two things I try to share with my new teachers are, one, why is that student on the phone? What’s triggering getting on your cell phone versus jumping into our class discussion, or whatever it may be? And then that leads to the second part, which is essentially classroom management.

“Design better learning activities, design learning activities where you consider how all of your students might want to engage and what their interests are,” he said. He added that allowing phones to be accessible can enrich lessons and provide opportunities to use technology for school-related purposes.

Mesfin Awoke Bekalu, a research scientist in the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness at the Chan School, argues that more flexible classroom policies can create opportunities for teaching tech-literacy and self-regulation.

“There is a huge, growing body of literature showing that social media platforms are particularly helpful for people who need resources or who need support of some kind, beyond their proximate environment,” he said. A study he co-authored by Rachel McCloud and Vish Viswanath for the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness shows that this is especially true for marginalized groups such as students of color and LGBTQ students. But the findings do not support a free-rein policy, Bekalu stressed.

In the end, Rich, who noted the particular challenges faced by his patients with attention-deficit disorders and other neurological conditions, favors a classroom-by-classroom strategy. “It can be managed in a very local way,” he said, adding: “It’s important for parents, teachers, and the kids to remember what they are doing at any point in time and focus on that. It’s really only in mono-tasking that we do very well at things.”

Share this article

You might like.

Experts say tension between trade, green-tech policies hampers climate change advances; more targeted response needed

New book by Nieman Fellow explores pain, frustration in efforts to help loved ones break free of hold of conspiracy theorists

When we don’t listen, we all suffer, says psychologist whose new book is ‘Rebels with a Cause’

Billions worldwide deficient in essential micronutrients

Inadequate levels carry risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, blindness

You want to be boss. You probably won’t be good at it.

Study pinpoints two measures that predict effective managers

Weight-loss drug linked to fewer COVID deaths

Large-scale study finds Wegovy reduces risk of heart attack, stroke

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The impact of smartphone use on learning effectiveness: A case study of primary school students

Jen chun wang.

1 Department of Industry Technology Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, 62, Shenjhong Rd., Yanchao District, Kaohsiung, 82446 Taiwan

Chia-Yen Hsieh

2 Department of Early Childhood Education, National PingTung University, No.4-18, Minsheng Rd., Pingtung City, Pingtung County 900391 Taiwan

Shih-Hao Kung

Associated data.

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

This study investigated the effects of smartphone use on the perceived academic performance of elementary school students. Following the derivation of four hypotheses from the literature, descriptive analysis, t testing, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation analysis, and one-way multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) were performed to characterize the relationship between smartphone behavior and academic performance with regard to learning effectiveness. All coefficients were positive and significant, supporting all four hypotheses. We also used structural equation modeling (SEM) to determine whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance. The MANOVA results revealed that the students in the high smartphone use group academically outperformed those in the low smartphone use group. The results indicate that smartphone use constitutes a potential inequality in learning opportunities among elementary school students. Finally, in a discussion of whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance, it is proved that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable impacting academic performance. Fewer smartphone access opportunities may adversely affect learning effectiveness and academic performance. Elementary school teachers must be aware of this issue, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The findings serve as a reference for policymakers and educators on how smartphone use in learning activities affects academic performance.

Introduction

The advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution has stimulated interest in educational reforms for the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) into instruction. Smartphones have become immensely popular ICT devices. In 2019, approximately 96.8% of the global population had access to mobile devices with the coverage rate reaching 100% in various developed countries (Sarker et al., 2019 ). Given their versatile functions, smartphones have been rapidly integrated into communication and learning, among other domains, and have become an inseparable part of daily life for many. Smartphones are perceived as convenient, easy-to-use tools that promote interaction and multitasking and facilitate both formal and informal learning (Looi et al., 2016 ; Yi et al., 2016 ). Studies have investigated the impacts of smartphones in education. For example, Anshari et al. ( 2017 ) asserted that the advantages of smartphones in educational contexts include rich content transferability and the facilitation of knowledge sharing and dynamic learning. Modern students expect to experience multiple interactive channels in their studies. These authors also suggested incorporating smartphones into the learning process as a means of addressing inappropriate use of smartphones in class (Anshari et al., 2017 ). For young children, there are differences in demand and attributes and some need for control depending upon the daily smartphone usage of the children (Cho & Lee, 2017 ). To avoid negative impacts, including interference with the learning process, teachers should establish appropriate rules and regulations. In a study by Bluestein and Kim ( 2017 ) on the use of technology in the classroom they examined three themes: acceptance of tablet technology, learning excitement and engagement, and the effects of teacher preparedness and technological proficiency. They suggested that teachers be trained in application selection and appropriate in-class device usage. Cheng et al. ( 2016 ) found that smartphone use facilitated English learning in university students. Some studies have provided empirical evidence of the positive effects of smartphone use, whereas others have questioned the integration of smartphone use into the academic environment. For example, Hawi and Samaha ( 2016 ) investigated whether high academic performance was possible for students at high risk of smartphone addiction. They provided strong evidence of the adverse effects of smartphone addiction on academic performance. Lee et al. ( 2015 ) found a negative correlation between smartphone addiction and learning in university students. There has been a lot of research on the effectiveness of online teaching, but the results are not consistent. Therefore, this study aims to further explore the effects of independent variables on smartphone use behavior and academic performance.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many countries to close schools and suspend in-person classes, enforcing the transition to online learning. Carrillo and Flores ( 2020 ) suggested that because of widespread school closures, teachers must learn to manage the online learning environment. Online courses have distinct impacts on students and their families, requiring adequate technological literacy and the formulation of new teaching or learning strategies (Sepulveda-Escobar & Morrison, 2020 ). Since 2020, numerous studies have been conducted on parents’ views regarding the relationship of online learning, using smartphones, computers, and other mobile devices, with learning effectiveness. Widely inconsistent findings have been reported. For instance, in a study by Hadad et al. ( 2020 ), two thirds of parents were opposed to the use of smartphones in school, with more than half expressing active opposition ( n  = 220). By contrast, parents in a study by Garbe et al. ( 2020 ) agreed to the school closure policy and allowed their children to use smartphones to attend online school. Given the differences in the results, further scholarly discourse on smartphone use in online learning is essential.

Questions remain on whether embracing smartphones in learning systems facilitates or undermines learning (i.e., through distraction). Only a few studies have been conducted on the impacts of smartphone use on academic performance in elementary school students (mostly investigating college or high school students). Thus, we investigated the effects of elementary school students’ smartphone use on their academic performance.

Literature review

Mobile technologies have driven a paradigm shift in learning; learning activities can now be performed anytime, anywhere, as long as the opportunity to obtain information is available (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013 ).

Kim et al. ( 2014 ) focused on identifying factors that influence smartphone adoption or use. Grant and Hsu ( 2014 ) centered their investigation on user behavior, examining the role of smartphones as learning devices and social interaction tools. Although the contribution of smartphones to learning is evident, few studies have focused on the connection between smartphones and learning, especially in elementary school students. The relationship between factors related to learning with smartphones among this student population is examined in the following sections.

Behavioral intentions of elementary school students toward smartphone use

Children experience rapid growth and development during elementary school and cultivate various aspects of the human experience, including social skills formed through positive peer interactions. All these experiences exert a substantial impact on the establishment of self-esteem and a positive view of self. Furthermore, students tend to maintain social relationships by interacting with others through various synchronous or asynchronous technologies, including smartphone use (Guo et al., 2011 ). Moreover, students favor communication through instant messaging, in which responses are delivered rapidly. However, for this type of interaction, students must acquire knowledge and develop skills related to smartphones or related technologies which has an impact on social relationships (Kang & Jung, 2014 ; Park & Lee, 2012 ).

Karikoski and Soikkeli ( 2013 ) averred that smartphone use promotes human-to-human interaction both through verbal conversation and through the transmission of textual and graphic information, and cn stimulate the creation and reinforcement of social networks. Park and Lee ( 2012 ) examined the relationship between smartphone use and motivation, social relationships, and mental health. The found smartphone use to be positively correlated with social intimacy. Regarding evidence supporting smartphone use in learning, Firmansyah et al. ( 2020 ) concluded that smartphones significantly benefit student-centered learning, and they can be used in various disciplines and at all stages of education. They also noted the existence of a myriad smartphone applications to fulfill various learning needs. Clayton and Murphy ( 2016 ) suggested that smartphones be used as a mainstay in classroom teaching, and that rather than allowing them to distract from learning, educators should help their students to understand how smartphones can aid learning and facilitate civic participation. In other words, when used properly, smartphones have some features that can lead to better educational performance. For example, their mobility can allow students access to the same (internet-based) services as computers, anytime, anywhere (Lepp et al., 2014 ). Easy accessibility to these functionalities offers students the chance to continuously search for study-related information. Thus, smartphones can provide a multi-media platform to facilitate learning which cannot be replaced by simply reading a textbook (Zhang et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, social networking sites and communication applications may also contribute to the sharing of relevant information. Faster communication between students and between students and faculty may also contribute to more efficient studying and collaboration (Chen et al., 2015 ). College students are more likely to have access to smartphones than elementary school students. The surge in smartphone ownership among college students has spurred interest in studying the impact of smartphone use on all aspects of their lives, especially academic performance. For example, Junco and Cotton ( 2012 ) found that spending a fair amount of time on smartphones while studying had a negative affect on the university student's Grade Point Average (GPA). In addition, multiple studies have found that mobile phone use is inversely related to academic performance (Judd, 2014 ; Karpinski et al., 2013 ). Most research on smartphone use and academic performance has focused on college students. There have few studies focused on elementary school students. Vanderloo ( 2014 ) argued that the excessive use of smartphones may cause numerous problems for the growth and development of children, including increased sedentary time and reduced physical activity. Furthermore, according to Sarwar and Soomro ( 2013 ), rapid and easy access to information and its transmission may hinder concentration and discourage critical thinking and is therefore not conducive to children’s cognitive development.

To sum up, the evidence on the use of smartphones by elementary school students is conflicting. Some studies have demonstrated that smartphone use can help elementary school students build social relationships and maintain their mental health, and have presented findings supporting elementary students’ use of smartphones in their studies. Others have opposed smartphone use in this student population, contending that it can impede growth and development. To take steps towards resolving this conflict, we investigated smartphone use among elementary school students.

In a study conducted in South Korea, Kim ( 2017 ) reported that 50% of their questionnaire respondents reported using smartphones for the first time between grades 4 and 6. Overall, 61.3% of adolescents reported that they had first used smartphones when they were in elementary school. Wang et al. ( 2017 ) obtained similar results in an investigation conducted in Taiwan. However, elementary school students are less likely to have access to smartphones than college students. Some elementary schools in Taiwan prohibit their students from using smartphones in the classroom (although they can use them after school). On the basis of these findings, the present study focused on fifth and sixth graders.

Jeong et al. ( 2016 ), based on a sample of 944 respondents recruited from 20 elementary schools, found that people who use smartphones for accessing Social Network Services (SNS), playing games, and for entertainment were more likely to be addicted to smartphones. Park ( 2020 ) found that games were the most commonly used type of mobile application among participants, comprised of 595 elementary school students. Greater smartphone dependence was associated with greater use of educational applications, videos, and television programs (Park, 2020 ). Three studies in Taiwan showed the same results, that elementary school students in Taiwan enjoy playing games on smartphones (Wang & Cheng, 2019 ; Wang et al., 2017 ). Based on the above, it is reasonable to infer that if elementary school students spend more time playing games on their smartphones, their academic performance will decline. However, several studies have found that using smartphones to help with learning can effectively improve academic performance. In this study we make effort to determine what the key influential factors that affect students' academic performance are.

Kim ( 2017 ) reported that, in Korea, smartphones are used most frequentlyfrom 9 pm to 12 am, which closely overlaps the corresponding period in Taiwan, from 8 to 11 pm In this study, we not only asked students how they obtained their smartphones, but when they most frequently used their smartphones, and who they contacted most frequently on their smartphones were, among other questions. There were a total of eight questions addressing smartphone behavior. Recent research on smartphones and academic performance draws on self-reported survey data on hours and/or minutes of daily use (e.g. Chen et al., 2015 ; Heo & Lee, 2021 ; Lepp et al., 2014 ; Troll et al., 2021 ). Therefore, this study also uses self-reporting to investigate how much time students spend using smartphones.

Various studies have indicated that parental attitudes affect elementary school students’ behavioral intentions toward smartphone use (Chen et al., 2020 ; Daems et al., 2019 ). Bae ( 2015 ) determined that a democratic parenting style (characterized by warmth, supervision, and rational explanation) was related to a lower likelihood of smartphone addiction in children. Park ( 2020 ) suggested that parents should closely monitor their children’s smartphone use patterns and provide consistent discipline to ensure appropriate smartphone use. In a study conducted in Taiwan, Chang et al. ( 2019 ) indicated that restrictive parental mediation reduced the risk of smartphone addiction among children. In essence, parental attitudes critically influence the behavioral intention of elementary school students toward smartphone use. The effect of parental control on smartphone use is also investigated in this study.

Another important question related to student smartphone use is self-control. Jeong et al. ( 2016 ) found that those who have lower self-control and greater stress were more likely to be addicted to smartphones. Self-control is here defined as the ability to control oneself in the absence of any external force, trying to observe appropriate behavior without seeking immediate gratification and thinking about the future (Lee et al., 2015 ). Those with greater self-control focus on long-term results when making decisions. People are able to control their behavior through the conscious revision of automatic actions which is an important factor in retaining self-control in the mobile and on-line environments. Self-control plays an important role in smartphone addiction and the prevention thereof. Previous studies have revealed that the lower one’s self-control, the higher the degree of smartphone dependency (Jeong et al., 2016 ; Lee et al., 2013 ). In other words, those with higher levels of self-control are likely to have lower levels of smartphone addiction. Clearly, self-control is an important factor affecting smartphone usage behavior.

Reviewing the literature related to self-control, we start with self-determination theory (SDT). The SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008 ) theory of human motivation distinguishes between autonomous and controlled types of behavior. Ryan and Deci ( 2000 ) suggested that some users engage in smartphone communications in response to perceived social pressures, meaning their behavior is externally motivated. However, they may also be  intrinsically  motivated in the sense that they voluntarily use their smartphones because they feel that mobile communication meets their needs (Reinecke et al., 2017 ). The most autonomous form of motivation is referred to as intrinsic motivation. Being intrinsically motivated means engaging in an activity for its own sake, because it appears interesting and enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). Acting due to social pressure represents an externally regulated behavior, which SDT classifies as the most controlled form of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). Individuals engage in such behavior not for the sake of the behavior itself, but to achieve a separable outcome, for example, to avoid punishment or to be accepted and liked by others (Ryan & Deci, 2006 ). SDT presumes that controlled and autonomous motivations are not complementary, but “work against each other” (Deci et al., 1999 , p. 628). According to the theory, external rewards alter the perceived cause of action: Individuals no longer voluntarily engage in an activity because it meets their needs, but because they feel controlled (Deci et al., 1999 ). For media users, the temptation to communicate through the smartphone is often irresistible (Meier, 2017 ). Researchers who have examined the reasons why users have difficulty controlling media use have focused on their desire to experience need gratification, which produces pleasurable experiences. The assumption here is that users often subconsciously prefer short-term pleasure gains from media use to the pursuit of long-term goals (Du et al., 2018 ). Accordingly, self-control is very important. Self-control here refers to the motivation and ability to resist temptations (Hofmann et al., 2009 ). Dispositional self-control is a key moderator of yielding to temptation (Hofmann et al., 2009 ). Ryan and Deci ( 2006 ) suggested that people sometimes perform externally controlled behaviors unconsciously, that is, without applying self-control.

Sklar et al. ( 2017 ) described two types of self-control processes: proactive and reactive. They suggested that deficiencies in the resources needed to inhibit temptation impulses lead to failure of self-control. Even when impossible to avoid a temptation entirely, self-control can still be made easier if one avoids attending to the tempting stimulus. For example, young children instructed to actively avoid paying attention to a gift and other attention-drawing temptations are better able to resist the temptation than children who are just asked to focus on their task. Therefore, this study more closely investigates students' self-control abilities in relation to smartphone use asking the questions, ‘How did you obtain your smartphone?’ (to investigate proactivity), and ‘How much time do you spend on your smartphone in a day?’ (to investigate the effects of self-control).

Thus, the following hypotheses are advanced.

• Hypothesis 1: Smartphone behavior varies with parental control.
• Hypothesis 2: Smartphone behavior varies based on students' self-control.

Parental control, students' self-control and their effects on learning effectiveness and academic performance

Based on Hypothesis 1 and 2, we believe that we need to focus on two factors, parental control and student self-control and their impact on academic achievement. In East Asia, Confucianism is one of the most prevalent and influential cultural values which affect parent–child relations and parenting practice (Lee et al., 2016 ). In Taiwan, Confucianism shapes another feature of parenting practice: the strong emphasis on academic achievement. The parents’ zeal for their children’s education is characteristic of Taiwan, even in comparison to academic emphasis in other East Asian countries. Hau and Ho ( 2010 ) noted that, in Eastern Asian (Chinese) cultures, academic achievement does not depend on the students’ interests. Chinese students typically do not regard intelligence as fixed, but trainable through learning, which enables them to take a persistent rather than a helpless approach to schoolwork, and subsequently perform well. In Chinese culture, academic achievement has been traditionally regarded as the passport to social success and reputation, and a way to enhance the family's social status (Hau & Ho, 2010 ). Therefore, parents dedicate a large part of their family resources to their children's education, a practice that is still prevalent in Taiwan today (Hsieh, 2020 ). Parental control aimed at better academic achievement is exerted within the behavioral and psychological domains. For instance, Taiwan parents tightly schedule and control their children’s time, planning private tutoring after school and on weekends. Parental control thus refers to “parental intrusiveness, pressure, or domination, with the inverse being parental support of autonomy” (Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009 ). There are two types of parental control: behavioral and psychological. Behavioral control, which includes parental regulation and monitoring over what children do (Steinberg et al., 1992 ), predict positive psychosocial outcomes for children. Outcomes include low externalizing problems, high academic achievement (Stice & Barrera, 1995 ), and low depression. In contrast, psychological control, which is exerted over the children’s psychological world, is known to be problematic (Stolz et al., 2005 ). Psychological control involves strategies such as guilt induction and love withdrawal (Steinberg et al., 1992 ) and is related with disregard for children’s emotional autonomy and needs (Steinberg et al., 1992 ). Therefore, it is very important to discuss the type of parental control.

Troll et al. ( 2021 ) suggested that it is not the objective amount of smartphone use but the effective handling of smartphones that helps students with higher trait self-control to fare better academically. Heo and Lee ( 2021 ) discussed the mediating effect of self-control. They found that self-control was partially mediated by those who were not at risk for smartphone addiction. That is to say, smartphone addiction could be managed by strengthening self-control to promote healthy use. In an earlier study Hsieh and Lin ( 2021 ), we collected 41 international journal papers involving 136,491students across 15 countries, for meta-analysis. We found that the average and majority of the correlations were both negative. The short conclusion here was that smartphone addiction /reliance may have had a negative impact on learning performance. Clearly, it is very important to investigate the effect of self-control on learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance.

