See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291346051

Journal of Media Education

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 471

1 author:

Bernard Mccoy
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
11 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digital Distractions in the Classroom View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bernard Mccoy on 26 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Page |1

Digital Distractions in the Classroom Phase II:

Student Classroom Use of Digital Devices for Non-Class Related Purposes

The author would like to acknowledge Dr. William E. Rogge, in the Department of Mathematics
at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Dr. John Creswell, Adjunct Professor of Family
Medicine at the University of Michigan, who advised and helped with analysis on some survey
responses in this study.

Abstract

A 2015 survey of American college students examined classroom learning distractions

caused by the use of digital devices for non-class purposes. The purpose of the study was to learn

more about Millennial Generation students’ behaviors and perceptions regarding their classroom

uses of digital devices for non-class purposes. The survey included 675 respondents in 26 states.

Respondents spent an average of 20.9% of class time using a digital device for non-class

purposes. The average respondent used a digital device 11.43 times for non-class purposes

during a typical school day in 2015 compared to 10.93 times in 2013. A significant feature of

the study was its measurement of frequency and duration of students’ classroom digital

distractions as well as respondents’ motivations for engaging in the distracting behavior.

Introduction

In my first digital distractions study, I noted college students used digital devices such as

smart phones, laptops, tablets, and other information and communication technologies (“ICTs”)

an average of 10.93 times in a typical school day for non-class purposes. In this study we found

that student usage had risen to an average of 11.43 times in a typical school day and resulted in

20.9% of students’ class time being distracted by a digital device. In this previous study, I found

respondents admitted such behavior caused a distraction that could hurt their class performance.
 Page |2

Such findings come as members of the Millennial Generation continue their rapid

adoption of mobile devices, particularly smart phones. They, and mobile users of all ages, have

benefitted from expanding wireless networks that offer high-speed Internet connections as well

as a growing array of mobile and social media applications to use in their personal lives.

Millennials in particular are spending more time using mobile digital devices because they are

satisfied and comfortable with the experience.

Research over the past decade offers compelling evidence of these emerging trends. In

the Pew Foundation’s “Millennials in Adulthood” report (2014), these so-called “digital natives,”

were described as “the only generation for which these new technologies are not something

they’ve had to adapt to. Not surprisingly, they are the most avid users.” Experian Marketing

Services “Millennials Come of Age,” (2014) report found that having grown up in the age of the

internet and mobile phones, Millennials “account for 41% of the total time Americans spend

using smart phones, despite making up just 29% of the population.”

The 2015 Digital Marketer noted that “70% of Millennials said they used their mobile

devices from the moment they wake up to when they go to bed.” Smith, Rainie & Zickuhr (2011)

found nearly 100% of college graduate and undergraduate students had Internet access.

Increasingly, that Internet access involves a mobile wireless connection via smart phone, laptop

or tablet. The 2015 Digital Marketer (2015) found 43% of Millennials said a mobile device is

their preferred method for using the Internet. That is more than twice the rate as people age 35

and older.

A Pew Research Center study “Broadband and smart phone adoption demographics”

(2013), found 80% of young adults ages 18-29 owned a smart phone and 95% had a smart phone

and home broadband Internet access. Newswire (2014) cited a Nielsen study that found in the
 Page |3

second-quarter of 2014, 85% of Millennials aged 18-24 used a smart phone and 86% aged 25-34

own them, an increase from 77% and 80%, respectively, from the second-quarter of 2013.

Millennials are making a faster transition to mobile digital devices, and are using them

more frequently too. In a Gallup survey, Newport (2015) found the “ubiquitous presence” of

smart phones in Americans' lives was especially evident among younger Americans. The Gallup

survey found more than seven in 10 smart phone owners, ages 18-29, check their device a few

times an hour or more often, including 22% who admit to checking it every few minutes. In

noting this behavior, Richter (2015) said; “Interestingly, most smartphone users don’t seem to

consider their device usage excessive. 61 percent of the respondents claim to use their own

device less frequently than the people around them - a misperception that is not entirely unlike

addict behavior.”

