PROFESSIONAL INQUIRY PROJECT

“How does screen time affect student engagement in the

classroom?”

Ashley Gunderson

Fall 2018, PSIII Intern at Kate Andrews High School, working with Teacher Mentors
Robyn Baraniecki and Ron Terakita, and School Administrator Daniel Grimes
Introduction

“Do we have a set cellphone policy?” That was the first and, in my mind, the most

important question I needed to ask on day one in a new school. Battling with cell phone use in

the classroom and competing for attention from my high school students daily throughout my

six-week practicum previously brought to attention the struggle that teachers face in the

classroom today. With increasing access to technology our students now have the world at their

fingertips, but with infinite access to information comes unlimited distraction. From discussions

with other experienced teachers, cellphone and other technology use in the classroom has

become a frustration that needs to be addressed. Where does this constant need to be on a screen

spring from? How is engagement and learning affected by increased exposure to screens? Are

students only distracted by their screens during use or are there lasting, indirect effects of screen

time that alters student engagement? How can we as educators address such effects? How can we

as educators help students learn to self-regulate technology use and manage the constant influx

of information they are bombarded with? These are some of the questions that I, as well as other

educators, are grappling with that fall under the umbrella of my inquiry question. Through this

paper I hope to answer these questions and draw awareness to the need for a consistent policy

that helps teachers move towards a physically and mentally “unplugged” classroom.

The focus of my Professional Inquiry Project is to look into the effects that screen time

has on student engagement in the classroom. Throughout my project, I will be both searching for

answers in previously published literature and also documenting my personal experience inside

the classroom. The purpose of this project is to develop an awareness and share this awareness

with colleagues of how screen time impacts engagement, and therefore learning. It is also to
learn about and share, the different strategies that have been used and/or could be used to help

teach self-regulation and/or alter the effects of screen time. My main inquiry question for this

project is:

How does screen time affect student engagement in the classroom?

Background

Canada has one of the highest mobile phone usages in the world, surpassing 30 million

mobile subscribers in 2016, with an increasing trend (Behar, 2017). Focussing on the younger

population that encompasses school age children, 94 percent of 15 – 34-year-olds own a

smartphone (Behar, 2017). Coinciding with this statistic, screen time, or the amount of time

spent using a device such as a computer, television, game console, or cellphone has increased

exponentially since as recent as 2007 (Green et al., 2017). It is no surprise that with this dramatic

increase in exposure to light emitting screens, and high percentage of adolescents using a digital

media device that high attention is being called to social and clinical research (Sapacz et al.,

2016) that analyzes the social, health and wellness, and academic effects of using these digital

media devices. Research into these effects is still developing (Sapacz et al., 2016) as the dramatic

increase in use is relatively recent, however there are multiple compelling studies available. Of

the recently conducted studies that are available, the greatest evidence suggests a high correlation

between screen use addiction, poor health effects, and negative academic performance.

One assumption commonly made is that use of a digital media device becomes an

addiction over time. This assumption is used to explain why students need to check their phones

during class, trying to hide it from the teachers, knowingly breaking the rules. In a study

conducted by Sapacz et al. (2016), the occurrence of cell phone addiction characteristics among
university students was examined. In this study, when high frequency cellphone users had their

phone sitting in front of them, visible, and were instructed not to use them, anxiety levels

increased. If phones were hidden, or taken away, such that they were not visible to the student

anymore, anxiety levels decreased. These results are not enough to place high frequency

cellphone use and attachment into the same category as pathological addiction, but an increase in

anxiety as a withdrawal symptom when instructed not to use phones depicts that it may be

becoming a behavioral addiction (Sapacz et al., 2016). This provides great insight into the

compulsive use by students. This research is important to note as an educator when analyzing

different cellphone policies within the classroom. A classroom policy where students may have

their phones on their desks, or in a visible spot, but are instructed not to use them may induce

anxiety among our high frequency users. A student experiencing anxiety as a withdrawal

symptom is not in a positive learning state, which will lead to decreased academic performance.

Alternatively, if cellphones are taken away or are banned and students cannot see them, they will

not experience additional anxiety and will remain in a more positive state to learn.

A change in one’s mental and emotional state due to cell phones is not limited to anxiety

induced from being instructed not to use one’s phone. There is growing evidence that cell phone

use outside of the classroom is significantly affecting students’ mental, emotional and even

physical state in the classroom each morning. Using digital screens in the evening is shown to be

associated with sleep problems. Short Wavelength Light (SWL), which is the light emitted by

digital media devices, is a signal to our biological clocks that it is daytime (Green et al., 2018).