Smartphone use and its effects on learning effectiveness and academic performance

The impact of new technologies on learning or academic performance has been investigated in the literature. Kates et al. ( 2018 ) conducted a meta-analysis of 39 studies published over a 10-year period (2007–2018) to examine potential relationships between smartphone use and academic achievement. The effect of smartphone use on learning outcomes can be summarized as follows: r  =  − 0.16 with a 95% confidence interval of − 0.20 to − 0.13. In other words, smartphone use and academic achievement were negatively correlated. Amez and Beart ( 2020 ) systematically reviewed the literature on smartphone use and academic performance, observing the predominance of empirical findings supporting a negative correlation. However, they advised caution in interpreting this result because this negative correlation was less often observed in studies analyzing data collected through paper-and-pencil questionnaires than in studies on data collected through online surveys. Furthermore, this correlation was less often noted in studies in which the analyses were based on self-reported grade point averages than in studies in which actual grades were used. Salvation ( 2017 ) revealed that the type of smartphone applications and the method of use determined students’ level of knowledge and overall grades. However, this impact was mediated by the amount of time spent using such applications; that is, when more time is spent on educational smartphone applications, the likelihood of enhancement in knowledge and academic performance is higher. This is because smartphones in this context are used as tools to obtain the information necessary for assignments and tests or examinations. Lin et al. ( 2021 ) provided robust evidence that smartphones can promote improvements in academic performance if used appropriately.

In summary, the findings of empirical investigations into the effects of smartphone use have been inconsistent—positive, negative, or none. Thus, we explore the correlation between elementary school students’ smartphone use and learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance through the following hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 3: Smartphone use is associated with learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance.
• Hypothesis 4: Differences in smartphone use correspond to differences in learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance.

Hypotheses 1 to 4 are aimed at understanding the mediating effect of smartphone behavior; see Fig.  1 . It is assumed that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable, parental control and self-control are independent variables, and academic performance is the dependent variable. We want to understand the mediation effect of this model.

Model 1: Model to test the impact of parental control and students’ self-control on academic performance

Thus, the following hypotheses are presented.

• Hypothesis 5: Smartphone behaviors are the mediating variable to impact the academic performance.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on smartphone use for online learning

According to 2020 statistics from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, full or partial school closures have affected approximately 800 million learners worldwide, more than half of the global student population. Schools worldwide have been closed for 14 to 22 weeks on average, equivalent to two thirds of an academic year (UNESCO, 2021 ). Because of the pandemic, instructors have been compelled to transition to online teaching (Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ). According to Tang et al. ( 2020 ), online learning is among the most effective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the effectiveness of online learning for young children is limited by their parents’ technological literacy in terms of their ability to navigate learning platforms and use the relevant resources. Parents’ time availability constitutes another constraint (Dong et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, a fast and stable Internet connection, as well as access to devices such as desktops, laptops, or tablet computers, definitively affects equity in online education. For example, in 2018, 14% of households in the United States lacked Internet access (Morgan, 2020 ). In addition, the availability and stability of network connections cannot be guaranteed in relatively remote areas, including some parts of Australia (Park et al., 2021 ). In Japan, more than 50% of 3-year-old children and 68% of 6-year-old children used the Internet in their studies, but only 21% of households in Thailand have computer equipment (Park et al., 2021 ).

In short, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to changes in educational practices. With advances in Internet technology and computer hardware, online education has become the norm amid. However, the process and effectiveness of learning in this context is affected by multiple factors. Aside from the parents’ financial ability, knowledge of educational concepts, and technological literacy, the availability of computer equipment and Internet connectivity also exert impacts. This is especially true for elementary school students, who rely on their parents in online learning more than do middle or high school students, because of their short attention spans and undeveloped computer skills. Therefore, this study focuses on the use of smartphones by elementary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on learning effectiveness.

Participants

Participants were recruited through stratified random sampling. They comprised 499 Taiwanese elementary school students (in grades 5 and 6) who had used smartphones for at least 12 months. Specifically, the students advanced to grades 5 or 6 at the beginning of the 2018–2019 school year. Boys and girls accounted for 47.7% and 52.3% ( n  = 238 and 261, respectively) of the sample.

Data collection and measurement

In 2020, a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect relevant data. Of the 620 questionnaires distributed, 575 (92.7%) completed questionnaires were returned. After 64 participants were excluded because they had not used their smartphones continually over the past 12 months and 14 participants were excluded for providing invalid responses, 499 individuals remained. The questionnaire was developed by one of the authors on the basis of a literature review. The questionnaire content can be categorized as follows: (1) students’ demographic characteristics, (2) smartphone use, (3) smartphone behavior, and (4) learning effectiveness. The questionnaire was modified according to evaluation feedback provided by six experts. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test the structural validity of the questionnaire. Factor analysis was performed using principal component analysis and oblique rotation. From the exploratory factor analysis, 25 items (15 and 10 items on smartphone behavior and academic performance as constructs, respectively) were extracted and confirmed. According to the results of the exploratory factor analysis, smartphone behavior can be classified into three dimensions: interpersonal communication, leisure and entertainment, and searching for information. Interpersonal communication is defined as when students use smartphones to communicate with classmates or friends, such as in response to questions like ‘I often use my smartphone to call or text my friends’. Leisure and entertainment mean that students spend a lot of their time using their smartphones for leisure and entertainment, e.g. ‘I often use my smartphone to listen to music’ or ‘I often play media games with my smartphone’. Searching for information means that students spend a lot of their time using their smartphones to search for information that will help them learn, such as in response to questions like this ‘I often use my smartphone to search for information online, such as looking up words in a dictionary’ or ‘I will use my smartphone to read e-books and newspapers online’.

Academic performance can be classified into three dimensions: learning activities, learning applications, and learning attitudes. Learning activities are when students use their smartphones to help them with learning, such as in response to a question like ‘I often use some online resources from my smartphone to help with my coursework’. Learning applications are defined as when students apply smartphone software to help them with their learning activities, e.g. ‘With a smartphone, I am more accustomed to using multimedia software’. Learning attitudes define the students’ attitudes toward using the smartphone, with questions like ‘Since I have had a smartphone, I often find class boring; using a smartphone is more fun’ (This is a reverse coded item). The factor analysis results are shown in the appendix (Appendix Tables ​ Tables10, 10 , ​ ,11, 11 , ​ ,12, 12 , ​ ,13 13 and ​ and14). 14 ). It can be seen that the KMO value is higher than 0.75, and the Bartlett’s test is also significant. The total variance explained for smartphone behavior is 53.47% and for academic performance it is 59.81%. These results demonstrate the validity of the research tool.

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Total variance explained of smartphone behavior

Total variance explained of academic performance

Factor loading of smartphone behavior

Factor loading of academic performance

In this study, students were defined as "proactive" if they had asked their parents to buy a smartphone for their own use and "reactive" if their parents gave them a smartphone unsolicited (i.e. they had not asked for it). According to Heo and Lee ( 2021 ), students who proactively asked their parents to buy them a smartphone gave the assurance that they could control themselves and not become addicted, but if they had been given a smartphone (without having to ask for it), they did not need to offer their parents any such guarantees. They defined user addiction (meaning low self-control) as more than four hours of smartphone use per day (Peng et al., 2022 ).

A cross-tabulation of self-control results is presented in Table ​ Table2, 2 , with the columns representing “proactive” and “reactive”, and the rows showing “high self-control” and “low self-control”. There are four variables in this cross-tabulation, “Proactive high self-control” (students promised parents they would not become smartphone addicts and were successful), “Proactive low self-control” (assured their parents they would not become smartphone addicts, but were unsuccessful), “Reactive high self-control”, and “Reactive low self-control”.

Cross-tabulation of self-control ability

Regarding internal consistency among the constructs, the Cronbach's α values ranged from 0.850 to 0.884. According to the guidelines established by George and Mallery ( 2010 ), these values were acceptable because they exceeded 0.7. The overall Cronbach's α for the constructs was 0.922. The Cronbach's α value of the smartphone behavior construct was 0.850, whereas that of the academic performance construct was 0.884.

Data analysis

The participants’ demographic characteristics and smartphone use (expressed as frequencies and percentages) were subjected to a descriptive analysis. To examine hypotheses 1 and 2, an independent samples t test (for gender and grade) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed to test the differences in smartphone use and learning effectiveness with respect to academic performance among elementary school students under various background variables. To test hypothesis 3, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to analyze the association between smartphone behavior and academic performance. To test hypothesis 4, one-way multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was employed to examine differences in smartphone behavior and its impacts on learning effectiveness. To test Hypothesis 5, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance.

Descriptive analysis

The descriptive analysis (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) revealed that the parents of 71.1% of the participants ( n  = 499) conditionally controlled their smartphone use. Moreover, 42.5% of the participants noted that they started using smartphones in grade 3 or 4. Notably, 43.3% reported that they used their parents’ old smartphones; in other words, almost half of the students used secondhand smartphones. Overall, 79% of the participants indicated that they most frequently used their smartphones after school. Regarding smartphone use on weekends, 54.1% and 44.1% used their smartphones during the daytime and nighttime, respectively. Family members and classmates (45.1% and 43.3%, respectively) were the people that the participants communicated with the most on their smartphones. Regarding bringing their smartphones to school, 53.1% of the participants indicated that they were most concerned about losing their phones. As for smartphone use duration, 28.3% of the participants indicated that they used their smartphones for less than 1 h a day, whereas 24.4% reported using them for 1 to 2 h a day.

Descriptive analysis results

Smartphone behavior varies with parental control and based on students' self-control

We used the question ‘How did you obtain your smartphone?’ (to investigate proactivity), and ‘How much time do you spend on your smartphone in a day?’ (to investigate the effects of students' self-control). According to the Hsieh and Lin ( 2021 ), and Peng et al. ( 2022 ), addition is defined more than 4 h a day are defined as smartphone addiction (meaning that students have low self-control).

Table ​ Table2 2 gives the cross-tabulation results for self-control ability. Students who asked their parents to buy a smartphone, but use it for less than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Proactive high self-control’; students using a smartphone for more than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Proactive low self-control’. Students whose parents gave them a smartphone but use them for less than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Reactive high self-control’; students given smart phones and using them for more than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Reactive low self-control’; others, we define as having moderate levels of self-control.

Tables ​ Tables3 3 – 5 present the results of the t test and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on differences in the smartphone behaviors based on parental control and students' self-control. As mentioned, smartphone behavior can be classified into three dimensions: interpersonal communication, leisure and entertainment, and information searches. Table ​ Table3 3 lists the significant independent variables in the first dimension of smartphone behavior based on parental control and students' self-control. Among the students using their smartphones for the purpose of communication, the proportion of parents enforcing no control over smartphone use was significantly higher than the proportions of parents enforcing strict or conditional control ( F  = 11.828, p  < 0.001). This indicates that the lack of parental control over smartphone use leads to the participants spending more time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication.

Significant independent variables (Parental control and Self-control) in the first dimension (interpersonal communication) of smartphone use

*** p  < .001

Independent variables (Parental control and Self-control) in the third dimension (information searches) of smartphone behavior

SD standard deviation

For the independent variable of self-control, regardless of whether students had proactive high self-control, proactive low self-control or reactive low self-control, significantly higher levels of interpersonal communication than reactive high self-control were reported ( F  = 18.88, p  < 0.001). This means that students effectively able to control themselves, who had not asked their parents to buy them smartphones, spent less time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication. However, students with high self-control but who had asked their parents to buy them smartphones, would spend more time on interpersonal communication (meaning that while they may not spend a lot of time on their smartphones each day, the time spent on interpersonal communication is no different than for the other groups). Those without effective self-control, regardless of whether they had actively asked their parents to buy them a smartphone or not, would spend more time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication.

Table ​ Table4 4 displays the independent variables (parental control and students' self-control) significant in the dimension of leisure and entertainment. Among the students using their smartphones for this purpose, the proportion of parents enforcing no control over smartphone use was significantly higher than the proportions of parents enforcing strict or conditional control ( F  = 8.539, p  < 0.001). This indicates that the lack of parental control over smartphone use leads to the participants spending more time using their smartphones for leisure and entertainment.

Significant independent variables (Parental control and Self-control) in the second dimension (leisure and entertainment) of smartphone behavior

For the independent variable of self-control, students with proactive low self-control and reactive low self-control reported significantly higher use of smartphones for leisure and entertainment than did students with proactive high self-control and reactive high self-control ( F  = 8.77, p  < 0.001). This means that students who cannot control themselves, whether proactive or passive in terms of asking their parents to buy them a smartphone, will spend more time using their smartphones for leisure and entertainment.

Table ​ Table5 5 presents the significant independent variables in the dimension of information searching. Significant differences were observed only for gender, with a significantly higher proportion of girls using their smartphones to search for information ( t  =  − 3.979, p  < 0.001). Parental control and students' self-control had no significance in the dimension of information searching. This means that the parents' attitudes towards control did not affect the students' use of smartphones for information searches. This is conceivable, as Asian parents generally discourage their children from using their smartphones for non-study related activities (such as entertainment or making friends), but not for learning-related activities. It is also worth noting that student self-control was not significant in relation to searching for information. This means that it makes no difference whether or not students have self-control in their search for learning-related information.

Four notable results are presented as follows.

First, a significantly higher proportion of girls used their smartphones to search for information. Second, if smartphone use was not subject to parental control, the participants spent more time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication and for leisure and entertainment rather than for information searches. This means that if parents make the effort to control their children's smartphone use, this will reduce their children's use of smartphones for interpersonal communication and entertainment. Third, student self-control affects smartphone use behavior for interpersonal communication and entertainment (but not searching for information). This does not mean that they spend more time on their smartphones in their daily lives, it means that they spend the most time interacting with people while using their smartphones (For example, they may only spend 2–3 h a day using their smartphone. During those 2–3 h, they spend more than 90% of their time interacting with people and only 10% doing other things), which is the fourth result.

These results support hypotheses 1 and 2.

Pearson’s correlation analysis of smartphone behavior and academic performance

Table ​ Table6 6 presents the results of Pearson’s correlation analysis of smartphone behavior and academic performance. Except for information searches and learning attitudes, all variables exhibited significant and positively correlations. In short, there was a positive correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance. Thus, hypothesis 3 is supported.

Pearson’s correlation analysis of smartphone use and academic performance

** p  < .01

Analysis of differences in the academic performance of students with different smartphone behaviors

Differences in smartphone behavior and its impacts on learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance were examined through. In step 1, cluster analysis was conducted to convert continuous variables into discrete variables. In step 2, a one-way MANOVA was performed to analyze differences in the academic performance of students with varying smartphone behavior. Regarding the cluster analysis results (Table ​ (Table7), 7 ), the value of the change in the Bayesian information criterion in the second cluster was − 271.954, indicating that it would be appropriate to group the data. Specifically, we assigned the participants into either the high smartphone use group or the low smartphone use group, comprised of 230 and 269 participants (46.1% and 53.9%), respectively.

Cluster analysis results

BIC Bayesian information criterion

The MANOVA was preceded by the Levene test for the equality of variance, which revealed nonsignificant results, F (6, 167,784.219) = 1.285, p  > 0.05. Thus, we proceeded to use MANOVA to examine differences in the academic performance of students with differing smartphone behaviors (Table ​ (Table8). 8 ). Between-group differences in academic performance were significant, F (3, 495) = 44.083, p  < 0.001, Λ = 0.789, η 2  = 0.211, power = 0.999. Subsequently, because academic performance consists of three dimensions, we performed univariate tests and an a posteriori comparison.

Multivariate analysis of variance results

Df degrees of freedom

Table ​ Table9 9 presents the results of the univariate tests. Between-group differences in learning activities were significant, ( F [1, 497] = 40.8, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.076, power = 0.999). Between-group differences in learning applications were also significant ( F [1, 497] = 117.98, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.192, power = 0.999). Finally, differences between the groups in learning attitudes were significant ( F [1, 497] = 23.22, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.045, power = 0.998). The a posteriori comparison demonstrated that the high smartphone use group significantly outperformed the low smartphone use group in all dependent variables with regard to academic performance. Thus, hypothesis 4 is supported.

Univariate analysis results

SS sum of squares; df degrees of freedom; MS mean square

Smartphone behavior as the mediating variable impacting academic performance

As suggested by Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ), smartphone behavior is a mediating variable affecting academic performance. We examined the impact through the following four-step process:

• Step 1. The independent variable (parental control and students' self-control) must have a significant effect on the dependent variable (academic performance), as in model 1 (please see Fig.  1 ).

Model 2: Model to test the impact of parental control and students’ self-control on smartphone behavior

Model 3: Both independent variables (parental control and student self-control) and mediators (smartphone behavior) were used as predictors to predict dependent variables

• Step 4. In model 3, the regression coefficient of the independent variables (parental control and student self-control) on the dependent variables must be less than in mode 1 or become insignificant.

As can be seen in Fig.  1 , parental control and student self-control are observed variables, and smartphone behavior is a latent variable. "Strict" is set to 0, which means "Conditional", with "None" compared to "Strict". “Proactive high self-control” is also set to 0. From Fig.  1 we find that the independent variables have a significant effect on the dependent variable. The regression coefficient of parental control is 0.176, t = 3.45 ( p  < 0.01); the regression coefficient of students’ self-control is 0.218, t = 4.12 ( p  < 0.001), proving the fit of the model (Chi Square = 13.96**, df = 4, GFI = 0.989, AGFI = 0.959, CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.031). Therefore, the test results for Model 1 are in line with the recommendations of Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ).

As can be seen in Fig.  2 , the independent variables have a significant effect on smartphone behaviors. The regression coefficient of parental control is 0.166, t = 3.11 ( p  < 0.01); the regression coefficient of students’ self-control is 0.149, t = 2.85 ( p  < 0.01). The coefficients of the model fit are: Chi Square = 15.10**, df = 4, GFI = 0.988, AGFI = 0.954, CFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.039. Therefore, the results of the test of Model 2 are in line with the recommendations of Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ).

As can be seen in Fig.  3 , smartphone behaviors have a significant effect on the dependent variable. The regression coefficient is 0.664, t = 10.2 ( p  < 0.001). The coefficients of the model fit are: Chi Square = 91.04**, df = 16, GFI = 0.958, AGFI = 0.905, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.900, RMSEA = 0.077, SRMR = 0.063. Therefore, the results of the test of Model 3 are in line with the recommendations of Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ).

As can be seen in Fig.  4 , the regression coefficient of the independent variables (parental control and student self-control) on the dependent variables is less than in model 1, and the parental control variable becomes insignificant. The regression coefficient of parental control is 0.013, t = 0.226 ( p  > 0.05); the path coefficient of students’ self-control is 0.155, t = 3.07 ( p  < 0.01).