Khalaf (2014) used the term “mobile addict” and said this segment is growing the fastest

and consists primarily of consumers ages 13-24. Khalaf also noted that mobile addicts launched

smart phone or tablet apps more than 60 times per day, a growth rate of 123% between 2013 and

2014. Duggan (2015) found the 18-29 age group also had the highest daily percentage

participation rates on social media platforms Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram.

“The 2015 U.S. Mobile App Report,” (2015) noted mobile apps drove a majority of the digital

media time (54%) users spent on mobile devices. The report noted that mobile apps grew 90%

over a two year period and “contributed to 77% of the total increase in time users spent on their

mobile device.”

Smith (2015) analyzed smart phone users and found young smart phone owners were particularly

avid users of social media applications. Fully 91% of smartphone owners ages 18-29 used social

networking apps on their phone at least once during the analysis study period, compared with
 Page |4

55% of those 50 and older (a 36-point difference). The same may be said of the Millennial

Generations’ use of digital devices in college classrooms.

Several studies have found a link between the Millennial Generations’ growing use of

digital tools and the distractions they may cause in educational settings. Kuznekoff, Munz &

Titsworth (2015) examined student mobile phone use in the classroom and found

sending/receiving text messages unrelated to class content negatively impacted learning and

note-taking. Beland & Murphy (2015) studied 91 schools in England where more than 90% of

teen students own mobile phones. The study found test scores were 6.41% higher in schools

where cellphone use was banned. Researchers concluded that mobile phones “can have a

negative impact on productivity through distraction.”

Dahlstrom & Bichsel (2014) found that many college students use mobile devices for

academic purposes but were concerned about their potential for distraction. A phenomenological

study by Flanigan & Babchuk (2015) suggested the temptation and use of social media had

become a prominent aspect of university students’ academic experiences, “both within and

outside of the classroom setting.”

Studies have also revealed concerns by teachers over distractions caused by their students’

growing use of digital devices. Richtel (2012) reported a belief among teachers that constant use

of digital technology hampered their students’ attention spans and ability to persevere in the face

of challenging tasks. A “Children, Teens, and Entertainment Media: The View from the

Classroom” (2012) study found 71% of teachers thought entertainment media (TV shows,

music, video games, texting, iPods, cell phone games, social networking sites, apps, computer

programs, online videos, and websites students use for fun) hurt student attention span
 Page |5

“somewhat” or “a lot.” About 60% of surveyed teachers said it hindered students’ ability to write

and communicate face to face.

Purcell, et al. (2012) found sharply diverging teacher views in a survey they conducted.

Seventy-seven percent of teachers they surveyed thought the Internet and search engines had a

“mostly positive” impact on student research skills. However, 87% of the respondents believed

digital technologies were creating “an easily distracted generation with short attention spans,”

and 64% said digital technologies did “more to distract students than to help them academically.”

Findings such as these have also involved research involving human behavior and the use of

digital technology.

David et al. (2014), conducted a U.S. study based on self-reports from 992 college

undergraduates regarding their major communication and media activities during a typical day.

The respondents estimated they spent 39 hours a day on communication and media reached

activity, an overestimation partially attributed to the respondents’ multitasking. In the U.S.,

Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts (2010), found a majority of teenagers multitask “most” or “some” of

the time when listening to music (73% of respondents), watching TV (68%), using a computer

(66%), and reading (53%). In the United Kingdom, Ofcom & GfK (2010), note on average, 16-

to 24-year-olds use media 9.5 hours a day, of which 52% involved media multitasking.

Wang et al. (2015), conceptualized media multitasking based on 11 different

multidimensional behaviors. Wang noted: "In some sense, media multitasking exemplifies

multiple challenges facing contemporary society. It is the product of too many goals and not

enough time, too many options and not enough discretion, and a building pressure to be

increasingly productive." Shan, Zheng & Prabu (2016) conducted a study examining the impacts

of media multitasking on student respondents’ social and psychological well-being based on

 Page |6

motivations (social, cognitive, entertainment) tied to these behaviors. The study found student

multitasking involved different, and potentially competing, types of behaviors that had differing

effects (positive, negative, and null) on respondents' perceived social and psychological

wellbeing.