This type of exposure late at night alters biological rhythms (Green et al., 2017) by supressing

the body’s melatonin secretion and thermoregulation (Green et al., 2018). This in turn negatively
impacts sleep time and efficiency. The effects do not end there, but rather continue into the next

day. The morning after this exposure, there is an increase in subjective sleepiness as well as

problems with attention and concentration (Green et al., 2018). As an educator, the results from

these two studies are frustrating. Even with implementation of a cellphone policy during school

hours to reduce distraction in the classroom and increase student engagement, educators have no

direct control over a student’s cellphone use outside of the classroom. If students are using

screens in the evening, there is inevitably an indirect effect on their engagement in the classroom

due to screen exposure negatively impacting their sleep, leaving them tired for class the next

morning, unable to focus and concentrate.

When the two factors, smartphone addiction and health and wellness due to screen time,

come together, it is unsurprising that there are negative effects on students’ classroom

engagement and therefore academic performance. When students’ energy levels are low, there

are mental lapses due to a lack of concentration, and they are experiencing high levels of

withdrawal anxiety, they cannot fully engage in classroom material and activities. Learning, and

therefore academic performance, is being severely negatively impacted by screen time. Since an

increase in technology use inside and outside of the classroom, there has been report of a decline

in overall grades (Dietz & Henrich, 2014). Even more concerning is the fact that even the

students who are not using phones inside the classroom but are in close proximity to students

who are distracted by technology are also more likely to perform worse (Sana, Weston, &

Cepeda, 2013). Some action is required to combat these negative effects on classroom

engagement, student learning and academic performance.

My Action Research

To compare and contrast with the background literature I was surveying, as part of my

project, I completed some action research inside of the classroom. Initially, the idea was to have

students track their individual screen time each day for 4 weeks, while I observed and noted the

classroom behaviors related to screen usage (e.g. checking their phones during class). I was

anticipating comparing the average screen time per day to the number of times I had to address

cellphone use in class with that particular individual. I had made an initial hypothesis that I

would see a positive correlation between screen time and distraction during class, such that

individuals with higher screen time would be the same individuals that were more frequently

reminded to regulate their phone use during class. Due to low student/parent and guardian buy-

in, my action research was adjusted and shortened tremendously. Although, summarized below, I

was still able to gather some significantly meaningful data in relation to the background research

I had conducted.

Methods

At first, in order to conduct this action research, a parent/guardian letter was sent home

with each student in my classes. The return of participation letters was disappointingly low, so

methods were adjusted throughout the project. A small sample size (n = 11) of students that had

returned consent forms still tracked their daily screen time each day for a 3-week period. This

information was used to verify information taken in a larger, anonymous student survey,

completed by all of my students. The main portion of the action research that I was able to
conduct with a greater sample size was the survey. The student survey consisted of 7 questions

relating to students’ cellphone usage and beliefs about such usage.

Results

From the survey conducted, all participants indicated that they had a cell phone with text

messaging abilities. When asked if they bring their cellphone to class with them, all but one

responder noted that they do bring it, the exception being the responder who replied that they

brought it with them occasionally. Students also specified in the survey the status of their

cellphone when they do bring it to class. The majority of the respondents admitted to periodically

checking their phones during instructional time, while 25% of respondents confessed they

regularly check their phones during such time. Interestingly, none of the respondents said they

actually turn their phone off during classes, and only two students indicated they keep their

phone put away in a bookbag, pocket etc. Another question asked in the survey was whether

students think cellphones should be allowed in the classroom. Not surprisingly, not a single

student said that they did not think cell phones should be allowed in the classroom. However,

half of the students answered that they think cellphones should only be allowed when they are

being used for educational purposes (5-minute research, Kahoot, etc.), while the other half

responded that cellphones should be allowed regardless of what they are being used for.

Two other questions that I asked stemmed from some interesting points brought up in the

background literature I was examining. The first was if students have ever noticed their teacher

distracted during a lesson by a student using a cellphone inappropriately. 92% of students

answered yes. The second question that ties back to the literature examined was whether the

students thought that everyone has the ability to multitask, only some people are able to
multitask, or that no one has the ability to multitask. All respondents except 2 believed that only

some people have the capability of multitasking, while others do not.

Lastly, the question that was the main focus of my research was the average screen time

per day for each student. The majority of respondents answered that they spend 3-4 hours per

day interacting with screens such as television, computers, and cellphones. More comprehensive,

nearly 80% of students said they spend 3 or more hours on their phone per day. To verify this, I

looked at the average screen use per day from the students who were conscientiously tracking

their screen time every day over a 3-week span. The average screen time between all eleven

students actually tracking their time was 4.38 hours per day. This verifies (although a low sample

size of n=11) that most of our students are spending more than 3 hours, with an average closer to

4 hours, on screens every day. Another note-worthy result of this research was from a student

who had tracked the number of times they picked up and checked their phone per day. The

average number of times they picked up and checked their phone each day over the course of 2-

weeks was 85 times. Interestingly in the results, on one particular school day, the student picked

up and checked their phone 157 times.