Model 4: Model three’s regression coefficient of the independent variables (parental control and student self-control) on the dependent variables

To sum up, we prove that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable to impact the academic performance. Thus, hypothesis 5 is supported.

This study investigated differences in the smartphone behavior of fifth and sixth graders in Taiwan with different background variables (focus on parental control and students’ self-control) and their effects on academic performance. The correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance was also examined. Although smartphones are being used in elementary school learning activities, relatively few studies have explored their effects on academic performance. In this study, the proportion of girls who used smartphones to search for information was significantly higher than that of boys. Past studies have been inconclusive about gender differences in smartphone use. Lee and Kim ( 2018 ) observed no gender differences in smartphone use, but did note that boys engaged in more smartphone use if their parents set fewer restrictions. Kim et al. ( 2019 ) found that boys exhibited higher levels of smartphone dependency than girls. By contrast, Kim ( 2017 ) reported that girls had higher levels of smartphone dependency than boys did. Most relevant studies have focused on smartphone dependency; comparatively little attention has been devoted to smartphone behavior. The present study contributes to the literature in this regard.

Notably, this study found that parental control affected smartphone use. If the participants’ parents imposed no restrictions, students spent more time on leisure and entertainment and on interpersonal communication rather than on information searches. This is conceivable, as Asian parents generally discourage their children from using their smartphones for non-study related activities (such as entertainment or making friends) but not for learning-related activities. If Asian parents believe that using a smartphone can improve their child's academic performance, they will encourage their child to use it. Parents in Taiwan attach great importance to their children's academic performance (Lee et al., 2016 ). A considerable amount of research has been conducted on parental attitudes or control in this context. Hwang and Jeong ( 2015 ) suggested that parental attitudes mediated their children’s smartphone use. Similarly, Chang et al. ( 2019 ) observed that parental attitudes mediated the smartphone use of children in Taiwan. Our results are consistent with extant evidence in this regard. Lee and Ogbolu ( 2018 ) demonstrated that the stronger children’s perception was of parental control over their smartphone use, the more frequently they used their smartphones. The study did not further explain the activities the children engaged in on their smartphones after they increased their frequency of use. In the present study, the participants spent more time on their smartphones for leisure and entertainment and for interpersonal communication than for information searches.

Notably, this study also found that students’ self-control affected smartphone use.

Regarding the Pearson’s correlation analysis of smartphone behavior and academic performance, except for information searches and learning attitudes, all the variables were significantly positively correlated. In other words, there was a positive correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance. In their systematic review, Amez and Beart ( 2020 ) determined that most empirical results provided evidence of a negative correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance, playing a more considerable role in that relationship than the theoretical mechanisms or empirical methods in the studies they examined. The discrepancy between our results and theirs can be explained by the between-study variations in the definitions of learning achievement or performance.

Regarding the present results on the differences in the academic performance of students with varying smartphone behaviors, we carried out a cluster analysis, dividing the participants into a high smartphone use group and a low smartphone use group. Subsequent MANOVA revealed that the high smartphone use group academically outperformed the low smartphone use group; significant differences were noted in the academic performance of students with different smartphone behaviors. Given the observed correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance, this result is not unexpected. The findings on the relationship between smartphone behavior and academic performance can be applied to smartphone use in the context of education.

Finally, in a discussion of whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance, it is proved that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable impacting academic performance. Our findings show that parental control and students’ self-control can affect academic performance. However, the role of the mediating variable (smartphone use behavior) means that changes in parental control have no effect on academic achievement at all. This means that smartphone use behaviors have a full mediating effect on parental control. It is also found that students’ self-control has a partial mediating effect. Our findings suggest that parental attitudes towards the control of smartphone use and students' self-control do affect academic performance, but smartphone use behavior has a significant mediating effect on this. In other words, it is more important to understand the children's smartphone behavior than to control their smartphone usage. There have been many studies in the past exploring the mediator variables for smartphone use addiction and academic performance. For instance, Ahmed et al. ( 2020 ) found that the mediating variables of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) and attitude have a significant and positive influence in the relationship between smartphone functions. Cho and Lee ( 2017 ) found that parental attitude is the mediating variable for smartphone use addiction. Cho et al. ( 2017 ) indicated that stress had a significant influence on smartphone addiction, while self-control mediates that influence. In conclusion, the outcomes demonstrate that parental control and students’ self-control do influence student academic performance in primary school. Previous studies have offered mixed results as to whether smartphone usage has an adverse or affirmative influence on student academic performance. This study points out a new direction, thinking of smartphone use behavior as a mediator.

In brief, the participants spent more smartphone time on leisure and entertainment and interpersonal communication, but the academic performance of the high smartphone use group surpassed that of the low smartphone use group. This result may clarify the role of students’ communication skills in their smartphone use. As Kang and Jung ( 2014 ) noted, conventional communication methods have been largely replaced by mobile technologies. This suggests that students’ conventional communication skills are also shifting to accommodate smartphone use. Elementary students are relatively confident in communicating with others through smartphones; thus, they likely have greater self‐efficacy in this regard and in turn may be better able to improve their academic performance by leveraging mobile technologies. This premise requires verification through further research. Notably, high smartphone use suggests the greater availability of time and opportunity in this regard. Conversely, low smartphone use suggests the relative lack of such time and opportunity. The finding that the high smartphone use group academically outperformed the low smartphone use group also indicates that smartphone accessibility constitutes a potential inequality in the learning opportunities of elementary school students. Therefore, elementary school teachers must be aware of this issue, especially in view of the shift to online learning triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, when many students are dependent on smartphones and computers for online learning.

Conclusions and implications

This study examined the relationship between smartphone behavior and academic performance for fifth and sixth graders in Taiwan. Various background variables (parental control and students’ self-control) were also considered. The findings provide new insights into student attitudes toward smartphone use and into the impacts of smartphone use on academic performance. Smartphone behavior and academic performance were correlated. The students in the high smartphone use group academically outperformed the low smartphone use group. This result indicates that smartphone use constitutes a potential inequality in elementary school students’ learning opportunities. This can be explained as follows: high smartphone use suggests that the participants had sufficient time and opportunity to access and use smartphones. Conversely, low smartphone use suggests that the participants did not have sufficient time and opportunity for this purpose. Students’ academic performance may be adversely affected by fewer opportunities for access. Disparities between their performance and that of their peers with ready access to smartphones may widen amid the prevalent class suspension and school closure during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

This study has laid down the basic foundations for future studies concerning the influence of smartphones on student academic performance in primary school as the outcome variable. This model can be replicated and applied to other social science variables which can influence the academic performance of primary school students as the outcome variable. Moreover, the outcomes of this study can also provide guidelines to teachers, parents, and policymakers on how smartphones can be most effectively used to derive the maximum benefits in relation to academic performance in primary school as the outcome variable. Finally, the discussion of the mediating variable can also be used as the basis for the future projects.

Limitations and areas of future research

This research is significant in the field of smartphone functions and the student academic performance for primary school students. However, certain limitations remain. The small number of students sampled is the main problem in this study. For more generalized results, the sample data may be taken across countries within the region and increased in number (rather than limited to certain cities and countries). For more robust results, data might also be obtained from both rural and urban centers. In this study, only one mediating variable was incorporated, but in future studies, several other psychological and behavioral variables might be included for more comprehensive outcomes. We used the SEM-based multivariate approach which does not address the cause and effect between the variables, therefore, in future work, more robust models could be employed for cause-and-effect investigation amongst the variables.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the school participants in the study.

Appendix 1 Factor analysis results

Author contributions.

Kung and Wang conceived of the presented idea. Kung, Wang and Hsieh developed the theory and performed the computations. Kung and Hsieh verified the analytical methods. Wang encouraged Kung and Hsieh to verify the numerical checklist and supervised the findings of this work. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

The work done for this study was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under project No. MOST 109–2511-H-017–005.

Data availability

Declarations.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Jen Chun Wang, Email: wt.ude.unkn@gnawcj .

Chia-Yen Hsieh, Email: wt.ude.utpn@anudnab .

Shih-Hao Kung, Email: wt.moc.oohay@1-hsg .

• Ahmed, R. R., Salman, F., Malik, S. A., Streimikiene, D., Soomro, R. H., & Pahi, M. H. (2020). Smartphone Use and Academic Performance of University Students: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis.  Sustainability, 12 (1), 439. MDPI AG. Retrieved from 10.3390/su12010439
• Amez S, Beart S. Smartphone use and academic performance: A literature review. International Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 103 :101618. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101618. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anshari M, Almunawar MN, Shahrill M, Wicaksono DK, Huda M. Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference? Education and Information Technologies. 2017; 22 :3063–3079. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9572-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bae SM. The relationships between perceived parenting style, learning motivation, friendship satisfaction, and the addictive use of smartphones with elementary school students of South Korea: Using multivariate latent growth modeling. School Psychology International. 2015; 36 (5):513–531. doi: 10.1177/0143034315604017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51 (6):1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bluestein SA, Kim T. Expectations and fulfillment of course engagement, gained skills, and non-academic usage of college students utilizing tablets in an undergraduate skills course. Education and Information Technologies. 2017; 22 (4):1757–1770. doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9515-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrillo C, Flores MA. COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):466–487. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang FC, Chiu CH, Chen PH, Chiang JT, Miao NF, Chuang HT, Liu S. Children's use of mobile devices, smartphone addiction and parental mediation in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019; 93 :25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.048. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen RS, Ji CH. Investigating the relationship between thinking style and personal electronic device use and its implications for academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 52 :177–183. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.042. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C, Chen S, Wen P, Snow CE. Are screen devices soothing children or soothing parents?Investigating the relationships among children's exposure to different types of screen media, parental efficacy and home literacy practices. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020; 112 :106462. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng YM, Kuo SH, Lou SJ, Shih RC. The development and implementation of u-msg for college students' English learning. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies. 2016; 14 (2):17–29. doi: 10.4018/IJDET.2016040102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho KS, Lee JM. Influence of smartphone addiction proneness of young children on problematic behaviors and emotional intelligence: Mediating self-assessment effects of parents using smartphones. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 66 :303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.063. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho H-Y, Kim KJ, Park JW. Stress and adult smartphone addiction: Mediation by self-control, neuroticism, and extraversion. Stress and Heath. 2017; 33 :624–630. doi: 10.1002/smi.2749. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clayton, K., & Murphy, A. (2016). Smartphone apps in education: Students create videos to teach smartphone use as tool for learning. Journal of Media Literacy Education , 8 , 99–109. Retrieved October 13, 2021. Review from  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1125609.pdf
• Daems K, Pelsmacker PD, Moons I. The effect of ad integration and interactivity on young teenagers’ memory, brand attitude and personal data sharing. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019; 99 :245–259. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci EL, Ryan RM. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology. 2008; 49 (1):14–23. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1999; 125 :627–668. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.125.6.627. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong C, Cao S, Li H. Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 118 :105440. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105440. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Du J, van Koningsbruggen GM, Kerkhof P. A brief measure of social media self-control failure. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018; 84 :68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Firmansyah, R. O., Hamdani, R. A., & Kuswardhana, D. (2020). IOP conference series: Materials science and engineering. The use of smartphone on learning activities: Systematic review . In International Symposium on Materials and Electrical Engineering 2019 (ISMEE 2019), Bandung, Indonesia. 10.1088/1757-899X/850/1/012006
• Garbe A, Ogurlu U, Logan N, Cook P. COVID-19 and remote learning: Experiences of parents with children during the pandemic. American Journal of Qualitative Research. 2020; 4 (3):45–65. doi: 10.29333/ajqr/8471. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George D, Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 17.0 update. 10. Pearson; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant M, Hsu YC. Making personal and professional learning mobile: Blending mobile devices, social media, social networks, and mobile apps to support PLEs, PLNs, & ProLNs. Advances in Communications and Media Research Series. 2014; 10 :27–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grolnick WS, Pomerantz EM. Issues and challenges in studying parental control: Toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspectives. 2009; 3 :165–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00099.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Z, Lu X, Li Y, Li Y. A framework of students' reasons for using CMC media in learning contexts: A structural approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2011; 62 (11):2182–2200. doi: 10.1002/asi.21631. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hadad S, Meishar-Tal H, Blau I. The parents' tale: Why parents resist the educational use of smartphones at schools? Computers & Education. 2020; 157 :103984. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103984. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hau K-T, Ho IT. Chinese students’ motivation and achievement. In: Bond MH, editor. Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology. Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 187–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawi NS, Samaha M. To excel or not to excel: Strong evidence on the adverse effect of smartphone addiction on academic performance. Computers & Education. 2016; 98 :81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heo YJ, Lee K. Smartphone addiction and school life adjustment among high school students: The mediating effect of self-control. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services. 2021; 56 (11):28–36. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20180503-06. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofmann W, Friese M, Strack F. Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009; 4 (2):162–176. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsieh CY. Predictive analysis of instruction in science to students’ declining interest in science-An analysis of gifted students of sixth - and seventh-grade in Taiwan. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2020; 2 (1):33–51. doi: 10.14710/ijee.2.1.33-51. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsieh, C. Y., Lin, C. H. (2021). Other important issues. Meta-analysis: the relationship between smartphone addiction and college students’ academic performance . 2021 TERA International Conference on Education. IN National Sun Yat-sen University (NSYSU), Kaohsiung.
• Hwang Y, Jeong SH. Predictors of parental mediation regarding children's smartphone use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2015; 18 (12):737–743. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0286. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jeong S-H, Kim HJ, Yum J-Y, Hwang Y. What type of content are smartphone users addicted to? SNS vs. games. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 54 :10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judd T. Making sense of multitasking: The role of facebook. Computers & Education. 2014; 70 :194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Junco R, Cotton SR. No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education. 2012; 59 :505–514. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang S, Jung J. Mobile communication for human needs: A comparison of smartphone use between the US and Korea. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014; 35 :376–387. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karikoski J, Soikkeli T. Contextual usage patterns in smartphone communication services. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 2013; 17 (3):491–502. doi: 10.1007/s00779-011-0503-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karpinski AC, Kirschner PA, Ozer I, Mellott JA, Ochwo P. An exploration of social networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among United States and European university students. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013; 29 :1182–1192. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kates AW, Wu H, Coryn CLS. The effects of mobile phone use on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2018; 127 :107–112. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K. Smartphone addiction and the current status of smartphone usage among Korean adolescents. Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. 2017; 2017 (56):115–142. doi: 10.17939/hushss.2017.56.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim D, Chun H, Lee H. Determining the factors that influence college students' adoption of smartphones. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014; 65 (3):578–588. doi: 10.1002/asi.22987. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim B, Jahng KE, Oh H. The moderating effect of elementary school students' perception of open communication with their parents in the relationship between smartphone dependency and school adjustment. Korean Journal of Childcare and Education. 2019; 15 (1):54–73. doi: 10.14698/jkcce.2019.15.01.057. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J, Cho B. Effects of self-control and school adjustment on smartphone addiction among elementary school students. Korea Science. 2015; 11 (3):1–6. doi: 10.5392/IJoC.2015.11.3.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee EJ, Kim HS. Gender differences in smartphone addiction behaviors associated with parent-child bonding, parent-child communication, and parental mediation among Korean elementary school students. Journal of Addictions Nursing. 2018; 29 (4):244–254. doi: 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000254. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee SJ, Moon HJ. Effects of self-Control, parent- adolescent communication, and school life satisfaction on smart-phone addiction for middle school students. Korean Journal of Human Ecology. 2013; 22 (6):87–598. doi: 10.5934/kjhe.2013.22.6.587. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee EJ, Ogbolu Y. Does parental control work with smartphone addiction? Journal of Addictions Nursing. 2018; 29 (2):128–138. doi: 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000222. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J, Cho B, Kim Y, Noh J. Smartphone addiction in university students and its implication for learning. In: Chen G, Kinshuk VK, Huang R, Kong SC, editors. Emerging issues in smart learning. Springer; 2015. pp. 297–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S, Lee K, Yi SH, Park HJ, Hong YJ, Cho H. Effects of Parental Psychological Control on Child’s School Life: Mobile Phone Dependency as Mediator. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2016; 25 :407–418. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0251-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lepp A, Barkley JE, Karpinski AC. The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014; 31 :343–350. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin YQ, Liu Y, Fan WJ, Tuunainen VK, Deng SG. Revisiting the relationship between smartphone use and academic performance: A large-scale study. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021; 122 :106835. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106835. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Looi CK, Lim KF, Pang J, Koh ALH, Seow P, Sun D, Boticki I, Norris C, Soloway E. Bridging formal and informal learning with the use of mobile technology. In: Chai CS, Lim CP, Tan CM, editors. Future learning in primary schools. Springer; 2016. pp. 79–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin F, Ertzberger J. Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education. 2013; 68 :76–85. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meier, A. (2017). Neither pleasurable nor virtuous: Procrastination links smartphone habits and messenger checking behavior to decreased hedonic as well as eudaimonic well-being . Paper presented at the 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Diego, CA.
• Morgan H. Best practices for implementing remote learning during a pandemic. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 2020; 93 (3):135–141. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2020.1751480. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park JH. Smartphone use patterns of smartphone-dependent children. Korean Academy of Child Health Nursing. 2020; 26 (1):47–54. doi: 10.4094/chnr.2020.26.1.47. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park N, Lee H. Social implications of smartphone use: Korean college students' smartphone use and psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2012; 15 (9):491–497. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0580. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park E, Logan H, Zhang L, Kamigaichi N, Kulapichitr U. Responses to coronavirus pandemic in early childhood services across five countries in the Asia-Pacific region: OMEP Policy Forum. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2021; 2021 :1–18. doi: 10.1007/s13158-020-00278-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng Y, Zhou H, Zhang B, Mao H, Hu R, Jiang H. Perceived stress and mobile phone addiction among college students during the 2019 coronavirus disease: The mediating roles of rumination and the moderating role of self-control. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022; 185 :111222. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111222. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reinecke L, Aufenanger S, Beutel ME, Dreier M, Quiring O, Stark B, Müller KW. Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication load and Internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a German probability sample. Media Psychology. 2017; 20 (1):90–115. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1121832. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000; 55 (1):68–78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality. 2006; 74 :1557–1585. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salvation, M. D. (2017). The relationship between smartphone applications usage and students’ academic performance. Computational Methods in Social Sciences , 5 (2), 26–39. Retrieved October 13, 2021. Review from http://cmss.univnt.ro/wp-content/uploads/vol/split/vol_V_issue_2/CMSS_vol_V_issue_2_art.003.pdf
• Sarker IH, Kayes ASM, Watters P. Effectiveness analysis of machine learning classification models for predicting personalized context-aware smartphone usage. Journal of Big Data. 2019; 6 :57. doi: 10.1186/s40537-019-0219-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarwar M, Soomro TR. Impact of smartphone's on society. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2013; 98 (2):219–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sepulveda-Escobar P, Morrison A. Online teaching placement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):587–607. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1820981. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sklar, A., Rim, S. Y. & Fujita, K. (2017). Proactive and reactive self-control. In D., de Ridder, M., Adriaanse, & K. Fujita (Eds). The Routledge International Handbook of Self-Control in Health and Well-Being (p. 11). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315648576
• Steinberg L, Lamborn SD, Dornbusch SM, Darling N. Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development. 1992; 63 :1266–1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01694.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stice E, Barrera M. A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting and adolescents’ substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology. 1995; 31 :322–334. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stolz HE, Barber BK, Olsen JA. Toward disentangling fathering and mothering: An assessment of relative importance. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 :1076–1092. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00195.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang T, Abuhmaid AM, Olaimat M, Oudat DM, Aldhaeebi M, Bamanger E. Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020 doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1817761. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Troll ES, Friese M, Loschelder DD. How students’ self-control and smartphone-use explain their academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021; 117 :106624. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106624. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO figures show two thirds of an academic year lost on average worldwide due to Covid-19 school closures . Retrieved July 23, 2021. Retrieved, from  https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-figures-show-two-thirds-academic-year-lost-average-worldwide-due-covid-19-school
• Vanderloo LM. Screen-viewing among preschoolers in childcare: A systematic review. BMC Pediatric. 2014; 14 :205. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-205. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang TH, Cheng HY. Problematic Internet use among elementary school students: Prevalence and risk factors. Information, Communication & Society. 2019; 24 (2):108–134. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1645192. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang CJ, Chang FC, Chiu CH. Smartphone addiction and related factors among elementary school students in New Taipei City. Research of Educational Communications and Technology. 2017; 117 :67–87. doi: 10.6137/RECT.201712_117.0005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yi YJ, You S, Bae BJ. The influence of smartphones on academic performance: The development of the technology-to-performance chain model. Library Hi Tech. 2016; 34 (3):480–499. doi: 10.1108/LHT-04-2016-0038. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang MWB, Ho CSH, Ho CM. Methodology of development and students’ perceptions of a psychiatry educational smartphone application. Technology and Health Care. 2014; 22 :847–855. doi: 10.3233/THC-140861. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cell Phones in School: Should Be Banned, Restricted or Allowed?