Research has also found that just because a student is multitasking with a digital device in

class doesn’t always mean he or she is being distracted from the teaching and learning taking

place. Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway (2014) identified digital device uses for non-class

purposes as a “low level disruptive behavior” and argue that teachers could benefit from

understanding how the classroom ecology influences student engagement, rather than focusing

on ‘fixing’ unproductive behavior. O’bannon & Thomas (2014) found older teachers were less

likely to own smart phones, and were less supportive and less enthusiastic about the use of

mobile phones in the classroom and the benefits of specific mobile features for school-related

work.

Gebre, Saroyan & Bracewell (2014) found students' cognitive and social engagement in

technology-rich classrooms is significantly related to their professors' views of effective

teaching. They conclude that technology implementation in university teaching needs to

incorporate faculty development programs related to changing professors' conceptions of

effective teaching. Findings from a number of studies (Hegedus & Roschelle 2013; Rutten, van

Joolingen & van der Veen 2012), have shown the strategic use of technology tools in

mathematics and science education, in particular, can support the learning of mathematical and

scientific procedures and skills as well as the development of advanced proficiencies such as

Building on prior research, the purpose of this study examines college students’ evolving

uses of digital devices in the classroom for non-classroom related purposes. What impact does
 Page |7

such behavior have on student learning? What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of

this behavior, and what policies might effectively limit classroom distractions caused by digital

devices?

Methods

In the spring of 2015, 675 students at American colleges and universities in 26 states

answered 17 survey questions about their classroom use of digital devices for non-class

purposes. Respondents included freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students

from Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,

Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, New

Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and

Wisconsin. Most respondents majored in mass communications, but also included students

majoring in marketing, business, law, education, and agriculture.

Instructor observations of college students in classroom settings, a baseline survey of

students, conversations with instructors at U.S. colleges, past research, and literature reviews

suggest student classroom uses of digital devices for non-class purposes causes learning

distractions. This resulted in a research agenda focused on the study of student classroom uses of

digital devices for non-class purposes, and the effects such behavior may have on classroom

learning.

The survey addressed the frequency, duration and intensity of non-class related digital

distractions in the classroom, perceived advantages and disadvantages of using digital devices

for non-class purposes, responses to classroom digital distractions, and policies needed to

address such distractions in the classroom. Ten of the survey’s 17 questions presented

respondents with a list of answers to choose from in addition to an “other” open-answer

 Page |8

response. Some questions were developed from a 2012 pilot survey of undergraduate mass

communications majors (N=95) at a Midwestern university that identified frequent types of non-

class related digital device behavior and use in classrooms. Other questions were formed after

examining 777 responses in a 2013 survey of students at six U.S. universities on the digital

distractions in the classroom topic.

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained before the survey’s administration. It

included a cover page statement informing students that the survey’s completion and submission

constituted their consent to participate in the study.

In the spring of 2015, classroom instructors recruited respondents using email and

personal contacts. All respondents were given the option to complete the survey. The survey did

not ask respondents to state their name or institution, but respondent surveys were geo tagged

(state and/or educational institution) by using Internet Protocol (IP) routing addresses associated

with survey responses. Using SurveyMonkey.com as a data collection tool, survey results were

statistically reported and compared with demographic data for gender, age, and year in school.

The analysis also looked at the frequency and duration of responses.

Results

The survey’s quantitative frequencies results are presented first, followed by a comparison

analysis.

Quantitative Results

Table 1 shows results for the 17 question survey. The last three survey questions were

demographic in nature. Females accounted for 65.4%, and males, 34.6% of survey respondents.