Discussion

From the results of my action research, although a small sample size of the total school

population, it is clear that most students have a cellphone that they are bringing to class every

day. These phones are becoming an obvious distraction to students as admitted in the survey

when the majority of students responded that they check their phone periodically or regularly

during instructional time. As found in the literature on this topic, when students are distracted by
their phones during class, it is not only distracting to them, but it is impacting the performance of

those students in close proximity to them as well (Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013).

In the survey, most students responded that they believe in multitasking to some degree,

suggesting they believe that if they check their phone while doing class work, or listening to a

lesson, they will be fine because they are able to effectively do both at the same time. This is not

true. Multitasking is nearly impossible to accomplish (Pulliam, 2017). Students are not

multitasking when they work on assignments and check Facebook, they are task-switching, and

this leads to lower academic performance (Pulliam, 2017).

Along with distracting themselves and their peers by using their phone in class, students

are also distracting their teachers, decreasing the quality of teaching (Pulliam, 2017). In my

study, 92% of students responded they have noticed a teacher distracted by a classmate using a

phone in class inappropriately. Humans, including teachers (believe it or not, we are humans),

have a working memory that is used to store information currently in use. Working memory has

limited storage that is needed by educators when trying to deliver a lesson. Having to divide their

already overflowing working memory with managing cellphone distractions leads to weakened

performance when delivering a lesson (Pulliam, 2017). From my classroom experience, when I

have to stop in the middle of a lecture on the Krebs Cycle to confiscate a phone, it takes a bit for

me to get my mind focussed back onto what I was previously in the middle of.

Lastly, the average screen time per day used by the students at the school is alarming and

should raise some concerns over the health and wellbeing and engagement and learning abilities
of our students. When the majority of our students are using screens for over 3 hours a day, they

may start to experience the behavioral addiction noted in the study by Sapacz et al. (2016). They

may also be experiencing decreased quality of sleep and consequently subjective sleepiness,

decreased attention and lowered ability to concentrate in class due to their extensive screen use

(Green et al., 2018).

Policies

In combat to the effects explained above, several approaches have been taken by

teachers, schools, and districts globally and have been documented. These approaches can be

broken down into three levels of tolerance (Laur, 2017). Policies may be zero tolerance policies,

much like one implemented in school in France by President Emmanuel Macron, where cell

phones are not allowed into the school. Unless technology is provided by the school for

educational purposes, devices are to be left at home. This is one end of the spectrum. In the

middle of the spectrum is a freer approach, being a partial tolerance approach. Under this idea,

schools allow teachers to set their own classroom policies regarding cellphones. Some teachers

may have a rule that no cellphones are allowed in their class, following a more zero policy

approach, while other educators may try a more full-tolerance approach, allowing cellphones to

be used with little to no consequences. The last level, at the other end of the spectrum, is a full

tolerance approach. Under a full tolerance approach, students are allowed phones in the school

and in classrooms, however, they use them under a set school policy with clear rules and

consequences consistent in all classrooms, implemented by all teachers the same (Laur, 2017).

There are benefits and drawbacks to each policy, although certain policies fall under

more intense scrutiny than others. A partial tolerance policy where teachers decide the
expectations for their classroom has the benefit of allowing teachers to use their professional

judgement to set expectations that work for them and their teaching style. Alternatively, a

drawback is that the students become confused (Laur, 2017). Coming from a classroom where

students do not need to regulate their cellphone use into a classroom five minutes later where

they are not allowed to merely check their phone without risk of consequences would be

challenging. It also invites parent and student criticism, such as the all-too-commonly heard

statement, “… but Ms./Mr. Other Teacher lets me use my phone.”

Moving from partial tolerance to full tolerance, where a set school policy is followed by

all teachers in every classroom consistently would eliminate this confusion and potential

comparison of professional judgement. Students and parents would know what to expect as

consequences regardless of the teacher, and teachers would have a set protocol to follow without

having to use judgement on a case to case basis. One potential flaw that could be picked out is

that teacher autonomy over their classroom would be compromised. Another drawback to this

approach is that it would only work effectively if all teachers were on board to stay consistent in

following it in all classrooms, without exception (Laur, 2017).