Why Cell Phones in School Should Be Banned?

The use of mobile phones in schools has attracted the attention of many individuals, state organizations, learning institutions, the media and the society at large. Different views have been raised on the positive impacts and the negative repercussion that come as a result of the use of mobile phones in schools. Although some positive aspects can be drawn from the use of mobile phones in schools, the negative impacts are saddening and the need to be looked at with great caution. Poor school performance of children and cheating in exams can be attributed to the use of mobile phones in schools.

School children with mobile phones tend to have a short span of attention in class due to various activities, as surfing the internet, playing games and texting. These children are also likely to cheat in exams by searching for answers through the internet or texting their colleagues for answers. Likewise, cases of mobile phone theft increase due to the urge of getting better phones to those who already have and the desire of having a phone to the poor children who cannot afford it. These should thus give an alarm to the school board to ban the use of mobile phones.

One of the major reasons why the use of mobile phones by school children should be banned is because it promotes cheating during exams. The mobile phones may provide good avenues for the children to cheat in exams and thus earn undeserved credits. Children use the taken pictures of class notes, videos, text messaging as well as wireless earbuds to gain access to materials that assist them during the exams. According to the National School Resource Officer Survey in 2004 by NASRO, it was estimated that more than 41 percent had reported handling cases of students using mobile phones improperly. The officers reported that among the improper ways school children had used mobile phones included cheating in exams, particularly through text messaging and the internet.

Free Persuasive Essay Examples from Elite Essay Writers

Another reason why the school board should ban the use of mobile phones is due to the short span of attention by the children. Student’s concentration in class is distracted on various occasions in the presence of mobile phones. In certain instances, the disturbance can be carried on to the rest of the children in class if the phone rings out loud. This is more likely to happen and cause a lot of distraction, hampering the learning process if these phones are not put in silent mode. Moreover, if a phone is put in silent mode or on vibration, it distracts the owner leading to a short attention span in class. If a call or message, for instance, comes in, the student loses concentration and diverts their attention towards reading the message or answering the call. These lower the student’s understanding of things taught in class and in turn results in poor performance.

It is essential for the school board to note that the use of mobile phones by children promotes theft. The changing technology results in the production of more attractive and expensive mobile phones that not every child can afford. Theft complaints are thus not going to stop anytime soon if the use of mobile phones in schools will not be banned. Despite the fact that some of the children already own mobile phones, they will be tempted to steal the more sophisticated ones from their friends. The poor children who cannot afford a cell phone are no exemption and they are most likely to steal any type of phone for them to own one. It is best if schools ban their use to prevent such cases of theft.

It is thus justifiable to conclude that the school board has a big part to play in making the learning environment suitable for all the children. The ban on the use of mobile phones will be very beneficial to all and would lead to better performance. The children’s concentration span in class would improve, cheating in exams would be minimized and cases of mobile phone theft in schools would be forgotten. If the school board embraces the idea of making it illegal to use mobile phones, the society will benefit and the school children will all have a favorable environment to learn.

Client's Review

" I ordered a cheap essay on this website. Guys, I was so surprised the essay was written better than I thought it'd be. "

Sara J. reviewed EliteWritings on August 15, 2018, via SiteJabber Click to see the original review on an external website.

Why Cell Phones in School Should Be Restricted?

People create different devices and machines due to the constant growth of human needs and demands. It is connected with the appropriate improvement in the quality of life. In fact, the creation of such a modern device as a cell phone refers to great wonders of the twenty-first century, even if its use at school is under great concern. Thus, the development of the cell phone and its regular use can improve the process of studying at school, but it can also destruct the way students thinking and learning.

The cell phone makes a revolution in education. It widens children’s outlook and suggests new ways and approaches for learning more information in different subjects through video use. It becomes evident that “allowing students to use cell phones in the classroom for specific, academic purposes has the power to increase student engagement and allow teachers to more effectively assess learning on a daily basis” (Giambalvo).

It means that the particular use of this device contributes to the development of creativity and interactive experience. Students can get free access to a large number of sources which can be essential in studying. In this case, juniors are motivated to set their goals and reach them observing different videos based on the learning topics. Additionally, this issue includes social and emotional aspects that show how an individual can assess himself/herself to reveal the appropriate persistence and diligence. Thus, modern teachers consider cell phones as a useful tool for learning, which makes studying easier and more interesting.

The cell phones provide new effective ways of learning for those who try to overcome the difficulties with the second language. In this case, it’s primary purpose is to improve the limits of students’ vocabulary. With the help of mobile dictionaries, students can memorize many new words including their translation and spelling. They also develop their vocabulary while writing a test after reading the assignment, which seems to be rather difficult (Lu 515). The point is that students do not have any limitation to learn more words every time they look up a new one and its various meanings. It is known that lexical information improves the intellect, and students’ speech becomes better. Therefore, the effectiveness of cell phone use is obvious, and it is necessary to further develop this approach.

Try Persuasive Essay Topic Title Generator for Free

On the other hand, cell phones cause cheating and unceasing ringing that destroys classroom policies at school. Many teachers claim that “the technology is considered a serious source of distraction in the classroom” because it has a negative impact on academic performance (Campbell 280). In such a way, plagiarism becomes a common problem that exists among students. After finishing high schools, they are not ready to develop and create their own ideas. Students have boundless access to the Internet, thus they simply copy and paste the suggested information. It brings harm to the students’ studying as they do not make any considerable effort to develop their own intellectual skills and abilities in the process of learning. Additionally, teachers often complain that they cannot concentrate on the representation of new material due to the ringing in the class.

Moreover, parents notice that their children stop paying much attention to the school assignments but talk over the phone all the time. Perhaps, it is a precise result of parents’ numerous requests to allow their children to use mobile phones at school as they are against the past ban (Taylor). Thus, the cell phone becomes children’s obsession as they gradually begin to depend on this advanced technology.

In conclusion, the use of the cell phone improves the quality of studying as teachers can apply various teaching videos. Students can also learn the second foreign language via the cell phone by consulting the dictionary and memorizing new words as well as establishing communication and interacting with each other. However, the use of cell phones has several disadvantages while studying: the main one is cheating. This leads to reducing students’ own knowledge because they are out of practice. Therefore, it is necessary to restrict the use of cell phones at school in order to avoid plagiarism which is not good for students studying.

Why Cell Phones in School Should Be Allowed?

In terms of using cell phones in school, various improvements have been established at different schools, which benefited students since their privacy has been improved as well as an effective and essential means of communication was implemented. Schools are trying out various policies that allow having cell phones at schools with some permitting students to use their phones only during breaks or at lunchtime. Other schools are encouraging students to have cell phones at school in order to enhance the educational process, the main purpose of which is to improve understanding in the classroom.

This is helpful in various ways since it provides suitable platforms for enhancing educational understanding. Other policies that were implemented allow students to carry cell phones to school and use them after classes and at breaks. The phones should be kept in lockers or backpacks during classes. This is unlike the policy of some schools that allow phones and encourage students to carry them to school and use them in class for their educational advantage.

Cell phones use in high school during break times should, therefore, be allowed because of personal rights, privacy issues, and effective and essential communication. The use of cell phones during breaks prevents students from losing attention in class and allows them to maintain necessary communications with their parents as well as provides them with the advantages of e-learning tools. Allowing students to use cell phones at school gives students the right to personal life and privacy. In addition, cell phones enhance research and improve students’ understanding since they have more access to information that is available on the Internet.

More About Persuasive Essay Writing

• What is the purpose of a persuasive essay ?
• How to write a persuasive essay ?
• What persuasive essay topics were good in 2016 ?
• How to choose good persuasive essay topics in 2020 ?

Argumentative

Book report, environment, evidence-based practice, informative, please notice.

Some text in the modal.

The Effect of Mobile Phone Ban in Schools on the Evaluation of Classroom Climate

• Conference: 12th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies

• Palacký University Olomouc

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Virginia G. Britt

• L.G. Harris
• Stud Educ Eval
• Darrell L. Fisher
• Univerzita Hradec Králové. Pedagogická fakulta
• Zdeněk Helus
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

The impact of smartphone use on learning effectiveness: A case study of primary school students

• Published: 11 November 2022
• Volume 28 , pages 6287–6320, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Jen Chun Wang 1 ,
• Chia-Yen Hsieh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5476-2674 2 &
• Shih-Hao Kung 1  

120k Accesses

15 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This study investigated the effects of smartphone use on the perceived academic performance of elementary school students. Following the derivation of four hypotheses from the literature, descriptive analysis, t testing, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation analysis, and one-way multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) were performed to characterize the relationship between smartphone behavior and academic performance with regard to learning effectiveness. All coefficients were positive and significant, supporting all four hypotheses. We also used structural equation modeling (SEM) to determine whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance. The MANOVA results revealed that the students in the high smartphone use group academically outperformed those in the low smartphone use group. The results indicate that smartphone use constitutes a potential inequality in learning opportunities among elementary school students. Finally, in a discussion of whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance, it is proved that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable impacting academic performance. Fewer smartphone access opportunities may adversely affect learning effectiveness and academic performance. Elementary school teachers must be aware of this issue, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The findings serve as a reference for policymakers and educators on how smartphone use in learning activities affects academic performance.

Similar content being viewed by others

Smartphone Usage, Social Media Engagement, and Academic Performance: Mediating Effect of Digital Learning

Learning Hard or Hardly Learning: Smartphones in the University’s Classrooms

The smartphone in self-regulated learning and student success: clarifying relationships and testing an intervention

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution has stimulated interest in educational reforms for the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) into instruction. Smartphones have become immensely popular ICT devices. In 2019, approximately 96.8% of the global population had access to mobile devices with the coverage rate reaching 100% in various developed countries (Sarker et al., 2019 ). Given their versatile functions, smartphones have been rapidly integrated into communication and learning, among other domains, and have become an inseparable part of daily life for many. Smartphones are perceived as convenient, easy-to-use tools that promote interaction and multitasking and facilitate both formal and informal learning (Looi et al., 2016 ; Yi et al., 2016 ). Studies have investigated the impacts of smartphones in education. For example, Anshari et al. ( 2017 ) asserted that the advantages of smartphones in educational contexts include rich content transferability and the facilitation of knowledge sharing and dynamic learning. Modern students expect to experience multiple interactive channels in their studies. These authors also suggested incorporating smartphones into the learning process as a means of addressing inappropriate use of smartphones in class (Anshari et al., 2017 ). For young children, there are differences in demand and attributes and some need for control depending upon the daily smartphone usage of the children (Cho & Lee, 2017 ). To avoid negative impacts, including interference with the learning process, teachers should establish appropriate rules and regulations. In a study by Bluestein and Kim ( 2017 ) on the use of technology in the classroom they examined three themes: acceptance of tablet technology, learning excitement and engagement, and the effects of teacher preparedness and technological proficiency. They suggested that teachers be trained in application selection and appropriate in-class device usage. Cheng et al. ( 2016 ) found that smartphone use facilitated English learning in university students. Some studies have provided empirical evidence of the positive effects of smartphone use, whereas others have questioned the integration of smartphone use into the academic environment. For example, Hawi and Samaha ( 2016 ) investigated whether high academic performance was possible for students at high risk of smartphone addiction. They provided strong evidence of the adverse effects of smartphone addiction on academic performance. Lee et al. ( 2015 ) found a negative correlation between smartphone addiction and learning in university students. There has been a lot of research on the effectiveness of online teaching, but the results are not consistent. Therefore, this study aims to further explore the effects of independent variables on smartphone use behavior and academic performance.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many countries to close schools and suspend in-person classes, enforcing the transition to online learning. Carrillo and Flores ( 2020 ) suggested that because of widespread school closures, teachers must learn to manage the online learning environment. Online courses have distinct impacts on students and their families, requiring adequate technological literacy and the formulation of new teaching or learning strategies (Sepulveda-Escobar & Morrison, 2020 ). Since 2020, numerous studies have been conducted on parents’ views regarding the relationship of online learning, using smartphones, computers, and other mobile devices, with learning effectiveness. Widely inconsistent findings have been reported. For instance, in a study by Hadad et al. ( 2020 ), two thirds of parents were opposed to the use of smartphones in school, with more than half expressing active opposition ( n  = 220). By contrast, parents in a study by Garbe et al. ( 2020 ) agreed to the school closure policy and allowed their children to use smartphones to attend online school. Given the differences in the results, further scholarly discourse on smartphone use in online learning is essential.

Questions remain on whether embracing smartphones in learning systems facilitates or undermines learning (i.e., through distraction). Only a few studies have been conducted on the impacts of smartphone use on academic performance in elementary school students (mostly investigating college or high school students). Thus, we investigated the effects of elementary school students’ smartphone use on their academic performance.

2 Literature review

Mobile technologies have driven a paradigm shift in learning; learning activities can now be performed anytime, anywhere, as long as the opportunity to obtain information is available (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013 ).

Kim et al. ( 2014 ) focused on identifying factors that influence smartphone adoption or use. Grant and Hsu ( 2014 ) centered their investigation on user behavior, examining the role of smartphones as learning devices and social interaction tools. Although the contribution of smartphones to learning is evident, few studies have focused on the connection between smartphones and learning, especially in elementary school students. The relationship between factors related to learning with smartphones among this student population is examined in the following sections.

2.1 Behavioral intentions of elementary school students toward smartphone use

Children experience rapid growth and development during elementary school and cultivate various aspects of the human experience, including social skills formed through positive peer interactions. All these experiences exert a substantial impact on the establishment of self-esteem and a positive view of self. Furthermore, students tend to maintain social relationships by interacting with others through various synchronous or asynchronous technologies, including smartphone use (Guo et al., 2011 ). Moreover, students favor communication through instant messaging, in which responses are delivered rapidly. However, for this type of interaction, students must acquire knowledge and develop skills related to smartphones or related technologies which has an impact on social relationships (Kang & Jung, 2014 ; Park & Lee, 2012 ).

Karikoski and Soikkeli ( 2013 ) averred that smartphone use promotes human-to-human interaction both through verbal conversation and through the transmission of textual and graphic information, and cn stimulate the creation and reinforcement of social networks. Park and Lee ( 2012 ) examined the relationship between smartphone use and motivation, social relationships, and mental health. The found smartphone use to be positively correlated with social intimacy. Regarding evidence supporting smartphone use in learning, Firmansyah et al. ( 2020 ) concluded that smartphones significantly benefit student-centered learning, and they can be used in various disciplines and at all stages of education. They also noted the existence of a myriad smartphone applications to fulfill various learning needs. Clayton and Murphy ( 2016 ) suggested that smartphones be used as a mainstay in classroom teaching, and that rather than allowing them to distract from learning, educators should help their students to understand how smartphones can aid learning and facilitate civic participation. In other words, when used properly, smartphones have some features that can lead to better educational performance. For example, their mobility can allow students access to the same (internet-based) services as computers, anytime, anywhere (Lepp et al., 2014 ). Easy accessibility to these functionalities offers students the chance to continuously search for study-related information. Thus, smartphones can provide a multi-media platform to facilitate learning which cannot be replaced by simply reading a textbook (Zhang et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, social networking sites and communication applications may also contribute to the sharing of relevant information. Faster communication between students and between students and faculty may also contribute to more efficient studying and collaboration (Chen et al., 2015 ). College students are more likely to have access to smartphones than elementary school students. The surge in smartphone ownership among college students has spurred interest in studying the impact of smartphone use on all aspects of their lives, especially academic performance. For example, Junco and Cotton ( 2012 ) found that spending a fair amount of time on smartphones while studying had a negative affect on the university student's Grade Point Average (GPA). In addition, multiple studies have found that mobile phone use is inversely related to academic performance (Judd, 2014 ; Karpinski et al., 2013 ). Most research on smartphone use and academic performance has focused on college students. There have few studies focused on elementary school students. Vanderloo ( 2014 ) argued that the excessive use of smartphones may cause numerous problems for the growth and development of children, including increased sedentary time and reduced physical activity. Furthermore, according to Sarwar and Soomro ( 2013 ), rapid and easy access to information and its transmission may hinder concentration and discourage critical thinking and is therefore not conducive to children’s cognitive development.

To sum up, the evidence on the use of smartphones by elementary school students is conflicting. Some studies have demonstrated that smartphone use can help elementary school students build social relationships and maintain their mental health, and have presented findings supporting elementary students’ use of smartphones in their studies. Others have opposed smartphone use in this student population, contending that it can impede growth and development. To take steps towards resolving this conflict, we investigated smartphone use among elementary school students.

In a study conducted in South Korea, Kim ( 2017 ) reported that 50% of their questionnaire respondents reported using smartphones for the first time between grades 4 and 6. Overall, 61.3% of adolescents reported that they had first used smartphones when they were in elementary school. Wang et al. ( 2017 ) obtained similar results in an investigation conducted in Taiwan. However, elementary school students are less likely to have access to smartphones than college students. Some elementary schools in Taiwan prohibit their students from using smartphones in the classroom (although they can use them after school). On the basis of these findings, the present study focused on fifth and sixth graders.