Among the respondents, 11.6% said they were 18-years-old, 23.9% said they were 19-years-old,

23.3% were 20-year-olds, 23.6% were 21-year-olds, and 17.6% of the respondents were 22-year-
 Page |9

olds. College freshmen accounted for 22.6% of the students, followed by sophomores at 21.4%,

juniors at 24.8%, seniors at 28.2%, and graduate students at 3%. DigiDistractions Q15 Phase

II.pdf & DigiDistractions Q16 Phase II.pdf & DigiDistractions Q17 Phase II.pdf

Students were asked how often they used a digital device during classes for non-

classroom related activities on a typical school day. Of the responses, 34.4% chose “1 to 3 times”

as a response, followed by 28.5% who chose “4 to 10 times.” The remaining student responses

included 21.5% who chose “11 to 30 times,” 12.3% who chose “More than 30 times,” and 3.3%

who chose “Never.” DigiDistractions Q1 Phase II.pdf

When we asked students to describe their various uses of digital devices during class for

non-class purposes, “Texting” was the top response at 86.6%. It was followed by “E-mail” at

76.2%, “Checking the time,” at 75%, “Social Networking” at 70.3%, “Web surfing” at 42.5%,

and “Games” at 10%. DigiDistractions Q2 Phase II.pdf

Question 3 asked students what percentage of the class was spent using a digital device for non-

class purposes. The top response was “1-10%” at 41.2%. It was followed by “11-20%” at 19.9%,

“21-30%” at 14.4%, “31-40%” at 6.9%, “41-50%” at 4.8% and “51-60%” at 3.4%.

DigiDistractions Q3 Phase II.pdf

Students were asked to choose the three biggest advantages and three biggest

disadvantages to using digital devices in class for non-classroom purposes. The top response for

biggest advantage was “To stay connected” at 63%. It was followed by “Fight Boredom” at

62.9%, “Entertainment” at 46.8%, “Related classwork” at 46.4%, and “In case of emergency” at

37.1%. The biggest disadvantage to using a digital device in class for non-classroom purposes

was “Don’t pay attention” at 89.1%. It was followed by “Miss instruction” at 80.5%, “Distract
 P a g e | 10

others” at 38.5%, “Get called out by instructor” at 30% and “Lose grade points” at 26.7%.

DigiDistractions Q4 Phase II.pdf and DigiDistractions Q5 Phase II.pdf

We asked students to identify how much of a distraction was caused by their own use of

digital devices during class for non-classroom activities. “A little distraction” was the leading

choice at 57.6%. It was followed by “More than a little distraction” at 21.4%, “Big distraction” at

9.4%, “No distraction” at 8.4%, and “Very Big distraction” at 3.1%. DigiDistractions Q6 Phase

II.pdf

When asked to choose how much of a distraction was caused by other student’s use of

digital devices during class for non-classroom activities, the top response was “A little

distraction” at 42%. It was followed by “No distraction” at 39%, “More than a little distraction”

at 13.1%, “Big distraction” at 3.6%, and “Very big distraction” at 1.9%. DigiDistractions Q7

Phase II.pdf

Question 8 asked respondents to choose the types of distractions caused by the use of

digital devices during class for non-class activities. “Visual activity” was chosen by 75% of the

respondents, followed by “Audio activity” at 36.91%, and “It’s not a distraction" at 12.1%.

DigiDistractions Q8 Phase II.pdf

Question 9 asked students if their instructors have a policy regarding the use of digital

devices in their classrooms. “Yes” was chosen by 71.8% of the respondents, followed by “No” at

28.2%.

When asked which statement they agree with “MOST” regarding classroom uses of

digital devices for non-classroom purposes, 29.6% of the student respondents chose “I can freely

use a digital device without it causing learning distractions,” followed by 26.6% who chose “It's

my choice to use a digital device whenever I feel like using one, ” 19.4% chose ” I don't use
 P a g e | 11

digital devices because of the classroom learning distractions they may cause,” 12.8% believe

“my use of digital devices outweigh classroom learning distractions they may cause,” and 11.5%

chose “I can't stop myself from using digital devices even if they may cause learning

distractions.”