The third approach, the zero-tolerance approach, tackles the problem of having to stress

that all teachers follow the policy without deviation by ideally ridding teachers of the

responsibility to deal with cellphones all together. That being said, it does not come without

falling under global scrutiny, in published literature and in the media. First, I will examine the

negatives of this tactic. By banning cellphones, it is suggested that schools would be merely

placing a “band-aid” on a much larger issue (The Educator, 2018). One of the many jobs of
educational institutions is to prepare students for the future. This involves helping students learn

the self-regulation and self-control that they will need to take with them into the next stage of

their lives (The Educator, 2018). By simply banning cellphone presence in a school altogether,

are schools helping students learn self-regulation? Additionally, if cellphones are banned

completely, teachers would not have the option to use cellphones for monitored, productive,

educational purposes even if they chose to do so.

This begs the question, are the productive activities that cellphones can be used for in

class worth the toll that cellphones take on academic achievement? Use of the zero-tolerance

policy has proven beneficial for some schools. One compelling study that highlights the

advantages to the zero-tolerance policy comes from the London School of Economics. In this

study, following a school wide phone ban, test scores increased 6.41% of a standard deviation

(Beland & Murphey, 2015). When this ban was not complied with, no significant gains were

made in student performance (Beland & Murphey, 2015). Another interesting discovery made in

this study was that of the student population, those with the lowest previous academic standings

gained 14.23% of a standard deviation following the ban. Students in the highest quartile were

not affected ((Beland & Murphey, 2015). This suggests that in the classroom, the students that

cellphones are negatively impacting in the classroom are our academically struggling students.

Beland and Murphey (2015) conclude that by using a zero-tolerance policy, schools may be able

to reduce the education achievement gap between the lowest and highest quartile, allowing the

lowest quartile to find greater success by limiting phone use while not affecting the top quartile.

Conclusion
 In conclusion, based on a survey of the literature and the action research that was

conducted, screen time has significant negative impacts on student engagement in the classroom

and consequently on learning and academic performance. The impacts are direct when students

use their phones in the classroom as most admitted to doing frequently. They are also indirect

such as when students experience behavioral addiction characteristics, poor sleep quality and

subsequently mental lapses the next morning, other students in proximity being distracted and

also teachers being distracted which lowers the quality of lessons. Schools need to take action to

combat these negative effects. A zero tolerance policy has been proven effective in other cases

(Beland & Murphey, 2015). I believe that this is not the right solution at this point as schools are

responsible for teaching students self-regulation and control, and an outright ban would make

this difficult in relation to appropriate phone use. I still also believe in the benefits of using

phones at certain times for some educational purposes. An outright ban would disallow for that. I

believe that a full tolerance approach would be most effective if all teachers were to follow the

same set protocol consistently without exception. I also believe it would be the most widely

accepted and followed policy by the students based on the results of my survey, as half of the

respondents indicated they agree that phones should only be allowed for educational purposes.

Cell phones should be taken and kept out of sight during class to limit withdrawal anxiety and

the effects of possible addiction. This would act as a cellphone “detox” from humans’ constant

companion. It would decrease the students’ distractions during class and improve the quality of

lessons delivered by a less-distracted teacher. This does not allow teachers control over what

students do with their screens at home, so sleep may still be impacted, but it would decrease their

overall screen time which would at least increase student engagement, learning and academic

performance to some extent.

Works Cited

Behar, R. (2017). 76 percent of Canadians owned a smartphone in 2016: StatsCan. Retrieved

November 17, 2018, from https://mobilesyrup.com/2017/11/14/76-percent-canadians-
owned-smartphone-2016-statscan-survey/

Beland, L., & Murphy, R. (2015). Ill Communication: Technology, Distraction, & Student
Performance. Center for Economic Performance. Retrieved November 17, 2018, from
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1350.pdf

Dietz, S., & Henrich, C. (2014). Texting as a distraction to learning in college students.
Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 163-167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.045

Green, M. Cohen-Zion, A. Haim & Y. Dagan (2017). Evening light exposure to computer
screens disrupts human sleep, biological rhythms, and attention abilities, Chronobiology
International, 34:7, 855-865, DOI: 10.1080/07420528.2017.1324878

Green, A., Dagan, Y. & Haim, A. (2018). Sleep Biol. Rhythms 16: 273.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41105-018-0150-1

Laur, D. (2017). Comment: Zero tolerance no fix for cellphones in schools. Retrieved November
17, 2018, from https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-zero-tolerance-
no-fix-for-cellphones-in-schools-1.19988210

Pulliam, D. (2017). Effects of Student Classroom Cell Phone Usage on Teachers. Masters Thesis
and Specialist Projects. Paper 1915. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1915

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom
learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education, 62, 24-31.

Sapacz, M., Rockman, G., & Clark, J. (2016). Are we addicted to our cell phones? Computers in
Human Behavior, 57, 153-159. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.004

The Educator (2018). The pros and cons of banning phones in schools. Retrieved November 17,
2018, from https://www.theeducatoronline.com/au/news/the-pros-and-cons-of-banning-
phones-in-schools/251609