Jeong et al. ( 2016 ), based on a sample of 944 respondents recruited from 20 elementary schools, found that people who use smartphones for accessing Social Network Services (SNS), playing games, and for entertainment were more likely to be addicted to smartphones. Park ( 2020 ) found that games were the most commonly used type of mobile application among participants, comprised of 595 elementary school students. Greater smartphone dependence was associated with greater use of educational applications, videos, and television programs (Park, 2020 ). Three studies in Taiwan showed the same results, that elementary school students in Taiwan enjoy playing games on smartphones (Wang & Cheng, 2019 ; Wang et al., 2017 ). Based on the above, it is reasonable to infer that if elementary school students spend more time playing games on their smartphones, their academic performance will decline. However, several studies have found that using smartphones to help with learning can effectively improve academic performance. In this study we make effort to determine what the key influential factors that affect students' academic performance are.

Kim ( 2017 ) reported that, in Korea, smartphones are used most frequentlyfrom 9 pm to 12 am, which closely overlaps the corresponding period in Taiwan, from 8 to 11 pm In this study, we not only asked students how they obtained their smartphones, but when they most frequently used their smartphones, and who they contacted most frequently on their smartphones were, among other questions. There were a total of eight questions addressing smartphone behavior. Recent research on smartphones and academic performance draws on self-reported survey data on hours and/or minutes of daily use (e.g. Chen et al., 2015 ; Heo & Lee, 2021 ; Lepp et al., 2014 ; Troll et al., 2021 ). Therefore, this study also uses self-reporting to investigate how much time students spend using smartphones.

Various studies have indicated that parental attitudes affect elementary school students’ behavioral intentions toward smartphone use (Chen et al., 2020 ; Daems et al., 2019 ). Bae ( 2015 ) determined that a democratic parenting style (characterized by warmth, supervision, and rational explanation) was related to a lower likelihood of smartphone addiction in children. Park ( 2020 ) suggested that parents should closely monitor their children’s smartphone use patterns and provide consistent discipline to ensure appropriate smartphone use. In a study conducted in Taiwan, Chang et al. ( 2019 ) indicated that restrictive parental mediation reduced the risk of smartphone addiction among children. In essence, parental attitudes critically influence the behavioral intention of elementary school students toward smartphone use. The effect of parental control on smartphone use is also investigated in this study.

Another important question related to student smartphone use is self-control. Jeong et al. ( 2016 ) found that those who have lower self-control and greater stress were more likely to be addicted to smartphones. Self-control is here defined as the ability to control oneself in the absence of any external force, trying to observe appropriate behavior without seeking immediate gratification and thinking about the future (Lee et al., 2015 ). Those with greater self-control focus on long-term results when making decisions. People are able to control their behavior through the conscious revision of automatic actions which is an important factor in retaining self-control in the mobile and on-line environments. Self-control plays an important role in smartphone addiction and the prevention thereof. Previous studies have revealed that the lower one’s self-control, the higher the degree of smartphone dependency (Jeong et al., 2016 ; Lee et al., 2013 ). In other words, those with higher levels of self-control are likely to have lower levels of smartphone addiction. Clearly, self-control is an important factor affecting smartphone usage behavior.

Reviewing the literature related to self-control, we start with self-determination theory (SDT). The SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008 ) theory of human motivation distinguishes between autonomous and controlled types of behavior. Ryan and Deci ( 2000 ) suggested that some users engage in smartphone communications in response to perceived social pressures, meaning their behavior is externally motivated. However, they may also be  intrinsically  motivated in the sense that they voluntarily use their smartphones because they feel that mobile communication meets their needs (Reinecke et al., 2017 ). The most autonomous form of motivation is referred to as intrinsic motivation. Being intrinsically motivated means engaging in an activity for its own sake, because it appears interesting and enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). Acting due to social pressure represents an externally regulated behavior, which SDT classifies as the most controlled form of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). Individuals engage in such behavior not for the sake of the behavior itself, but to achieve a separable outcome, for example, to avoid punishment or to be accepted and liked by others (Ryan & Deci, 2006 ). SDT presumes that controlled and autonomous motivations are not complementary, but “work against each other” (Deci et al., 1999 , p. 628). According to the theory, external rewards alter the perceived cause of action: Individuals no longer voluntarily engage in an activity because it meets their needs, but because they feel controlled (Deci et al., 1999 ). For media users, the temptation to communicate through the smartphone is often irresistible (Meier, 2017 ). Researchers who have examined the reasons why users have difficulty controlling media use have focused on their desire to experience need gratification, which produces pleasurable experiences. The assumption here is that users often subconsciously prefer short-term pleasure gains from media use to the pursuit of long-term goals (Du et al., 2018 ). Accordingly, self-control is very important. Self-control here refers to the motivation and ability to resist temptations (Hofmann et al., 2009 ). Dispositional self-control is a key moderator of yielding to temptation (Hofmann et al., 2009 ). Ryan and Deci ( 2006 ) suggested that people sometimes perform externally controlled behaviors unconsciously, that is, without applying self-control.

Sklar et al. ( 2017 ) described two types of self-control processes: proactive and reactive. They suggested that deficiencies in the resources needed to inhibit temptation impulses lead to failure of self-control. Even when impossible to avoid a temptation entirely, self-control can still be made easier if one avoids attending to the tempting stimulus. For example, young children instructed to actively avoid paying attention to a gift and other attention-drawing temptations are better able to resist the temptation than children who are just asked to focus on their task. Therefore, this study more closely investigates students' self-control abilities in relation to smartphone use asking the questions, ‘How did you obtain your smartphone?’ (to investigate proactivity), and ‘How much time do you spend on your smartphone in a day?’ (to investigate the effects of self-control).

Thus, the following hypotheses are advanced.

Hypothesis 1: Smartphone behavior varies with parental control.

Hypothesis 2: Smartphone behavior varies based on students' self-control.

2.2 Parental control, students' self-control and their effects on learning effectiveness and academic performance

Based on Hypothesis 1 and 2, we believe that we need to focus on two factors, parental control and student self-control and their impact on academic achievement. In East Asia, Confucianism is one of the most prevalent and influential cultural values which affect parent–child relations and parenting practice (Lee et al., 2016 ). In Taiwan, Confucianism shapes another feature of parenting practice: the strong emphasis on academic achievement. The parents’ zeal for their children’s education is characteristic of Taiwan, even in comparison to academic emphasis in other East Asian countries. Hau and Ho ( 2010 ) noted that, in Eastern Asian (Chinese) cultures, academic achievement does not depend on the students’ interests. Chinese students typically do not regard intelligence as fixed, but trainable through learning, which enables them to take a persistent rather than a helpless approach to schoolwork, and subsequently perform well. In Chinese culture, academic achievement has been traditionally regarded as the passport to social success and reputation, and a way to enhance the family's social status (Hau & Ho, 2010 ). Therefore, parents dedicate a large part of their family resources to their children's education, a practice that is still prevalent in Taiwan today (Hsieh, 2020 ). Parental control aimed at better academic achievement is exerted within the behavioral and psychological domains. For instance, Taiwan parents tightly schedule and control their children’s time, planning private tutoring after school and on weekends. Parental control thus refers to “parental intrusiveness, pressure, or domination, with the inverse being parental support of autonomy” (Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009 ). There are two types of parental control: behavioral and psychological. Behavioral control, which includes parental regulation and monitoring over what children do (Steinberg et al., 1992 ), predict positive psychosocial outcomes for children. Outcomes include low externalizing problems, high academic achievement (Stice & Barrera, 1995 ), and low depression. In contrast, psychological control, which is exerted over the children’s psychological world, is known to be problematic (Stolz et al., 2005 ). Psychological control involves strategies such as guilt induction and love withdrawal (Steinberg et al., 1992 ) and is related with disregard for children’s emotional autonomy and needs (Steinberg et al., 1992 ). Therefore, it is very important to discuss the type of parental control.

Troll et al. ( 2021 ) suggested that it is not the objective amount of smartphone use but the effective handling of smartphones that helps students with higher trait self-control to fare better academically. Heo and Lee ( 2021 ) discussed the mediating effect of self-control. They found that self-control was partially mediated by those who were not at risk for smartphone addiction. That is to say, smartphone addiction could be managed by strengthening self-control to promote healthy use. In an earlier study Hsieh and Lin ( 2021 ), we collected 41 international journal papers involving 136,491students across 15 countries, for meta-analysis. We found that the average and majority of the correlations were both negative. The short conclusion here was that smartphone addiction /reliance may have had a negative impact on learning performance. Clearly, it is very important to investigate the effect of self-control on learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance.

2.3 Smartphone use and its effects on learning effectiveness and academic performance

The impact of new technologies on learning or academic performance has been investigated in the literature. Kates et al. ( 2018 ) conducted a meta-analysis of 39 studies published over a 10-year period (2007–2018) to examine potential relationships between smartphone use and academic achievement. The effect of smartphone use on learning outcomes can be summarized as follows: r  =  − 0.16 with a 95% confidence interval of − 0.20 to − 0.13. In other words, smartphone use and academic achievement were negatively correlated. Amez and Beart ( 2020 ) systematically reviewed the literature on smartphone use and academic performance, observing the predominance of empirical findings supporting a negative correlation. However, they advised caution in interpreting this result because this negative correlation was less often observed in studies analyzing data collected through paper-and-pencil questionnaires than in studies on data collected through online surveys. Furthermore, this correlation was less often noted in studies in which the analyses were based on self-reported grade point averages than in studies in which actual grades were used. Salvation ( 2017 ) revealed that the type of smartphone applications and the method of use determined students’ level of knowledge and overall grades. However, this impact was mediated by the amount of time spent using such applications; that is, when more time is spent on educational smartphone applications, the likelihood of enhancement in knowledge and academic performance is higher. This is because smartphones in this context are used as tools to obtain the information necessary for assignments and tests or examinations. Lin et al. ( 2021 ) provided robust evidence that smartphones can promote improvements in academic performance if used appropriately.

In summary, the findings of empirical investigations into the effects of smartphone use have been inconsistent—positive, negative, or none. Thus, we explore the correlation between elementary school students’ smartphone use and learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance through the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Smartphone use is associated with learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance.

Hypothesis 4: Differences in smartphone use correspond to differences in learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance.

Hypotheses 1 to 4 are aimed at understanding the mediating effect of smartphone behavior; see Fig.  1 . It is assumed that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable, parental control and self-control are independent variables, and academic performance is the dependent variable. We want to understand the mediation effect of this model.

Model 1: Model to test the impact of parental control and students’ self-control on academic performance

Thus, the following hypotheses are presented.

Hypothesis 5: Smartphone behaviors are the mediating variable to impact the academic performance.

2.4 Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on smartphone use for online learning

According to 2020 statistics from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, full or partial school closures have affected approximately 800 million learners worldwide, more than half of the global student population. Schools worldwide have been closed for 14 to 22 weeks on average, equivalent to two thirds of an academic year (UNESCO, 2021 ). Because of the pandemic, instructors have been compelled to transition to online teaching (Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ). According to Tang et al. ( 2020 ), online learning is among the most effective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the effectiveness of online learning for young children is limited by their parents’ technological literacy in terms of their ability to navigate learning platforms and use the relevant resources. Parents’ time availability constitutes another constraint (Dong et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, a fast and stable Internet connection, as well as access to devices such as desktops, laptops, or tablet computers, definitively affects equity in online education. For example, in 2018, 14% of households in the United States lacked Internet access (Morgan, 2020 ). In addition, the availability and stability of network connections cannot be guaranteed in relatively remote areas, including some parts of Australia (Park et al., 2021 ). In Japan, more than 50% of 3-year-old children and 68% of 6-year-old children used the Internet in their studies, but only 21% of households in Thailand have computer equipment (Park et al., 2021 ).

In short, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to changes in educational practices. With advances in Internet technology and computer hardware, online education has become the norm amid. However, the process and effectiveness of learning in this context is affected by multiple factors. Aside from the parents’ financial ability, knowledge of educational concepts, and technological literacy, the availability of computer equipment and Internet connectivity also exert impacts. This is especially true for elementary school students, who rely on their parents in online learning more than do middle or high school students, because of their short attention spans and undeveloped computer skills. Therefore, this study focuses on the use of smartphones by elementary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on learning effectiveness.

3.1 Participants

Participants were recruited through stratified random sampling. They comprised 499 Taiwanese elementary school students (in grades 5 and 6) who had used smartphones for at least 12 months. Specifically, the students advanced to grades 5 or 6 at the beginning of the 2018–2019 school year. Boys and girls accounted for 47.7% and 52.3% ( n  = 238 and 261, respectively) of the sample.

3.2 Data collection and measurement

In 2020, a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect relevant data. Of the 620 questionnaires distributed, 575 (92.7%) completed questionnaires were returned. After 64 participants were excluded because they had not used their smartphones continually over the past 12 months and 14 participants were excluded for providing invalid responses, 499 individuals remained. The questionnaire was developed by one of the authors on the basis of a literature review. The questionnaire content can be categorized as follows: (1) students’ demographic characteristics, (2) smartphone use, (3) smartphone behavior, and (4) learning effectiveness. The questionnaire was modified according to evaluation feedback provided by six experts. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test the structural validity of the questionnaire. Factor analysis was performed using principal component analysis and oblique rotation. From the exploratory factor analysis, 25 items (15 and 10 items on smartphone behavior and academic performance as constructs, respectively) were extracted and confirmed. According to the results of the exploratory factor analysis, smartphone behavior can be classified into three dimensions: interpersonal communication, leisure and entertainment, and searching for information. Interpersonal communication is defined as when students use smartphones to communicate with classmates or friends, such as in response to questions like ‘I often use my smartphone to call or text my friends’. Leisure and entertainment mean that students spend a lot of their time using their smartphones for leisure and entertainment, e.g. ‘I often use my smartphone to listen to music’ or ‘I often play media games with my smartphone’. Searching for information means that students spend a lot of their time using their smartphones to search for information that will help them learn, such as in response to questions like this ‘I often use my smartphone to search for information online, such as looking up words in a dictionary’ or ‘I will use my smartphone to read e-books and newspapers online’.

Academic performance can be classified into three dimensions: learning activities, learning applications, and learning attitudes. Learning activities are when students use their smartphones to help them with learning, such as in response to a question like ‘I often use some online resources from my smartphone to help with my coursework’. Learning applications are defined as when students apply smartphone software to help them with their learning activities, e.g. ‘With a smartphone, I am more accustomed to using multimedia software’. Learning attitudes define the students’ attitudes toward using the smartphone, with questions like ‘Since I have had a smartphone, I often find class boring; using a smartphone is more fun’ (This is a reverse coded item). The factor analysis results are shown in the appendix (Appendix Tables 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 and 14 ). It can be seen that the KMO value is higher than 0.75, and the Bartlett’s test is also significant. The total variance explained for smartphone behavior is 53.47% and for academic performance it is 59.81%. These results demonstrate the validity of the research tool.

In this study, students were defined as "proactive" if they had asked their parents to buy a smartphone for their own use and "reactive" if their parents gave them a smartphone unsolicited (i.e. they had not asked for it). According to Heo and Lee ( 2021 ), students who proactively asked their parents to buy them a smartphone gave the assurance that they could control themselves and not become addicted, but if they had been given a smartphone (without having to ask for it), they did not need to offer their parents any such guarantees. They defined user addiction (meaning low self-control) as more than four hours of smartphone use per day (Peng et al., 2022 ).

A cross-tabulation of self-control results is presented in Table 2 , with the columns representing “proactive” and “reactive”, and the rows showing “high self-control” and “low self-control”. There are four variables in this cross-tabulation, “Proactive high self-control” (students promised parents they would not become smartphone addicts and were successful), “Proactive low self-control” (assured their parents they would not become smartphone addicts, but were unsuccessful), “Reactive high self-control”, and “Reactive low self-control”.

Regarding internal consistency among the constructs, the Cronbach's α values ranged from 0.850 to 0.884. According to the guidelines established by George and Mallery ( 2010 ), these values were acceptable because they exceeded 0.7. The overall Cronbach's α for the constructs was 0.922. The Cronbach's α value of the smartphone behavior construct was 0.850, whereas that of the academic performance construct was 0.884.

3.3 Data analysis

The participants’ demographic characteristics and smartphone use (expressed as frequencies and percentages) were subjected to a descriptive analysis. To examine hypotheses 1 and 2, an independent samples t test (for gender and grade) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed to test the differences in smartphone use and learning effectiveness with respect to academic performance among elementary school students under various background variables. To test hypothesis 3, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to analyze the association between smartphone behavior and academic performance. To test hypothesis 4, one-way multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was employed to examine differences in smartphone behavior and its impacts on learning effectiveness. To test Hypothesis 5, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance.

4.1 Descriptive analysis

The descriptive analysis (Table 1 ) revealed that the parents of 71.1% of the participants ( n  = 499) conditionally controlled their smartphone use. Moreover, 42.5% of the participants noted that they started using smartphones in grade 3 or 4. Notably, 43.3% reported that they used their parents’ old smartphones; in other words, almost half of the students used secondhand smartphones. Overall, 79% of the participants indicated that they most frequently used their smartphones after school. Regarding smartphone use on weekends, 54.1% and 44.1% used their smartphones during the daytime and nighttime, respectively. Family members and classmates (45.1% and 43.3%, respectively) were the people that the participants communicated with the most on their smartphones. Regarding bringing their smartphones to school, 53.1% of the participants indicated that they were most concerned about losing their phones. As for smartphone use duration, 28.3% of the participants indicated that they used their smartphones for less than 1 h a day, whereas 24.4% reported using them for 1 to 2 h a day.

4.2 Smartphone behavior varies with parental control and based on students' self-control

We used the question ‘How did you obtain your smartphone?’ (to investigate proactivity), and ‘How much time do you spend on your smartphone in a day?’ (to investigate the effects of students' self-control). According to the Hsieh and Lin ( 2021 ), and Peng et al. ( 2022 ), addition is defined more than 4 h a day are defined as smartphone addiction (meaning that students have low self-control).

Table 2 gives the cross-tabulation results for self-control ability. Students who asked their parents to buy a smartphone, but use it for less than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Proactive high self-control’; students using a smartphone for more than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Proactive low self-control’. Students whose parents gave them a smartphone but use them for less than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Reactive high self-control’; students given smart phones and using them for more than 4 h a day are defined as having ‘Reactive low self-control’; others, we define as having moderate levels of self-control.

Tables 3 – 5 present the results of the t test and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on differences in the smartphone behaviors based on parental control and students' self-control. As mentioned, smartphone behavior can be classified into three dimensions: interpersonal communication, leisure and entertainment, and information searches. Table 3 lists the significant independent variables in the first dimension of smartphone behavior based on parental control and students' self-control. Among the students using their smartphones for the purpose of communication, the proportion of parents enforcing no control over smartphone use was significantly higher than the proportions of parents enforcing strict or conditional control ( F  = 11.828, p  < 0.001). This indicates that the lack of parental control over smartphone use leads to the participants spending more time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication.