Question 11 asked if it would be helpful to have policies limiting non-classroom uses of

digital devices. “Yes” was chosen by 52.8% of the respondents, followed by “No” at 32% and

“Don’t know” at 15.2%.

When asked if digital devices should be banned from classrooms, 89.9% of the

respondents said “No,” and 10.18% said “Yes.” DigiDistractions Q9 Phase II.pdf &

DigiDistractions Q10 Phase II.pdf & DigiDistractions Q11 Phase II.pdf & DigiDistractions

Q12 Phase II.pdf

When asked what an instructor should do if a student causes a disruption by using a

digital device for non-class purposes, 77.2% chose “Speak to student.” Other responses were

“Ask student to leave class” at 13.2%, and “Confiscate or turn-off device” at 9.6%.

DigiDistractions Q13 Phase II.pdf

We asked students which policy they would favor most for students caught using digital

devices in the classroom for non-class purposes. “Warning on first offense followed by

penalties” was the leading response at 65.6%. It was followed by “No warnings or penalty” at

30.5% and “Penalty each time it happens” at 3.8%. DigiDistractions Q14 Phase II.pdf

Comparison Analysis Results

Table 2 shows a comparison analysis of selected questions. Question 1 comparison

analysis indicates undergraduates (N=652) were more likely to use digital devices than graduates
 P a g e | 12

(N=20) during daily classes for non-class activities. INSERT DigiDistractions Q1CompClass

Phase II.pdf

When overall frequency response rates were averaged ((1+3)/2=2, (4+10)/2=7, (11-

30)/2=20.5, 35) and added for each school year, undergraduates used a digital device an average

of 11.67 times during a typical school day for non-class related activities compared to an average

of 7.23 times each class day for graduate students. Combined, undergraduate and graduate

students used a digital device an average of 11.43 times each class day for non-class activities. A

comparison of results between the 2013 and 2015 surveys show students are using digital devices

more frequently (10.93 times each class day in 2013 versus 11.43 times each class day in 2015)

in the classroom for non-class related activities. INSERT DigiDistractions Q1Comp I to II

Phase II.pdf

Question 2 comparison analysis indicates females (N=440) were more likely than males

(N=233) (73.3% vs. 64.6%) to use digital devices for non-class related social networking. Males

were more likely than females (47.3% vs. 39.9%) to use digital devices for non-class related web

surfing and (12.8% vs. 8.3%) playing games. INSERT DigiDistractions Q2CompFemale Male

Phase II.pdf

Question 3 comparison analysis indicates undergraduates (N=653) were more likely to

use digital devices than graduates (N=20) during daily classes for non-class activities. When

overall frequency response rates were averaged and added for each school year, undergraduates

used a digital device an average of 21.15% of the time in classes for non-class related activities

compared to an average of 15% of the time for graduate students. Combined, undergraduate and

graduate students (a small sample, N=20) used a digital device an average of 21% of the time for

non-class activities while in the classroom.

 P a g e | 13

INSERT DigiDistractions Q3 Class by class averages comparisons PhaseII.pdf

Comparison analysis on Question 7 indicate females were more likely than males (65.7%

vs. 50.9%) to list some level of distraction caused by another student’s use of digital devices

during class for non-class activities. INSERT DigiDistractions Q7CompFemale Male Phase

II.pdf

Comparison analysis on Question 8 indicates females were more likely than males to

notice visual (78.2% vs. 69.7%) and audio (38.3% vs. 34.2%) distractions caused by the use of

digital devices during class for non-class activities. INSERT DigiDistractions Q8CompFemale

Male Phase II.pdf

Discussion

Research indicates the frequency of classroom distractions that college students

experience due to the use of digital devices is increasing. This survey indicates such digital

distractions are often habitual and frequently happen despite an admission by a large majority

(89%) of respondents that this behavior hampers their ability to pay attention in the classroom.

This study expanded on my previous findings with an aim to further quantify the

frequency and duration with which students’ digital device uses cause classroom distractions.

The 2015 survey found the average respondent used a digital device for non-class purposes 11.43

times during school days compared to 10.93 times during school days in the 2013 survey.

2015 survey respondents identified non-class related activities that included texting (86.6%),

emailing (76.2%), and social networking (70.3%). The 2015 study found the duration of such

digital distractions consumed an average of 20.9% of respondents’ time in the classroom.

 P a g e | 14

Respondents said three leading advantages for using digital devices for non-class related

behavior was to stay connected (63%), fight boredom (63%), and for entertainment (47%).

Respondents also admitted such behavior, by themselves and/or students around them, caused

them to not pay attention (89%) and miss instruction (81%) during class.

A large majority (80.5%) of respondents agreed with one of the following statements

regarding their classroom uses of digital devices for non-classroom purposes:

• “I can freely use a digital device without it causing learning distractions.” (29.6%)

• “It's my choice to use a digital device whenever I feel like using one.” (26.6%)

• “My use of digital devices outweigh classroom learning distractions they may cause.”
(12.8%)

• “I can't stop myself from using digital devices even if they may cause learning
distractions.” (11.5%)

Such responses may explain why a large majority (90%) of respondents oppose

classroom bans on digital devices while also recognizing the detrimental learning distractions

they may cause. A smaller majority (53%) of respondents favor policies limiting classroom

distractions caused by digital devices. A third of the respondents (32%) oppose such policies and

15% “didn’t know” how they felt about such policies. This suggests students may be receptive to

better clarity and conversations about appropriate and inappropriate classroom uses of digital

devices.

Respondents said fighting boredom (63%) in the classroom was a leading reason they

used digital devices for non-class activities. This suggests a need for students to learn more

effective self-control techniques to keep them focused on the learning at hand in classroom

settings. It also suggests instructors might benefit from learning and experimenting with new
 P a g e | 15

ways to engage college students in classroom activities that might reduce boredom and minimize

disruptions caused by non-class uses of digital devices. If one were to follow findings by Wang

et al. (2015), digital device distractions may also be minimized by imposing other multitasking

behaviors in classrooms that can more strategically allocate students’ cognitive resources.

A comparison analysis indicated graduate students (7.2 times a day and 15% of class

time) were less likely to use digital devices for non-class purposes than undergraduates (11.7

times a day and 20.9% of class time). This suggests that classroom digital distractions may

lessen with age because older students are better self-regulated learners who are able to block out

distractions in a classroom environment (Pintrich & de Groot, 1990) while they actively engage

in cognitive processing of learning materials.

One limitation of this result was the small sample (N=20) of graduate student

respondents. Another limitation of this study was the disproportionately larger sample of female

respondents compared to male respondents (65.4% vs. 34.6%). Future research might use larger

samples of graduate students and a more proportionally representative U.S. Census demographic

sample of female and male (50.3% vs 50.7%) respondents to see if they result in different

responses.

Other research might measure the before and after impact of apps (Pocket Points,

SelfControl, Freedom, Anti-Social, Stay Focused, FocusWriter, etc.), pedagogies, technologies,

and policies designed to limit classroom digital device distractions.

Research indicates the rapid adoption and use of digital devices and applications by

Millennials is going to keep growing. It should continue to qualify for future research into the

motives and perceptions that drive respondent behavior. Forecasts by Worldwide Wearables
 P a g e | 16

(2015), and Meeker (2013), indicate this may especially be the case with near-future growth of

more personal technology devices such as wearables, drivables, flyables, and scannables.

Finally, the results of this and related research by Davis III, Deil-Amen, Rios-Aguilar, &

González Canché (2015), Oh & Reeves (2014), & Van Dusen (2014) raise questions regarding

the on-going need for colleges and universities to provide updated technology, technology

support, and training time for instructors. This may allow faculty and other instructional staff to

more efficiently use technology tools for better student engagement, to lessen digital distractions,

and to improve the overall quality of classroom instruction.

The unique contribution of this study was its measurement of the frequency and duration

of digital distractions in classrooms, as well as the competing justifications respondents

identified for engaging in distracting behavior with digital devices they admit may have negative

learning consequences.

References

A “Week in the Life” Analysis of Smartphone Users. (2015, April 1). Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/chapter-three-a-week-in-the-life-analysis-
of-smartphone-users/

Beland, L., & Murphy, R. (2015, May 1). Centre for Economic Performance Discussion
Paper No 1350, Technology, Distraction & Student Performance. Retrieved from
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1350.pdf

Broadband and smartphone adoption demographics. (2013, August 26). Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/08/27/broadband-and-smartphone-adoption-
demographics/

Children, Teens, and Entertainment Media: The View From The Classroom. (2012,
November 1). Retrieved from
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/children-teens-and-entertainment-
media-the-view-from-the-classroom/key-finding-1%3A-media-use-impacts-
academic-performance
 P a g e | 17

Dahlstrom, E. & Bichsel, J.(2014). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and

Information Technology, 2014. [Web site] Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ecar

David, P.. Kim, J.-H., Brickman, J.S., Ran, R. & Curtis, C.M. (2014) Mobile phone
distraction while studying. New Media & Society. Retrieved from
http://0-dx.doi.org.library.unl.edu/10.1177/1461444814531692

Davis III, C. H., Deil-Amen, R., Rios-Aguilar, C., & González Canché, M. S. (2015).
Social media, higher education, and community colleges: A research synthesis
and implications for the study of two-year institutions. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 39(5), 409-422.

Duggan, M. (2015, August 19). Mobile Messaging and Social Media 2015. Retrieved
from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-
demoghttp://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-
social-media-users/raphics-of-social-media-users/

Flanigan, A. E., & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: A

phenomenological study of student experiences in and out of the classroom.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.003.

Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Bracewell, R. (2014). Students' engagement in technology rich
classrooms and its relationship to professors' conceptions of effective teaching. Br
J Educ Technol British Journal of Educational Technology, 83-96.

Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). Learning Important Mathematics From
Contextualization and Networked Collaboration—A Review of The SimCalc
Vision and Contributions: Democratizing Access to Important Mathematics The
SimCalc Vision and Contributions: Democratizing Access to Important Mathe.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 125-129.

Khalaf, S. (2014, April 22). The Rise of the Mobile Addict. Retrieved from
http://flurrymobile.tumblr.com/post/115191945655/the-rise-of-the-mobile-addict

Kusnekoff, J., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Mobile Phones in the Classroom:
Examining the Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message Content on Student
Learning. Communication Education, 64(3), 344-365.
doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727

McCoy, B. (2013). Digital Distractions in the Classroom: Student Classroom Use of

Digital Devices for Non-Class Related Purposes. Journal of Media Education,
4(4), 5-14. Retrieved from
http://en.calameo.com/read/000091789af53ca4e647f
 P a g e | 18

Meeker, M. (2013, May 1). 2013 Internet Trends. Retrieved from

http://www.kpcb.com/blog/2013-internet-trends

Millennials in Adulthood. (2014, March 6). Retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/

Millennials Come of Age. (2014, June). Experian Marketing Services, 10. Retrieved from
http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-services/reports/ems-ci-millennials-come-of-
age-wp.pdfNewport, F. (2015, July 9). Most U.S. Smartphone Owners Check
Phone at Least Hourly. Gallup. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184046/smartphone-owners-check-phone-least-
hourly.aspx?

Newswire. (2014, September 5). Retrieved from

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/mobile-millennials-over-85-
percent-of-generation-y-owns-smartphones.html

O'bannon, B., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the
classroom: Age matters! Computers & Education, 15-25.

Ofcom & GfK. (2010). The consumer's digital day. Retrieved from
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/811898/consumers-digital-
day.pdf

Oh, E., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Generational differences and the integration of
technology in learning, instruction, and performance. In Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (pp. 819-828). Springer New York.

Pintrich, P.R. & de Groot, E.V. (1990, March). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82 (1), pp. 33–40.

Purcell, K., & Rainie, L., & Heaps, A., & Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L., & Jacklin, A., &
Chen, C., & Zickuhr, K. (2012, November 1) How Teens Do Research in the
Digital World. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Student-Research/Main-Report/Part-
1.aspx
Rainie, L. (2012, September 11). Smartphone Ownership Update: September 2012. Pew
Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-Sept-
2012/Findings.aspx
 P a g e | 19

Richtel, M. (2012, November 1). Technology Changing How Students Learn, Teachers
Say. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/education/technology-
is-changing-how-students-learn-teachers-say.html?pagewanted=all
Richter, F. (2015, July 23). Infographic: America's Growing Smartphone Addiction.
Statistica. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/chart/3666/frequency-of-
smartphone-usage/
Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G., & Roberts, D.F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of
8- to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from
https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8010.pdf

Rutten, N., Joolingen, W., & Veen, J. (2012). The learning effects of computer
simulations in science education. Computers & Education,136-153.to Important
Mathe. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 125-129.

Shan, X., Zheng, W., & Prabu, D. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of
university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(A), 242-250.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.040

Smith, A. (2015). Chapter Three: A “Week in the Life” Analysis of Smartphone Users. In
U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Smith, A., & Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2011, July 19). College Students and Technology.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-students-and-
technology/Report.aspx

State of the Media Democracy Survey: A multi-generational view of consumer

technology, media and telecom trends. Deloitte Development LLC. (2013,
March). Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/us/tmttrends

Sullivan, A., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish Them or Engage
Them? Teachers’ Views of Unproductive Student Behaviours in the Classroom.
AJTE Australian Journal of Teacher Education.

The 2015 Digital Marketer. (2015). Experian Marketing Services. Retrieved from
http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-services/p/2015-digital-marketer-
report.pdf?SP_MID=2916&SP_RID=315631&elq=dbab6eb12a2a4809bf22ec76a
8632a55&elqCampaignId=2270&elqaid=2916&elqat=1&elqTrackId=1ea06deb9
d27443185d01dd2dccb2385

The 2015 U.S. Mobile App Report. (2015, September 22). Retrieved from
https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2015/The-
2015-US-Mobile-App-Report
 P a g e | 20

Thompson, P. (2015). How digital native learners describe themselves. Education and
Information Technologies, 20(3), 467-484.

Van Dusen, G. C. (2014). The Virtual Campus: Technology and Reform in Higher
Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 25, No. 5.

Wang, Z., Irwin, M., Cooper, C. & Srivastava, J. (2015). Multidimensions of media
multitasking and adaptive media selection. Human Communication Research, 41
(2015), pp. 102–127

Worldwide Wearables Market Forecast to Grow 173.3% in 2015 with 72.1 Million Units
to be Shipped, According to IDC. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25696715
 P a g e | 21

Table One

DigiDistractions Q1 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 22

DigiDistractions Q2 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 23

DigiDistractions Q3 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 24

DigiDistractions Q4 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 25

DigiDistractions Q5 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 26

DigiDistractions Q6 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 27

DigiDistractions Q7 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 28

DigiDistractions Q8 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 29

DigiDistractions Q9 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 30

DigiDistractions Q10 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 31

DigiDistractions Q11 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 32

DigiDistractions Q12 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 33

DigiDistractions Q13 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 34

DigiDistractions Q4 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 35

DigiDistractions Q15 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 36

DigiDistractions Q16 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 37

DigiDistractions Q17 Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 38

Table Two

DigiDistractions Q1CompClass Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 39

DigiDistractions Q1Comp I to II Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 40

DigiDistractions Q2CompFemale Male Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 41

DigiDistractions Q3 Class by class averages comparisons Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 42

DigiDistractions Q7CompFemale Male Phase II.pdf

 P a g e | 43

DigiDistractions Q8CompFemale Male Phase II.pdf

View publication stats