For the independent variable of self-control, regardless of whether students had proactive high self-control, proactive low self-control or reactive low self-control, significantly higher levels of interpersonal communication than reactive high self-control were reported ( F  = 18.88, p  < 0.001). This means that students effectively able to control themselves, who had not asked their parents to buy them smartphones, spent less time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication. However, students with high self-control but who had asked their parents to buy them smartphones, would spend more time on interpersonal communication (meaning that while they may not spend a lot of time on their smartphones each day, the time spent on interpersonal communication is no different than for the other groups). Those without effective self-control, regardless of whether they had actively asked their parents to buy them a smartphone or not, would spend more time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication.

Table 4 displays the independent variables (parental control and students' self-control) significant in the dimension of leisure and entertainment. Among the students using their smartphones for this purpose, the proportion of parents enforcing no control over smartphone use was significantly higher than the proportions of parents enforcing strict or conditional control ( F  = 8.539, p  < 0.001). This indicates that the lack of parental control over smartphone use leads to the participants spending more time using their smartphones for leisure and entertainment.

For the independent variable of self-control, students with proactive low self-control and reactive low self-control reported significantly higher use of smartphones for leisure and entertainment than did students with proactive high self-control and reactive high self-control ( F  = 8.77, p  < 0.001). This means that students who cannot control themselves, whether proactive or passive in terms of asking their parents to buy them a smartphone, will spend more time using their smartphones for leisure and entertainment.

Table 5 presents the significant independent variables in the dimension of information searching. Significant differences were observed only for gender, with a significantly higher proportion of girls using their smartphones to search for information ( t  =  − 3.979, p  < 0.001). Parental control and students' self-control had no significance in the dimension of information searching. This means that the parents' attitudes towards control did not affect the students' use of smartphones for information searches. This is conceivable, as Asian parents generally discourage their children from using their smartphones for non-study related activities (such as entertainment or making friends), but not for learning-related activities. It is also worth noting that student self-control was not significant in relation to searching for information. This means that it makes no difference whether or not students have self-control in their search for learning-related information.

Four notable results are presented as follows.

First, a significantly higher proportion of girls used their smartphones to search for information. Second, if smartphone use was not subject to parental control, the participants spent more time using their smartphones for interpersonal communication and for leisure and entertainment rather than for information searches. This means that if parents make the effort to control their children's smartphone use, this will reduce their children's use of smartphones for interpersonal communication and entertainment. Third, student self-control affects smartphone use behavior for interpersonal communication and entertainment (but not searching for information). This does not mean that they spend more time on their smartphones in their daily lives, it means that they spend the most time interacting with people while using their smartphones (For example, they may only spend 2–3 h a day using their smartphone. During those 2–3 h, they spend more than 90% of their time interacting with people and only 10% doing other things), which is the fourth result.

These results support hypotheses 1 and 2.

4.3 Pearson’s correlation analysis of smartphone behavior and academic performance

Table 6 presents the results of Pearson’s correlation analysis of smartphone behavior and academic performance. Except for information searches and learning attitudes, all variables exhibited significant and positively correlations. In short, there was a positive correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance. Thus, hypothesis 3 is supported.

4.4 Analysis of differences in the academic performance of students with different smartphone behaviors

Differences in smartphone behavior and its impacts on learning effectiveness with regard to academic performance were examined through. In step 1, cluster analysis was conducted to convert continuous variables into discrete variables. In step 2, a one-way MANOVA was performed to analyze differences in the academic performance of students with varying smartphone behavior. Regarding the cluster analysis results (Table 7 ), the value of the change in the Bayesian information criterion in the second cluster was − 271.954, indicating that it would be appropriate to group the data. Specifically, we assigned the participants into either the high smartphone use group or the low smartphone use group, comprised of 230 and 269 participants (46.1% and 53.9%), respectively.

The MANOVA was preceded by the Levene test for the equality of variance, which revealed nonsignificant results, F (6, 167,784.219) = 1.285, p  > 0.05. Thus, we proceeded to use MANOVA to examine differences in the academic performance of students with differing smartphone behaviors (Table 8 ). Between-group differences in academic performance were significant, F (3, 495) = 44.083, p  < 0.001, Λ = 0.789, η 2  = 0.211, power = 0.999. Subsequently, because academic performance consists of three dimensions, we performed univariate tests and an a posteriori comparison.

Table 9 presents the results of the univariate tests. Between-group differences in learning activities were significant, ( F [1, 497] = 40.8, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.076, power = 0.999). Between-group differences in learning applications were also significant ( F [1, 497] = 117.98, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.192, power = 0.999). Finally, differences between the groups in learning attitudes were significant ( F [1, 497] = 23.22, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.045, power = 0.998). The a posteriori comparison demonstrated that the high smartphone use group significantly outperformed the low smartphone use group in all dependent variables with regard to academic performance. Thus, hypothesis 4 is supported.

4.5 Smartphone behavior as the mediating variable impacting academic performance

As suggested by Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ), smartphone behavior is a mediating variable affecting academic performance. We examined the impact through the following four-step process:

Step 1. The independent variable (parental control and students' self-control) must have a significant effect on the dependent variable (academic performance), as in model 1 (please see Fig.  1 ).

Step 2. The independent variable (parental control and students' self-control) must have a significant effect on the mediating variable (smartphone behaviors), as in model 2 (please see Fig.  2 ).

Step 3. When both the independent variable (parental control and student self-control) and the mediator (smartphone behavior) are used as predictors, the mediating variable (smartphone behavior) must have a significant effect on the dependent variable (academic performance), as in model 3 (please see Fig.  3 ).

Step 4. In model 3, the regression coefficient of the independent variables (parental control and student self-control) on the dependent variables must be less than in mode 1 or become insignificant.

Model 2: Model to test the impact of parental control and students’ self-control on smartphone behavior

Model 3: Both independent variables (parental control and student self-control) and mediators (smartphone behavior) were used as predictors to predict dependent variables

As can be seen in Fig.  1 , parental control and student self-control are observed variables, and smartphone behavior is a latent variable. "Strict" is set to 0, which means "Conditional", with "None" compared to "Strict". “Proactive high self-control” is also set to 0. From Fig.  1 we find that the independent variables have a significant effect on the dependent variable. The regression coefficient of parental control is 0.176, t = 3.45 ( p  < 0.01); the regression coefficient of students’ self-control is 0.218, t = 4.12 ( p  < 0.001), proving the fit of the model (Chi Square = 13.96**, df = 4, GFI = 0.989, AGFI = 0.959, CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.031). Therefore, the test results for Model 1 are in line with the recommendations of Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ).

As can be seen in Fig.  2 , the independent variables have a significant effect on smartphone behaviors. The regression coefficient of parental control is 0.166, t = 3.11 ( p  < 0.01); the regression coefficient of students’ self-control is 0.149, t = 2.85 ( p  < 0.01). The coefficients of the model fit are: Chi Square = 15.10**, df = 4, GFI = 0.988, AGFI = 0.954, CFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.039. Therefore, the results of the test of Model 2 are in line with the recommendations of Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ).

As can be seen in Fig.  3 , smartphone behaviors have a significant effect on the dependent variable. The regression coefficient is 0.664, t = 10.2 ( p  < 0.001). The coefficients of the model fit are: Chi Square = 91.04**, df = 16, GFI = 0.958, AGFI = 0.905, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.900, RMSEA = 0.077, SRMR = 0.063. Therefore, the results of the test of Model 3 are in line with the recommendations of Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ).

As can be seen in Fig.  4 , the regression coefficient of the independent variables (parental control and student self-control) on the dependent variables is less than in model 1, and the parental control variable becomes insignificant. The regression coefficient of parental control is 0.013, t = 0.226 ( p  > 0.05); the path coefficient of students’ self-control is 0.155, t = 3.07 ( p  < 0.01).

Model 4: Model three’s regression coefficient of the independent variables (parental control and student self-control) on the dependent variables

To sum up, we prove that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable to impact the academic performance. Thus, hypothesis 5 is supported.

5 Discussion

This study investigated differences in the smartphone behavior of fifth and sixth graders in Taiwan with different background variables (focus on parental control and students’ self-control) and their effects on academic performance. The correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance was also examined. Although smartphones are being used in elementary school learning activities, relatively few studies have explored their effects on academic performance. In this study, the proportion of girls who used smartphones to search for information was significantly higher than that of boys. Past studies have been inconclusive about gender differences in smartphone use. Lee and Kim ( 2018 ) observed no gender differences in smartphone use, but did note that boys engaged in more smartphone use if their parents set fewer restrictions. Kim et al. ( 2019 ) found that boys exhibited higher levels of smartphone dependency than girls. By contrast, Kim ( 2017 ) reported that girls had higher levels of smartphone dependency than boys did. Most relevant studies have focused on smartphone dependency; comparatively little attention has been devoted to smartphone behavior. The present study contributes to the literature in this regard.

Notably, this study found that parental control affected smartphone use. If the participants’ parents imposed no restrictions, students spent more time on leisure and entertainment and on interpersonal communication rather than on information searches. This is conceivable, as Asian parents generally discourage their children from using their smartphones for non-study related activities (such as entertainment or making friends) but not for learning-related activities. If Asian parents believe that using a smartphone can improve their child's academic performance, they will encourage their child to use it. Parents in Taiwan attach great importance to their children's academic performance (Lee et al., 2016 ). A considerable amount of research has been conducted on parental attitudes or control in this context. Hwang and Jeong ( 2015 ) suggested that parental attitudes mediated their children’s smartphone use. Similarly, Chang et al. ( 2019 ) observed that parental attitudes mediated the smartphone use of children in Taiwan. Our results are consistent with extant evidence in this regard. Lee and Ogbolu ( 2018 ) demonstrated that the stronger children’s perception was of parental control over their smartphone use, the more frequently they used their smartphones. The study did not further explain the activities the children engaged in on their smartphones after they increased their frequency of use. In the present study, the participants spent more time on their smartphones for leisure and entertainment and for interpersonal communication than for information searches.

Notably, this study also found that students’ self-control affected smartphone use.

Regarding the Pearson’s correlation analysis of smartphone behavior and academic performance, except for information searches and learning attitudes, all the variables were significantly positively correlated. In other words, there was a positive correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance. In their systematic review, Amez and Beart ( 2020 ) determined that most empirical results provided evidence of a negative correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance, playing a more considerable role in that relationship than the theoretical mechanisms or empirical methods in the studies they examined. The discrepancy between our results and theirs can be explained by the between-study variations in the definitions of learning achievement or performance.

Regarding the present results on the differences in the academic performance of students with varying smartphone behaviors, we carried out a cluster analysis, dividing the participants into a high smartphone use group and a low smartphone use group. Subsequent MANOVA revealed that the high smartphone use group academically outperformed the low smartphone use group; significant differences were noted in the academic performance of students with different smartphone behaviors. Given the observed correlation between smartphone behavior and academic performance, this result is not unexpected. The findings on the relationship between smartphone behavior and academic performance can be applied to smartphone use in the context of education.

Finally, in a discussion of whether smartphone behavior is a mediator of academic performance, it is proved that smartphone behavior is the mediating variable impacting academic performance. Our findings show that parental control and students’ self-control can affect academic performance. However, the role of the mediating variable (smartphone use behavior) means that changes in parental control have no effect on academic achievement at all. This means that smartphone use behaviors have a full mediating effect on parental control. It is also found that students’ self-control has a partial mediating effect. Our findings suggest that parental attitudes towards the control of smartphone use and students' self-control do affect academic performance, but smartphone use behavior has a significant mediating effect on this. In other words, it is more important to understand the children's smartphone behavior than to control their smartphone usage. There have been many studies in the past exploring the mediator variables for smartphone use addiction and academic performance. For instance, Ahmed et al. ( 2020 ) found that the mediating variables of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) and attitude have a significant and positive influence in the relationship between smartphone functions. Cho and Lee ( 2017 ) found that parental attitude is the mediating variable for smartphone use addiction. Cho et al. ( 2017 ) indicated that stress had a significant influence on smartphone addiction, while self-control mediates that influence. In conclusion, the outcomes demonstrate that parental control and students’ self-control do influence student academic performance in primary school. Previous studies have offered mixed results as to whether smartphone usage has an adverse or affirmative influence on student academic performance. This study points out a new direction, thinking of smartphone use behavior as a mediator.

In brief, the participants spent more smartphone time on leisure and entertainment and interpersonal communication, but the academic performance of the high smartphone use group surpassed that of the low smartphone use group. This result may clarify the role of students’ communication skills in their smartphone use. As Kang and Jung ( 2014 ) noted, conventional communication methods have been largely replaced by mobile technologies. This suggests that students’ conventional communication skills are also shifting to accommodate smartphone use. Elementary students are relatively confident in communicating with others through smartphones; thus, they likely have greater self‐efficacy in this regard and in turn may be better able to improve their academic performance by leveraging mobile technologies. This premise requires verification through further research. Notably, high smartphone use suggests the greater availability of time and opportunity in this regard. Conversely, low smartphone use suggests the relative lack of such time and opportunity. The finding that the high smartphone use group academically outperformed the low smartphone use group also indicates that smartphone accessibility constitutes a potential inequality in the learning opportunities of elementary school students. Therefore, elementary school teachers must be aware of this issue, especially in view of the shift to online learning triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, when many students are dependent on smartphones and computers for online learning.

6 Conclusions and implications

This study examined the relationship between smartphone behavior and academic performance for fifth and sixth graders in Taiwan. Various background variables (parental control and students’ self-control) were also considered. The findings provide new insights into student attitudes toward smartphone use and into the impacts of smartphone use on academic performance. Smartphone behavior and academic performance were correlated. The students in the high smartphone use group academically outperformed the low smartphone use group. This result indicates that smartphone use constitutes a potential inequality in elementary school students’ learning opportunities. This can be explained as follows: high smartphone use suggests that the participants had sufficient time and opportunity to access and use smartphones. Conversely, low smartphone use suggests that the participants did not have sufficient time and opportunity for this purpose. Students’ academic performance may be adversely affected by fewer opportunities for access. Disparities between their performance and that of their peers with ready access to smartphones may widen amid the prevalent class suspension and school closure during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

This study has laid down the basic foundations for future studies concerning the influence of smartphones on student academic performance in primary school as the outcome variable. This model can be replicated and applied to other social science variables which can influence the academic performance of primary school students as the outcome variable. Moreover, the outcomes of this study can also provide guidelines to teachers, parents, and policymakers on how smartphones can be most effectively used to derive the maximum benefits in relation to academic performance in primary school as the outcome variable. Finally, the discussion of the mediating variable can also be used as the basis for the future projects.

7 Limitations and areas of future research

This research is significant in the field of smartphone functions and the student academic performance for primary school students. However, certain limitations remain. The small number of students sampled is the main problem in this study. For more generalized results, the sample data may be taken across countries within the region and increased in number (rather than limited to certain cities and countries). For more robust results, data might also be obtained from both rural and urban centers. In this study, only one mediating variable was incorporated, but in future studies, several other psychological and behavioral variables might be included for more comprehensive outcomes. We used the SEM-based multivariate approach which does not address the cause and effect between the variables, therefore, in future work, more robust models could be employed for cause-and-effect investigation amongst the variables.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Ahmed, R. R., Salman, F., Malik, S. A., Streimikiene, D., Soomro, R. H., & Pahi, M. H. (2020). Smartphone Use and Academic Performance of University Students: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis.  Sustainability, 12 (1), 439. MDPI AG. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010439

Amez, S., & Beart, S. (2020). Smartphone use and academic performance: A literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 103 , 101618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101618

Article   Google Scholar  

Anshari, M., Almunawar, M. N., Shahrill, M., Wicaksono, D. K., & Huda, M. (2017). Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference? Education and Information Technologies, 22 , 3063–3079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9572-7

Bae, S. M. (2015). The relationships between perceived parenting style, learning motivation, friendship satisfaction, and the addictive use of smartphones with elementary school students of South Korea: Using multivariate latent growth modeling. School Psychology International, 36 (5), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315604017

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bluestein, S. A., & Kim, T. (2017). Expectations and fulfillment of course engagement, gained skills, and non-academic usage of college students utilizing tablets in an undergraduate skills course. Education and Information Technologies, 22 (4), 1757–1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9515-8

Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184

Chang, F. C., Chiu, C. H., Chen, P. H., Chiang, J. T., Miao, N. F., Chuang, H. T., & Liu, S. (2019). Children’s use of mobile devices, smartphone addiction and parental mediation in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 93 , 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.048

Chen, R. S., & Ji, C. H. (2015). Investigating the relationship between thinking style and personal electronic device use and its implications for academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52 , 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.042

Chen, C., Chen, S., Wen, P., & Snow, C. E. (2020). Are screen devices soothing children or soothing parents?Investigating the relationships among children’s exposure to different types of screen media, parental efficacy and home literacy practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 112 , 106462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106462

Cheng, Y. M., Kuo, S. H., Lou, S. J., & Shih, R. C. (2016). The development and implementation of u-msg for college students’ English learning. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 14 (2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2016040102

Cho, K. S., & Lee, J. M. (2017). Influence of smartphone addiction proneness of young children on problematic behaviors and emotional intelligence: Mediating self-assessment effects of parents using smartphones. Computers in Human Behavior, 66 , 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.063

Cho, H.-Y., Kim, K. J., & Park, J. W. (2017). Stress and adult smartphone addiction: Mediation by self-control, neuroticism, and extraversion. Stress and Heath, 33 , 624–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2749

Clayton, K., & Murphy, A. (2016). Smartphone apps in education: Students create videos to teach smartphone use as tool for learning. Journal of Media Literacy Education , 8 , 99–109. Retrieved October 13, 2021. Review from  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1125609.pdf

Daems, K., Pelsmacker, P. D., & Moons, I. (2019). The effect of ad integration and interactivity on young teenagers’ memory, brand attitude and personal data sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 99 , 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.031

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49 (1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 , 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.125.6.627

Dong, C., Cao, S., & Li, H. (2020). Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Children and Youth Services Review, 118 , 105440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105440

Du, J., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., & Kerkhof, P. (2018). A brief measure of social media self-control failure. Computers in Human Behavior, 84 , 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.002

Firmansyah, R. O., Hamdani, R. A., & Kuswardhana, D. (2020). IOP conference series: Materials science and engineering. The use of smartphone on learning activities: Systematic review . In International Symposium on Materials and Electrical Engineering 2019 (ISMEE 2019), Bandung, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/850/1/012006

Garbe, A., Ogurlu, U., Logan, N., & Cook, P. (2020). COVID-19 and remote learning: Experiences of parents with children during the pandemic. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 4 (3), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/8471

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.

Google Scholar  

Grant, M., & Hsu, Y. C. (2014). Making personal and professional learning mobile: Blending mobile devices, social media, social networks, and mobile apps to support PLEs, PLNs, & ProLNs. Advances in Communications and Media Research Series, 10 , 27–46.

Grolnick, W. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental control: Toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspectives, 3 , 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00099.x

Guo, Z., Lu, X., Li, Y., & Li, Y. (2011). A framework of students’ reasons for using CMC media in learning contexts: A structural approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62 (11), 2182–2200. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21631

Hadad, S., Meishar-Tal, H., & Blau, I. (2020). The parents’ tale: Why parents resist the educational use of smartphones at schools? Computers & Education, 157 , 103984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103984

Hau, K.-T., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Chinese students’ motivation and achievement. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 187–204). Oxford University Press.

Hawi, N. S., & Samaha, M. (2016). To excel or not to excel: Strong evidence on the adverse effect of smartphone addiction on academic performance. Computers & Education, 98 , 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.007

Heo, Y. J., & Lee, K. (2021). Smartphone addiction and school life adjustment among high school students: The mediating effect of self-control. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 56 (11), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20180503-06

Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (2), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x

Hsieh, C. Y. (2020). Predictive analysis of instruction in science to students’ declining interest in science-An analysis of gifted students of sixth - and seventh-grade in Taiwan. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2 (1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.14710/ijee.2.1.33-51

Hsieh, C. Y., Lin, C. H. (2021). Other important issues. Meta-analysis: the relationship between smartphone addiction and college students’ academic performance . 2021 TERA International Conference on Education. IN National Sun Yat-sen University (NSYSU), Kaohsiung.

Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. H. (2015). Predictors of parental mediation regarding children’s smartphone use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18 (12), 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0286

Jeong, S.-H., Kim, H. J., Yum, J.-Y., & Hwang, Y. (2016). What type of content are smartphone users addicted to? SNS vs. games. Computers in Human Behavior, 54 , 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.035

Judd, T. (2014). Making sense of multitasking: The role of facebook. Computers & Education, 70 , 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.013

Junco, R., & Cotton, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59 , 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023

Kang, S., & Jung, J. (2014). Mobile communication for human needs: A comparison of smartphone use between the US and Korea. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.024

Karikoski, J., & Soikkeli, T. (2013). Contextual usage patterns in smartphone communication services. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17 (3), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0503-0

Karpinski, A. C., Kirschner, P. A., Ozer, I., Mellott, J. A., & Ochwo, P. (2013). An exploration of social networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among United States and European university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 , 1182–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.011

Kates, A. W., Wu, H., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2018). The effects of mobile phone use on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 127 , 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.012

Kim, K. (2017). Smartphone addiction and the current status of smartphone usage among Korean adolescents. Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2017 (56), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.17939/hushss.2017.56.006

Kim, D., Chun, H., & Lee, H. (2014). Determining the factors that influence college students’ adoption of smartphones. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65 (3), 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22987

Kim, B., Jahng, K. E., & Oh, H. (2019). The moderating effect of elementary school students’ perception of open communication with their parents in the relationship between smartphone dependency and school adjustment. Korean Journal of Childcare and Education, 15 (1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.14698/jkcce.2019.15.01.057

Lee, J., & Cho, B. (2015). Effects of self-control and school adjustment on smartphone addiction among elementary school students. Korea Science, 11 (3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2015.11.3.001

Lee, E. J., & Kim, H. S. (2018). Gender differences in smartphone addiction behaviors associated with parent-child bonding, parent-child communication, and parental mediation among Korean elementary school students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29 (4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000254

Lee, S. J., & Moon, H. J. (2013). Effects of self-Control, parent- adolescent communication, and school life satisfaction on smart-phone addiction for middle school students. Korean Journal of Human Ecology, 22 (6), 87–598. https://doi.org/10.5934/kjhe.2013.22.6.587

Lee, E. J., & Ogbolu, Y. (2018). Does parental control work with smartphone addiction? Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29 (2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000222

Lee, J., Cho, B., Kim, Y., & Noh, J. (2015). Smartphone addiction in university students and its implication for learning. In G. Chen, V. K. Kinshuk, R. Huang, & S. C. Kong (Eds.), Emerging issues in smart learning (pp. 297–305). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lee, S., Lee, K., Yi, S. H., Park, H. J., Hong, Y. J., & Cho, H. (2016). Effects of Parental Psychological Control on Child’s School Life: Mobile Phone Dependency as Mediator. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25 , 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0251-2

Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31 , 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049

Lin, Y. Q., Liu, Y., Fan, W. J., Tuunainen, V. K., & Deng, S. G. (2021). Revisiting the relationship between smartphone use and academic performance: A large-scale study. Computers in Human Behavior, 122 , 106835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106835

Looi, C. K., Lim, K. F., Pang, J., Koh, A. L. H., Seow, P., Sun, D., Boticki, I., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2016). Bridging formal and informal learning with the use of mobile technology. In C. S. Chai, C. P. Lim, & C. M. Tan (Eds.), Future learning in primary schools (pp. 79–96). Springer.

Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68 , 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.021

Meier, A. (2017). Neither pleasurable nor virtuous: Procrastination links smartphone habits and messenger checking behavior to decreased hedonic as well as eudaimonic well-being . Paper presented at the 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Diego, CA.

Morgan, H. (2020). Best practices for implementing remote learning during a pandemic. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 93 (3), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2020.1751480

Park, J. H. (2020). Smartphone use patterns of smartphone-dependent children. Korean Academy of Child Health Nursing, 26 (1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2020.26.1.47

Park, N., & Lee, H. (2012). Social implications of smartphone use: Korean college students’ smartphone use and psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (9), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0580

Park, E., Logan, H., Zhang, L., Kamigaichi, N., & Kulapichitr, U. (2021). Responses to coronavirus pandemic in early childhood services across five countries in the Asia-Pacific region: OMEP Policy Forum. International Journal of Early Childhood, 2021 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00278-0

Peng, Y., Zhou, H., Zhang, B., Mao, H., Hu, R., & Jiang, H. (2022). Perceived stress and mobile phone addiction among college students during the 2019 coronavirus disease: The mediating roles of rumination and the moderating role of self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 185 , 111222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111222

Reinecke, L., Aufenanger, S., Beutel, M. E., Dreier, M., Quiring, O., Stark, B., & Müller, K. W. (2017). Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication load and Internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a German probability sample. Media Psychology, 20 (1), 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121832

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74 , 1557–1585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x

Salvation, M. D. (2017). The relationship between smartphone applications usage and students’ academic performance. Computational Methods in Social Sciences , 5 (2), 26–39. Retrieved October 13, 2021. Review from http://cmss.univnt.ro/wp-content/uploads/vol/split/vol_V_issue_2/CMSS_vol_V_issue_2_art.003.pdf

Sarker, I. H., Kayes, A. S. M., & Watters, P. (2019). Effectiveness analysis of machine learning classification models for predicting personalized context-aware smartphone usage. Journal of Big Data, 6 , 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0219-y

Sarwar, M., & Soomro, T. R. (2013). Impact of smartphone’s on society. European Journal of Scientific Research, 98 (2), 219–226.

Sepulveda-Escobar, P., & Morrison, A. (2020). Online teaching placement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820981

Sklar, A., Rim, S. Y. & Fujita, K. (2017). Proactive and reactive self-control. In D., de Ridder, M., Adriaanse, & K. Fujita (Eds). The Routledge International Handbook of Self-Control in Health and Well-Being (p. 11). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648576

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63 , 1266–1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01694.x

Stice, E., & Barrera, M. (1995). A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting and adolescents’ substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 31 , 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.322

Stolz, H. E., Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Toward disentangling fathering and mothering: An assessment of relative importance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 , 1076–1092. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00195.x

Tang, T., Abuhmaid, A. M., Olaimat, M., Oudat, D. M., Aldhaeebi, M., & Bamanger, E. (2020). Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1817761

Troll, E. S., Friese, M., & Loschelder, D. D. (2021). How students’ self-control and smartphone-use explain their academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 117 , 106624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106624

UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO figures show two thirds of an academic year lost on average worldwide due to Covid-19 school closures . Retrieved July 23, 2021. Retrieved, from  https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-figures-show-two-thirds-academic-year-lost-average-worldwide-due-covid-19-school

Vanderloo, L. M. (2014). Screen-viewing among preschoolers in childcare: A systematic review. BMC Pediatric, 14 , 205. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-14-205

Wang, T. H., & Cheng, H. Y. (2019). Problematic Internet use among elementary school students: Prevalence and risk factors. Information, Communication & Society, 24 (2), 108–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1645192

Wang, C. J., Chang, F. C., & Chiu, C. H. (2017). Smartphone addiction and related factors among elementary school students in New Taipei City. Research of Educational Communications and Technology, 117 , 67–87. https://doi.org/10.6137/RECT.201712_117.0005

Yi, Y. J., You, S., & Bae, B. J. (2016). The influence of smartphones on academic performance: The development of the technology-to-performance chain model. Library Hi Tech, 34 (3), 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-04-2016-0038

Zhang, M. W. B., Ho, C. S. H., & Ho, C. M. (2014). Methodology of development and students’ perceptions of a psychiatry educational smartphone application. Technology and Health Care, 22 , 847–855. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-140861

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the school participants in the study.

The work done for this study was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under project No. MOST 109–2511-H-017–005.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Industry Technology Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, 62, Shenjhong Rd., Yanchao District, Kaohsiung, 82446, Taiwan

Jen Chun Wang & Shih-Hao Kung

Department of Early Childhood Education, National PingTung University, No.4-18, Minsheng Rd., Pingtung City, Pingtung County, 900391, Taiwan

Chia-Yen Hsieh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Kung and Wang conceived of the presented idea. Kung, Wang and Hsieh developed the theory and performed the computations. Kung and Hsieh verified the analytical methods. Wang encouraged Kung and Hsieh to verify the numerical checklist and supervised the findings of this work. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chia-Yen Hsieh .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 Factor analysis results

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wang, J.C., Hsieh, CY. & Kung, SH. The impact of smartphone use on learning effectiveness: A case study of primary school students. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 6287–6320 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11430-9

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2022

Accepted : 24 October 2022

Published : 11 November 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11430-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Smartphone use
• Learning effectiveness
• Human–computer interface
• Media in education
• Elementary education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Should Cell Phones Be Used in the Classroom?

When schools welcome the use of cell phones and other technologies in the classroom.

Sherry Turkle, the author of the new book  Reclaiming Conversation,  is focusing attention on the ways that new technology—smartphones in particular—are changing the nature of our interactions with others. This is a big issue for schools, which have an obvious role to play in shaping young people’s relationships with their devices.

In a 2008 paper for The English Journal, high school teachers Nancy Frey and Douglas Fisher explained how they helped craft a new policy to encourage students to use phones in a responsible, polite way.

Initially, the school required students to keep their phones off and put away during the school day. Phones could be confiscated if students were found using them.

This is common policy, but Frey and Fisher write that it created a lot of frustration. Teachers and administrators weren’t happy with the amount of time they had to spend enforcing the rules, and some parents got upset when their children’s phones were taken away for the day.

Beyond that, Frey and Fisher believed they were missing out on the value of integrating technology into the curriculum.

So, with input from their colleagues, they helped draft what they called a “courtesy policy” to replace the old technology policy. The new plan offered a very general mandate that students and staff “interact with one another in positive, respectful ways” that went beyond specifically limiting the use of technology. The policy promoted things like saying “please” and “thank you”, how to clean up trash properly, not texting during class, and not “hogging bandwidth and/or computer time.”

This meant that students were now permitted to text during lunch and listen to music on their iPods while doing independent work in class.

Frey and Fisher write that the faculty knew it might be hard for students to adjust to the new freedoms, but hoped the process would lead to useful conversations. They describe one student who repeatedly violated the “no texting in class” rule. By meeting with her daily, the teachers discovered that she was worried that not replying immediately to texts would damage her relationship with a newly-formed circle of friends. This gave the teachers the opportunity to talk with her about the difficulty of navigating the school’s social landscape.

The teachers also found new ways to use technology in the classroom. They added a podcast of classic stories to the English curriculum and began sending reminders about homework and “pop quiz” questions to students after school hours.

Beyond specific uses of technology, Frey and Fisher’s basic goal was closely connected to the issues Turkle is addressing: the question of how to use technology without harming our relationships with other humans.

“Our concern grew out of recognition that merely banning technology would do little to teach students how to use it responsibly,” they write. “…We have found that the basic premise—that classmates and teachers are entitled to courteous treatment—has served as a touchstone.”

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

More Stories

• Astronomers Have Warned against Colonial Practices in the Space Industry

• Japanese Tourists at the Dancehall

Back to School

The Sovereignty of the Latter-day Saints

Recent posts.

• “Protecting Kids” from Gay Marriage
• Seeing Cannibals in the Enlightenment
• Like, It’s a History of Air Guitar, Dudes!

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Where Should Students Be Allowed to Use Cellphones? Here’s What Educators Say

• Share article

Corrected : A chart in a previous version of this story contained incorrect percentages for where educators say students should be allowed to use cellphones.

To ban or not to ban? This question has been front and center for many schools recently as they strategize how to address students’ ubiquitous use of cellphones.

With nearly 9 in 10 teens 13 and older possessing a smartphone , these devices have become a major source of distraction and disruption in schools, especially when students’ online arguments spill over into in-school arguments and physical fights.

And many educators and school support staff feel that students’ constant access to social media on their smartphones is harming their mental wellbeing and hurting their ability to learn. Some educators go so far to say that students are addicted to their devices.

Nearly a quarter of teachers, principals, and district leaders think that cellphones should be banned from school grounds, according to a recent nationwide survey conducted in September and October by the EdWeek Research Center.

But, overall, educators are divided on the issue.

“We should be learning to manage cellphones in the classroom. They are here to stay,” one educator said in the survey. “BUT they are the biggest distraction.”

Said another survey respondent: “We recently banned cellphones. Previously, they were allowed during passing time and at lunch. However, they had taken over instructional time. Students would get out their phones without thinking and teachers would have to spend as much time redirecting as they were teaching. That, or have a power struggle over confiscation.”

But schools face headwinds from students and parents—many of whom want to be able to reach their children throughout the day—when they try to restrict students’ access to cellphones during the school day.

And as the charts below show, in many cases there’s a yawning gap between what students are allowed to do and what educators think would be best for schools.

For example, nearly three-quarters of teachers, principals, and district leaders say that high school students in their schools and districts are allowed to use their phones during lunch, but only half believe that should be permitted.

The survey also found that a significantly larger share of teachers are in favor of banning cellphones on campus than district leaders. Principals were more in line with teachers than district leaders on that decision.

The following charts show where students are allowed to use cellphones on campus, where educators think phones should be permitted, and how teachers, principals, and district leaders differ on the issue of an all-out cellphone ban.

Data analysis for this article was provided by the EdWeek Research Center. Learn more about the center’s work.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Home — Essay Samples — Information Science and Technology — Technology in Education — Pros And Cons Of Allowing Cell Phone Usage In Schools

Pros and Cons of Allowing Cell Phone Usage in Schools

• Categories: Cell Phones Technology in Education

About this sample

Words: 899 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 899 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works cited

• Mollard, Angela. 'To Save our Kids we should Ban Phones from Schools.' Sunday Telegraph (Surry Hills), 02 Dec. 2018, pp. 117. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com
• “Teen Gunman Kills 17, Injures 17 at Parkland, Florida High School.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 6 Feb. 2019, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/parkland-marjory-stoneman-douglas-school-shooting.
• Thompson, Carolyn. 'Cellphones Beginning to Gain Acceptance Inside some US Schools.' Gazette-Mail, 03 Apr. 2018, pp. A.14. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.            

Should follow an “upside down” triangle format, meaning, the writer should start off broad and introduce the text and author or topic being discussed, and then get more specific to the thesis statement.

Provides a foundational overview, outlining the historical context and introducing key information that will be further explored in the essay, setting the stage for the argument to follow.

Cornerstone of the essay, presenting the central argument that will be elaborated upon and supported with evidence and analysis throughout the rest of the paper.

The topic sentence serves as the main point or focus of a paragraph in an essay, summarizing the key idea that will be discussed in that paragraph.

The body of each paragraph builds an argument in support of the topic sentence, citing information from sources as evidence.

After each piece of evidence is provided, the author should explain HOW and WHY the evidence supports the claim.

Should follow a right side up triangle format, meaning, specifics should be mentioned first such as restating the thesis, and then get more broad about the topic at hand. Lastly, leave the reader with something to think about and ponder once they are done reading.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Information Science and Technology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 926 words

1 pages / 429 words

2 pages / 866 words

3 pages / 1670 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Technology in Education

Important to evaluate different subjects based on specific criteria to determine their effectiveness, value, quality, and significance. This essay will provide an evaluation of a given subject based on these criteria. The [...]

The emergence of e-learning has revolutionized the way we approach education. With the advancement of technology, traditional classroom settings are no longer the sole method of learning. E-learning, also known as online [...]

Education has long been heralded as the cornerstone of societal advancement. From ancient civilizations to modern-day societies, the role of education in shaping the minds and futures of individuals cannot be overstated. It [...]

Cell phones in schools have been a topic of debate for years, and the discourse continues to evolve. The core question remains: should cell phones be allowed in school? In this argumentative essay, we will delve deeper into this [...]

Technology in the classroom could possibly be the most important addition in the past two decades. Things like computers and tablets are used as educational tools to keep a classroom fun but also productive, but then why do [...]

The author's passion for technology and the impact of technology on the world Interest in problem-solving and its connection to technology Pursuing a diploma course in technology after secondary school Work [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Why Schools Should Ban Cell Phones in the Classroom—and Why Parents Have to Help

New study shows it takes a young brain 20 minutes to refocus after using a cell phone in a classroom

Photo by skynesher/iStock

Parents, the next time you are about to send a quick trivial text message to your students while they’re at school—maybe sitting in a classroom—stop. And think about this: it might take them only 10 seconds to respond with a thumbs-up emoji, but their brain will need 20 minutes to refocus on the algebra or history or physics lesson in front of them— 20 minutes .

That was just one of the many findings in a recent report from a 14-country study by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) that prompted this headline in the Washington Post : “Schools should ban smartphones. Parents should help.” The study recommends a ban on smartphones at school for students of all ages, and says the data are unequivocal, showing that countries that enforce restrictions see improved academic performance and less bullying.

It’s a fraught debate, one that prompts frustration among educators, who say students are less focused than ever as schools struggle to enforce cell phone limitation policies, and rage from some parents, worrying about a possible shooting when they can’t get in touch, who insist they need to be able to reach their children at all times. And, perhaps surprisingly, it prompts a collective yawn from students.

In fact, students openly admit their cell phones distract them and that they focus better in school without them, says Joelle Renstrom , a senior lecturer in rhetoric at Boston University’s College of General Studies. It’s an issue she has studied for years. She even performed an experiment with her students that supports what she long suspected: Cell Phones + Classrooms = Bad Learning Environment.

BU Today spoke with Renstrom about the latest study and research.

with Joelle Renstrom

Bu today: let me get right to the point. do we as a society need to be better about restricting cell phones in classrooms it seems so obvious..

Renstrom: Of course. But it is easier said than done. It’s hard to be consistent. We will always have students with some kind of reason, or a note from someone, that gives them access to technology. And then it becomes hard to explain why some people can have it and some people can’t. But student buy-in to the idea is important.

BU Today: But is getting students to agree more important than getting schools and parents to agree? Is it naive to think that students are supposed to follow the rules that we as parents and teachers set for them?

Renstrom: I have made the case before that addiction to phones is kind of like second-hand smoking. If you’re young and people around you are using it, you are going to want it, too. Every baby is like that. They want to reach for it, it’s flashing, their parents are on it all the time. Students openly acknowledge they are addicted. Their digital lives are there. But they also know there is this lack of balance in their lives. I do think buy-in is important. But do it as an experiment. Did it work? What changes did it make? Did it make you anxious or distracted during those 50 minutes in class? I did that for years. I surveyed students for a number of semesters; how do you feel about putting your phone in a pouch? They made some predictions and said what they thought about how annoying it was. But at the end, they talked about how those predictions [played out], and whether they were better able to focus. It was very, very clear they were better able to focus. Also interestingly, not a single student left during class to get a drink or go to the bathroom. They had been 100 percent doing that just so they could use their phone.

BU Today: Should we be talking about this question, cell phones in classrooms, for all ages, middle school all the way through college? Or does age matter?

Renstrom: It’s never going to be universal. Different families, different schools. And there is, on some level, a safety issue. I do not blame parents for thinking, if there’s someone with a gun in school, I need a way to reach my kids. What if all the phones are in pouches when someone with a gun comes in? It’s crazy that we even have to consider that.

BU Today: What’s one example of something that can be changed easily?

Renstrom: Parents need to stop calling their kids during the day. Stop doing that. What you are doing is setting that kid up so that they are responding to a bot 24-7 when they shouldn’t be. If you’re a kid who gets a text from your parent in class, you are conditioned to respond and to know that [the parent] expects a response. It adds so much anxiety to people’s lives. It all just ends up in this anxiety loop. When kids are in school, leave them alone. Think about what that phone is actually meant for. When you gave them a phone, you said it’s in case of an emergency or if you need to be picked up in a different place. Make those the parameters. If it’s just to confirm, “I’m still picking you up at 3,” then no, don’t do that. Remember when we didn’t have to confirm? There is a time and place for this, for all technology.

BU Today: This latest study, how do you think people will react to it?

Renstrom: This isn’t new. How many studies have to come out to say that cured meat is terrible and is carcinogenic. People are like, “Oh, don’t tell me what to eat. Or when to be on my phone.” This gets real contentious, real fast because telling people what’s good for them is hard.

BU Today: I can understand that—but in this case we’re not telling adults to stop being on their phones. We’re saying help get your kids off their phones in classrooms, for their health and education.

Renstrom: Studies show kids’ brains, and their gray matter, are low when they are on screens. School is prime habit-forming time. You should not sit in class within view of the professor, laughing while they are talking about World War II. There is a social appropriateness that needs to be learned. Another habit that needs to be addressed is the misconception of multitasking. We are under this misconception we all can do it. And we can’t. You might think, I can listen to this lecture while my sister texts me. That is not supported by science or studies. It is literally derailing you. Your brain jumps off to another track and has to get back on. If you think you have not left that first track, you are wrong.

BU Today: So what next steps would you like to see?

Renstrom: I would like to see both schools and families be more assertive about this. But also to work together. If the parents are anti-smartphone policy, it doesn’t matter if the school is pro-policy. If there is a war between parents and schools, I am not sure much will happen. Some kind of intervention and restriction is better than just ripping it away from kids. The UNESCO study found it is actually even worse for university students. We are all coming at this problem from all different ways. Pouches or banned phones. Or nothing.

Explore Related Topics:

• Smartphones
• Share this story
• 32 Comments Add

Associate Vice President, Executive Editor, Editorial Department Twitter Profile

Doug Most is a lifelong journalist and author whose career has spanned newspapers and magazines up and down the East Coast, with stops in Washington, D.C., South Carolina, New Jersey, and Boston. He was named Journalist of the Year while at The Record in Bergen County, N.J., for his coverage of a tragic story about two teens charged with killing their newborn. After a stint at Boston Magazine , he worked for more than a decade at the Boston Globe in various roles, including magazine editor and deputy managing editor/special projects. His 2014 nonfiction book, The Race Underground , tells the story of the birth of subways in America and was made into a PBS/American Experience documentary. He has a BA in political communication from George Washington University. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 32 comments on Why Schools Should Ban Cell Phones in the Classroom—and Why Parents Have to Help

i found this very helpful with my research

It was ok, but i will say i enjoyed learning more about why we should not have cell phones.

It was a great research, helped me a lot.

I think that this was helpful, but there is an ongoing question at my school, which is, though phones may be negative to health and knowledge and they’re a distraction what happens if there was a shooting or a fire or a dangourus weather event and you don’t have a phone to tell your parents or guardians at home if you are alright? (Reply answer if have one)

Yeah they would get an amber alert

well, the school has the technology that can help communicate that to the parents, and if that were to happen, I guess that’s why there’s always a cell phone in the classrooms those old-time ones, but I feel it would not be okay in case of a shooting since you have to go silence, and on the moment of fire or weather everything happens so fast in the moment.

Yeah, that’s exactly why they have those supplies or items in the classroom, to alert parents. Kids don’t need to use their phones for that.

In schools all teachers have cell phones. So one way or the other the messages would get out to the parents as needed. If a student gets on the cell phone to inform the parent about the activity, that’s taken place it could cause panic. School staffs are informed as to how to handle such situations.. what I have seen take place in classes are students who are texting each other either in the same room or in another classroom during the school time. Many students spend time on YouTube and not concentrating what’s going on in the classroom.

Teachers have communication with all parents and it also has amber alerts

You just give the kids watches to call there parents or guardians on.

I’m a teacher. If there’s an event like this, it could be detrimental to the emergency system if too many people are calling. Also, kids don’t have the common sense to turn their ringers off. They go off in my class, more often than they should.. If there’s a shooter in any school, parents are going to be calling their kids. Phones constantly going off could lead a shooter to specific places if they can hear them. I understand the parent’s arguments as to why they want their kids to have their phones, but that very argument could lead to their child being hurt or killed in the scenario mentioned above.

I think that this was helpful, but there is an ongoing question at my school, which is, though phones may be negative to health and knowledge and they’re a distraction what happens if there is a shooting or a fire or a dangerous weather event and you don’t have a phone to tell your parents or guardians at home if you are alright?

I am writing a paper and this is very helpful thank you.

I am writing a paper and this is very helpful but it is true what if our mom or dad have to contact us we need phones!

this helped me with my school project about whether cell phones should be banned in school. I think yes but the class is saying no. I think it’s because I was raised without a phone so I know how to survive and contact my parents without a phone. but anyway, this helped me with my essay! thank you!

yes i’m am doing the same thing .this helped a lot

I don’t think phones should be allowed in school, and this is perfect backup! Thank you Doug

great infromation for debate

Thanks, this helped a lot I’m working on an essay and this has been really helpful.by the way, some people may think, but what if i need to call my mom/dad/guardian. but the real thing is, there is a high chance that there will be a telephone near you. or if it’s something that only you want them to know,go ahead and ask your teacher if you can go to the office.

I mean it could also depend on the student, like for example let’s say that i’m a student inside the school, if I used my phone and I got off it, for me it would instant focus, but for others students they might take longer or the same time as me, it all really depends if the student is tend to be responsible with their time trying to focus so I would say that this claim is not true.

I think that is article was very good. I’m currently writing and essay and I have used this for most of my evidence so far. I personally think that cellphones should be banned from the classroom because the school will get the information that your parents need out to them so you don’t have to cause a panic because you don’t know if your parents know what is going on at your school or not. It will just be better because then we wouldn’t have as many distractions in the classrooms as we do now because kids are always getting caught on their phones and they are constantly being sent down to the office and it takes time to get the class back on track. I personally agree with Doug that cellphones should be banned in the classrooms.

It’s striking to realize that the reason some parents feel the need to advocate for phone usage in school is due to concerns about a potential school shooting. While parents may be more informed about the harmful effects of smartphones in a learning environment, they take preference for the safety of their child in a hypothetical situation. It’s a hard debate because while the safety of their children is important, the drastic effects of students needing 20 minutes to refocus is significantly impacting their ability to learn in their classes. I find it very saddening that this is what our world has come to – prioritizing safety for a school shooting over academic performance, because it is no longer so unusual for a school to experience that type of tragedy.

I liked the comment, “Addiction to phones is kind of like second-hand smoking. If you’re young and people around you are using it, you are going to want it too,” because I experienced this phenomenon in my early middle school years, with the invention of the first iPhone. All of a sudden an invention that was broadcasted on the news became an essential for the other students in my middle school class, to the point where I became one of the only students without one. Then, I finally succumbed to the pressure, and begged my parents for an iPhone as I felt extremely left out. It’s frustrating to accept that this pressure is affecting children now younger and younger by the year, with even six year old children I babysit owning their own iPhone/iPad.

I also think that with the prevalence of child phone usage significantly increases parental anxiety, particularly for those parents who are already overbearing to start. Giving parents the ability to contact their child at any given time is harmful, and it can create a dependence on either side. It’s ironic given the fact that parents push their children to focus and succeed in their classes, yet harass them all day about minuscule things that could’ve been addressed later that day. So yes, parents need to stop calling their kids during the day.

this helped me with my school project, very reliable source.

I think that this talked more about why parents should help more than why cell phones should be banned.

I think the teachers or guardians will allow you to contact someone but I think after the shooting or crisis they will contact your parents or guardian from the office or person in charge

I agree, I’m 13 and I honestly could live without a phone

i also agree but parents need to reach their kids somehow if something happens in school

I’m also 13

had to research this for an assingnment and onistlly, I love my phone and I would marry it if I could!

This is really reasonable. In my school my friends have cell phones and there is a lot of drama. I am writing a report on this.

This is really good

I’ve taught high school since 1999. Should cell phones be banned? 100% Absolutley. I don’t think twice about it.

Post a comment. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today

Bu student archaeologists headed to peru and hungary this summer, frauds committed against bu students prompt police warning, introducing bu’s newest terriers: khalid karim, video: new terriers asked questions on instagram. we answered., did you win free tickets to see beetlejuice beetlejuice tonight, bu to suspend free room and meals for striking student ras, want to join a club find one at splash tomorrow, a college student’s guide to safer sex: tips from an intimacy coordinator, splash: what it means to me and why you should attend, talent, and scholarships, power boston public school students to bu, hugs, tears, and a lot of pride: parents bid their bu freshmen farewell, the weekender: september 5 to 8, oops terriers share what they forgot to bring, your everything guide to dropping off your freshman at college, introducing bu’s newest terriers: jonathan galdamez, pov: is it ok to stop worrying about covid, “class of 2028: today is the first day of a great adventure”, bu ras begin strike as move-in winds down, how do you run a city of 650,000 residents these terriers have some insights, celebrate labor day weekend and enjoy these local events.

September 5, 2024

Do Phone Bans Help Students Perform Better in School?

As a result of phone bans, millions of students will stuff their phones into fabric pouches this fall

By Chris Stokel-Walker

Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images

Millions of children who head back to school this fall will find their phones are now gadgets non grata. Chancellor of New York City public schools David Banks has said that he is considering a ban on classroom phone access that would affect 1.1 million students, though the ban will not be in place at the start of the school year . In June his counterparts in Los Angeles approved a similar crackdown , affecting more than 400,000 students and starting in January 2025. More than a dozen states have now enacted school phone restrictions in the U.S. And the U.K. issued new guidelines for schools on phone bans this past February.

One consequence of such bans is a boom in low-tech devices that keep kids off their phones. These include the Yondr pouch: a small fabric bag sealed with a lock that requires a powerful magnet to open, an arrangement similar to that of antitheft tags that retailers affix to clothing. At the start of the school day students slip their phone into the pouch. They can then keep it in their own backpack or locker but will be unable to cycle through social media or other apps when they’re meant to be studying. At the end of the day, they open the pouch by swiping it at one of several magnetic devices positioned near school exits.

Millions of students across thousands of schools in 27 countries have used these pouches, according to Yondr, the California-based company that makes them. In the past five years 329 U.S. organizations, mostly schools, have contracted to buy more than $8 million worth of Yondr products, according to data from GovSpend, a government procurement intelligence provider. (GovSpend only tracks agreements made directly with the company and notes this amount does not include any potential third-party resellers or brokers.) Other schools use similar containers, such as the Phone Away Box , from different makers.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The restrictions that prompted these purchases are popular with parents and educators. A survey of likely voters in New York State conducted by Siena College between late July and early August found that 60 percent favor a school phone ban, with support equally split across the political spectrum. Whether such rules achieve their intended ultimate goals—improving educational attainment and throttling bullying and issues around well-being—is still being debated by scientists, as are potential unintended consequences.

Yondr declined Scientific American ’s request for an interview, citing time constraints. In its response, Yondr pointed to company press materials that said that 83 percent of the schools using its pouches have reported improved student engagement. The company boasts similar, if smaller, improvements in behavior and academic performance. Anecdotally, some schools claim they’ve also seen a downtick in bullying since using Yondr because students aren’t sniping at one another on social media as much.

Student Performance

Anything that limits access to phones is a positive, says Louis-Philippe Beland, an associate professor of economics at Carleton University in Ontario and co-author of one of the first papers on the academic impact of smartphone access. “We found that banning mobile phones in schools increases student performance, especially for low-achieving students. There was no negative impact on high-achieving students,” Beland adds.

Further research has supported those initial findings, Beland believes. “If you put all this evidence together, I think there’s a strong case that mobile phones cause distraction,” he says. “If you do something about it, you can increase academic performance.”

Available data in the scientific literature back this view: phone bans do help students do better in class, albeit with some caveats. A small number of reports and studies have tried to understand the bans’ impact on educational performance. In 2023 a UNESCO report found that phones are disruptive in class and that banning such technology in schools “can be legitimate if [it] does not improve learning or if it worsens student well-being.” Beland’s study, which looked at U.K. school data, suggested a phone ban was equivalent to pupils spending an extra hour a day in class—although an attempt in 2020 to partly replicate the same study design by Swedish academics found that banning phones had no impact on student performance whatsoever. “More evidence is always better,” Beland says.

Globally, in 2022, one in three students reported that they were distracted by phones in every or almost every lesson, according to a report released in 2023 by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which benchmarks educational performance worldwide. Yet academics at King’s College London who looked into the data further suggested the opposite was actually true: in an assessment posted at the British Educational Research Association’s blog in February, they found that the more a country cracked down on phone use in schools, the lower its benchmark PISA score was , although the researchers weren’t sure why this would be the case.

Sonia Livingstone, a professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a leading child media researcher, will soon publish a meta-analysis of phone-ban studies to date. It’s “plausible that there is probably going to be mounting research that if kids are not distracted in class, they will concentrate and learn better,” she says. “I don’t think that’s going to be controversial.”

In a non-peer-reviewed report for her institution, Livingstone found that the children she spoke to were in favor of gizmos like the Yondr pouches—but were also keen to carve out exceptions. “It could be the child with diabetes who needs the reminder to take their pills or the child who’s caring for someone at home and needs to feel they could be reached in an emergency,” Livingstone says. Yondr, for its part, offers nonlocking pouches for children who need their phones to monitor blood sugar or for other medically important reasons.

Mental Health

Better academic performance is one factor supporting the bans. But another—mental health—has also captured the attention of policymakers and the public. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, has posited that social media (which young people primarily access on phones) is causing a teenage mental health crisis. His bestselling book The Anxious Generation, published earlier this year, cites numerous studies to make that case—although a statistician’s analysis in Reason notes that a majority of 476 studies reviewed were published before 2010, when smartphones were far less ubiquitous, and that few focus on extensive social media use. Haidt says that “there’s a lot of direct evidence of causation” between smartphone use and harms to adolescent mental health. And he points to a blog post he wrote in response to critical reviews.

Nor are all psychologists convinced phone bans are an unalloyed good. Pete Etchells, a professor of psychology and science communication at Bath Spa University in England and author of Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time , says that “parents, schools and policymakers are being scared by some really unhelpful rhetoric in the media.” He worries that part of the phone bans’ appeal is that such actions are seen as “immediate solutions because it feels like we’re in an emergency and need to do something quickly.” In the absence of hard data, he says, we ought to wait and take stock.

A more middle-of-the-road approach is also advocated by Michael Rich, an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, who has been studying the issue with the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) since 2011. As a result of his work with the ATA, he stands somewhere between the pro and anti sides of the argument. “The way we approached it, ultimately, is not about blocking smartphones and their use but about looking at the educational task at hand,” Rich says. He envisages using phone-locking devices for most of the school day and taking phones out only at select times—at which point children will be educated about how to use them in a way that will reinforce a positive relationship with their devices. “We don't just toss kids into wood shop with all the power tools and say ‘Have at it,’” Rich says. “We teach them how to use them responsibly and carefully—and use them in productive ways.” It’s a pragmatic approach, he reckons. “Smartphones are, at least at the moment, for the foreseeable future, a reality of all of our existence,” he says. “Why not overtly teach them how to use these?”

Etchells agrees that hiding phones may remove some opportunities for kids to learn about the safe, responsible use of technology, and he fears the future effects of this approach won’t be recognized for years. Blanket phone bans can’t teach young people “how to effectively navigate their online environment and, critically, be able to talk about it if or when things go wrong,” he says. “Locking them away literally teaches that they are things that should be hidden, not discussed. This does not nurture healthy habits and relationships with technology.”

• Share full article

Advertisement

The Morning

Smartphones in schools.

How educators are fighting against distractions.

By David Leonhardt

Several times a year, I visit a high school or a college to talk with students about how I do my job and how they see the world. On a typical visit, I spend a few minutes in the back of the classroom while the teacher is conducting another part of that day’s lesson. These experiences have shown me what a dominant — and distracting — role smartphones and laptops play in today’s schools.

From my perch behind the students, I can see how many of them are scrolling through sports coverage, retail websites, text messages or social media, looking up occasionally to feign attention. It’s not everyone, of course. Some students remain engaged in the class. But many do not.

I would have been in the latter group if smartphones had existed decades ago; like many journalists, I do not have a naturally stellar attention span. And I’m grateful that I didn’t have ubiquitous digital temptations. I learned much more — including how to build my attention span — than I otherwise would have.

Above all, my recent classroom experiences have given me empathy for teachers. They are supposed to educate children, many of whom have still not caught up from Covid learning loss, while in a battle for attention with fantastically entertaining computers. A growing body of academic research suggests it isn’t going well .

Twister and pickleball

But school officials and policymakers have begun to fight back. It’s probably the most significant development of the 2024-25 school year.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .