Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Mobile phones in the classroom: Preservice teachers answer the call
Blanche W. O'Bannon a, *, Kevin M. Thomas b
a
b
Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
Frazier School of Education, Bellarmine University, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 18 July 2014
Received in revised form
16 January 2015
Accepted 16 February 2015
Available online 25 February 2015
This study examined the perceptions of 245 preservice teachers in Kentucky and Tennessee to determine
their support for the use of mobile phones in the classroom, as well as their perceptions of the mobile
phone features that they view as beneficial for school-related work, and the instructional benefits and
barriers to mobile phone use in the classroom. The results indicated that almost half (45%) of preservice
teachers supported the use of mobile phones in the classroom while one-fourth (25%) did not support
their use and approximately one third (30%) reported uncertainty. The preservice teachers perceived
many features/functions of mobile phones as being useful in the classroom, but they identified access to
the Internet, clicker capabilities, use of educational apps, and use as a reader as the most valuable. They
perceived cheating, disruptions, cyberbullying, and accessing inappropriate content as major barriers to
the use of mobile phones in the classroom.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
21st century skills
Mobile phones
Mobile learning
Teacher education
Preservice teachers
1. Introduction
Described as portable computers and the Swiss army knife of technologies, mobile phones have historically been banned in K12 schools due to the perception that they are disruptive. A number of factors including, but not limited to, their increasing
ubiquity, their ability to provide students with anywhere learning opportunities, the growing BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)
movement, and mounting demands by parents, students, and school stakeholders, have resulted in a gradual lifting of the ban. A
recent survey conducted by Bradford Networks (2013) found that 89% of colleges and universities and 44% of K-12 school districts
in the United States and the United Kingdom allow students to bring their own devices to use on school networks. As more and
more K-12 schools have opened their doors to mobile phone use, the benefits and barriers associated with their integration have
materialized.
Preservice teachers find themselves in an interesting dichotomy with respect to mobile phone integration. Whereas previous attempts
to provide 1:1 integration have been made with students who have digital devices, this generation of preservice teachers is among the
first to have grown up in a 1:1 world. Ownership of digital devices among the Millennial generation (ages 18e34) was reported by Zickuhr
(2011) to be 95% mobile phone, 57% desktop, 70% laptop, 74% iPod, 63% game console, and 5% tabletdonly 1% do not own one of these
devices. In fact, one could argue that today's preservice teachers are the students whose teachers believed used their mobile phones to
disrupt class. On the other hand, preservice teachers are also the former students who identified the ban on mobile phones as the number
one barrier to the integration of technology in the classroom (Project Tomorrow, 2010) and were increasingly using their phones to
complete school assignments (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). Considering that teachers are the gatekeepers to technology
integration in the classroom, preservice teachers will play an important role in the success or failure of mobile phone inclusion in the
BYOD initiative.
* Corresponding author. 445 Claxton Complex, Knoxville, TN, USA. Tel.: þ1 865 974 0498; fax: þ1 865 974 6302.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B.W. O'Bannon).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.010
0360-1315/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
111
2. Literature review
Student learning, engagement, motivation, and productivity are positively influenced by technology (Roblyer & Doering, 2010). Mobile
devices, such as mobile phones, are no exception. They provide teachers and students with the benefits traditionally found in 1:1 computingdand more. The increasing ubiquity and instructional features of these devices has made mobile learning “one of the key current
trends of educational applications for new technologies” (Wu et al., 2012, p. 818).
2.1. Benefits to using mobile phones in the classroom
The foremost instructional benefit linked with mobile devices is their ability to involve students in meaningful learning opportunities from anywhere (Traxler, 2009). For example, students use mobile phones to access the Internet. Allowing teachers and students to conduct online research is a benefit of 1:1 computing (Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke, 2007). In a survey of 1121 teachers,
Thomas, O'Bannon, and Britt (2014) found that student access to the Internet was identified as the number one benefit of using
mobile phones in the classroom. Currently, one fourth of teens use their mobile phones as their primary method of accessing the
Internet (Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013). A survey of 2462 Advanced Placement (AP) and National Writing Project
(NWP) teachers revealed that the most popular way they use mobile phones with students is to complete Internet research (Purcell
et al., 2013). In addition to conducting research, 73% of the respondents noted that their students used personal mobile phones to
complete assignments, while 79% of the teachers required their students to access assignments online, and 76% required them to
submit assignments online. Mobile phones can also be used to access online tools (e.g., Dropbox, Web 2.0, Poll Everywhere) and apps
(e.g., PBS mobile apps and Illuminations) for classroom use. Further, the Internet can be used for communication, collaboration, and
cooperative problem-solving Harris (2002).
Students also use their mobile phones to communicate through sending/receiving text messages. Texting supports anywhere interaction;
communication; and collaboration among teachers, students, and content (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). For example, Thomas and Orthober
surveyed 46 high school students in three classes who received teacher-generated text messages on a variety of course-related topics.
Results indicated that students found the use of teacher-generated text messaging to be beneficial in increasing communication and
interaction (student-to-teachers and student-to-content). Further, according to Plester, Wood, and Joshi (2009), texting can also improve
students' phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading ability.
Recording audio and video is another useful feature of mobile phones for improving student literacy. Student-created podcasts can
improve students' reading, writing, and listening skills (Smythe & Neufeld, 2010). Podcasts and/or vodcasts (video casts) also assist teachers
in the differentiation of instruction by appealing to audio or visual learners (Smaldino, Russell, Heinich, & Molenda, 2005).
Additional instructional benefits of mobile phones include providing teachers the ability to personalize instruction (Steel, 2012),
create student-centered learning opportunities, collaborate (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007), and differentiate instruction (KukulskaHulme, 2007). Further, teachers and students also use traditional instructional tools on mobile phones, such as the calculator and
digital camera (Thomas, O'Bannon, & Britt, 2014). Regardless of the abundant benefits of mobile phone integration, the barriers to their
use must be considered.
2.2. Barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom
While mobile phones provide many of the benefits associated with 1:1 computing, they also share some of the same barriers. For
example, in a study of two middle schools, Dunleavy et al. (2007) found that 1:1 computing could be disruptive and a distraction. Lenhart,
Ling, Campbell, and Purcell (2010) agree that the most common dispute against the use of mobile phones in the classroom is the
disruption they cause. And this assertion is supported by two recent studies involving university students. Baker, Lusk, and Neuhauser
(2012) conducted a study with 882 university students regarding the classroom use of electronic devices. Generally, these students felt
that any use of mobile phones was disruptive to learning. Of specific concern were making calls, checking and sending text messages, and
checking email. Additionally, McCoy (2013) conducted a study with 777 college students and discovered that 80% believed that using
digital devices in the classroom, such as mobile phones, distracted them from learning. Additional studies support the findings of these
researchers.
Rosen, Lim, Carrier, and Cheever (2011) investigated the effect of texting during instruction. Results indicated that academic performance
decreased when students texted during class. Similarly, educators worry about the influence of textese, the abbreviations and slang
associated with texting, on written language skills. Yet, research on this issue is mixed. Coe and Oakhill (2011) examined the effect of student
texting/textese and literacy and reported a positive relationship, whereas Drouin and Driver (2012) identified that texting negatively affects
students' literacy.
Additional concerns include students' use of mobile phones for cheating, sexting, and cyberbullying. Studies (Commonsense Media,
2010; Tindell & Bohlander, 2012) confirm that students use their mobile phones to cheat. Teens also use their phones for sexting, the
practice of sending sexually explicit photos and/or messages via a mobile phone. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 4%
of teens ages 12e17 who own mobile phones have sent these types of messages (Lenhart et al., 2010), and 15% have received such messages.
Another concern is cyberbullying, which is bullying that takes place through the use of digital technology. While cyberbullying can occur
through the use of the Internet and social media, Holfeld and Grabe (2012) conducted a study with 665 middle school students and
discovered that offenders used their mobile phones to bully others in 41% of the incidents.
Traditional barriers to technology integrationdfear of change, lack of training, modeling, lack of personal use, motivation, and a negative
school environment (Bitner & Bitner, 2002)dalso hinder the integration of mobile phones into the classroom. These barriers can also
prevent teachers from developing the knowledge, pedagogy, and self-efficacy necessary to move past “low levels” of technology integration
and enable teachers to take full advantage of the instructional benefits that technologies provide (Ertmer & Orrenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The
potential negative uses associated with the use of mobile phones have prompted school officials to ban them from the classroom, thus
112
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
creating an environment that denies teachers the training, modeling, knowledge, and motivation to recognize the instructional benefits
associated with their use.
3. Purpose of the study
The benefits and barriers associated with the use of mobile phones in the classroom have resulted in disparity and confusion. Should
mobile phones be integrated into instruction? What are the views of those entering the profession? There is a gap in the literature on
preservice teachers' perceptions of this topic.
The purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachers' perceptions of the use of mobile phones in the classroom. Specifically, we
examined their support for mobile phone use in the classroom, their view of the usefulness of specific mobile phone features for schoolrelated work, and their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom. In addition, the study examined the relationship between their use of mobile phones and their technology expertise and their views of the benefits and barriers to
mobile phone use as well as the distractions associated with their use.
4. Methods
4.1. Research design
Guided by the recommendations of Creswell (2013), we used a survey approach to investigate preservice teachers' perceptions of the use
of mobile phones in the classroom. Survey research was the preferred method of data collection because of its economy, rapid turnaround,
and the standardization of the data (Babbie, 2012). Data were collected through a cross-sectional web-based survey (see Appendix)
developed specifically for this study and is discussed in the Data Source segment of the Methods section.
4.2. Participants
Preservice teachers (N ¼ 255) from two universities in Kentucky and Tennessee were invited to participate in this study. Of these, 245
(96%) completed the study. The preservice teachers who comprised this convenience sample were similarly distributed between the states,
with 113 (46%) located in Kentucky and 132 (54%) located in Tennessee. One hundred thirty (53%) were aspiring to become early childhood
or elementary teachers. Eighty-two (33.5%) were in middle or secondary teacher education programs, and 33 (13.5%) were enrolled in K-12
teacher preparation programs in areas such as special education, art, and music.
One hundred ninety-seven (80%) were female, and 48 (20%) were male. Two hundred fifteen (88%) were Caucasian, 10 (4.0%) were Latino/
Hispanic, eight (3.0%) were more than one race, six (2.4%) were Asian, four (1.6%) were African American, and two (.08%) were Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The mean age was 22.93 (SD ¼ 5.69). Two hundred fourteen (87.3%) owned smartphones, and 31 (12.7%) owned
basic mobile phones.
4.3. Data source
The survey (see Appendix), developed by the researchers, was based on current literature associated with mobile phone use. The
survey consisted of 56 items and was used to gather demographic data as well as the type of phone owned, participants' use of mobile
phones, their support for the use of mobile phones in the classroom, and their perceptions regarding useful mobile phone features and
the benefits and barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom, as well as their perceptions of disruptions caused by their use. The
survey contained a mix of question types including Yes/No, checklists, open-ended, and Likert-scaled questions using 5-point scales
(SD ¼ Strongly Disagree, D ¼ Disagree, N ¼ Neutral, A ¼ Agree, and SA ¼ Strongly Agree). We classified Likert scaled items in themes.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was administered on phone use, useful features for school related work, benefits, barriers and disruptions. Benefits, barriers and disruptions each resulted in single factors. Phone use and useful features for school related work failed to
result in constructs that made conceptual sense. Therefore, individual items were examined descriptively and overall means were used in
comparisons. For internal consistency and reliability, Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were calculated and interpreted for each theme based
on the rules (.9 ¼ high level, .8 ¼ moderate, .7 ¼ low level, .6 ¼ acceptable level, and <.6 ¼ unacceptable level) (Murphy & Davidshofer,
1991). The themes include 11 items related to the benefits of using mobile phones in the classroom (a ¼ .94), 8 items related to the
barriers associated with using mobile phones (a ¼ .84) and 6 items associated with disruptions to class caused by using mobile phones
(a ¼ .73).
Participants linked to the anonymous online survey from a web page with the consent form. No login was required, and participants
completed the survey in one sitting. However, given that the survey did not timeout, they could leave the computer for short periods and
return later to finish. The approximate time for completion was 10e20 min, depending on the individual.
Content validity was established for the survey by using experts (n ¼ 5) in the field of educational technology who reviewed the survey
individually and marked information they felt was unclear or inappropriate. Additionally, the survey was distributed to preservice teachers
(n ¼ 40) in a technology course to check for understanding. Most questions were retained (n ¼ 52), and five were revised as suggested by the
experts and students to better communicate the questions. None were eliminated.
4.4. Data collection and analysis
The researchers distributed the invitation to participate, the consent form, and the survey online. Upon receipt, preservice teachers read
the consent form, and those who wished to participate proceeded by linking to the survey, which was constructed in Qualtrics. Completion
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
113
and submission of the survey indicated consent. The resulting data were analyzed, descriptive statistics were calculated to identify frequencies and means, and appropriate statistical tests were administered as needed.
5. Results
Most of the preservice teachers reported that they were experienced users of technology. Using a 5-point scale (1 ¼ novice; 5 ¼ expert),
the preservice teachers were asked to rate their expertise with technology (M ¼ 3.69, SD ¼ .692). An additional review revealed that
approximately a tenth of the preservice teachers (9.8%) reported that they were experts. Most (52%) reported their proficiency at level 4,
whereas 36% rated their proficiency at level 3. Far fewer (2.0%) reported their proficiency at level 2 or novice (.4%).
5.1. Support for the use of mobile phones in the classroom
The preservice teachers were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I support the use of mobile phones
in the classroom.” The results revealed M ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ 1.081. Almost half of the preservice teachers (45%) indicated their support for
mobile phone use in the classroom, while 25% of the preservice teachers disagreed. The remaining preservice teachers (30%) were
undecided. They were also asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I think mobile phones support student
learning.” The results revealed M ¼ 3.43, SD ¼ 1.056. More than half of the preservice teachers (58%) indicated that mobile phones
support student learning, whereas far fewer (21%) of the preservice teachers disagreed. The remaining preservice teachers (21%) were
undecided.
5.2. Use of mobile phone features
Using a 5-point scale (1 ¼ Never; 5 ¼ A great deal), the preservice teachers were asked how frequently they use 22 features of mobile
phones apart from making/receiving phone calls (see Table 1). Over half reported that they use mobile phone features the most: sending/
receiving texts (M ¼ 4.78, SD ¼ .573); using the clock, alarm, timer (M ¼ 4.71, SD ¼ .697); taking a picture (M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ .974); accessing
social networks (M ¼ 4.24, SD ¼ 1.345); and accessing the Internet (M ¼ 4.21, SD ¼ 1.307). The features they use the least were playing a
podcast (M ¼ 1.86, SD ¼ 1.043), posting audio online (M ¼ 1.74, SD ¼ 1.051), scanning a QR code (M ¼ 1.59, SD ¼ .944), and creating a QR code
(M ¼ 1.25, SD ¼ .672). Overall mean for phone use (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ .746).
5.3. Useful mobile phone features for school-related work
Participants were asked to identify the features of mobile phones that they believed could be useful for school-related work. Using a
5-point scale (1 ¼ SD; 5 ¼ SA), the preservice teachers reported how strongly they agreed or disagreed that 22 mobile phone features could
be useful for school-related work (see Table 2). Those identified as most useful were accessing the Internet (M ¼ 4.36, SD ¼ .769), using as a
clicker/polling device (M ¼ 4.27, SD ¼ .765), using an educational app (M ¼ 4.24, SD ¼ .782), reading a book (M ¼ 4.10, SD ¼ .953), sending
and receiving email (M ¼ 4.07, SD ¼ .908), using the calculator (M ¼ 4.05, SD ¼ .879), playing a podcast (M ¼ 4.03, SD ¼ .8125), and using the
calendar (M ¼ 4.02, SD ¼ .844). The features they believed to be the least useful were sending/receiving texts (M ¼ 2.73, SD ¼ 1.208),
Table 1
Preservice teachers use of mobile phone features.
Feature
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
A Moderate amt.
A Great deal
M
SD
Send/receive texts
Use clock/alarm/timer
To take picture
Use social networking
Access the Internet
Use calendar
Send/receive email
To play music
Use calculator
Download an app
Post picture online
Watch a video
Record a video
Play a game
Sent/receive tweet
Use educational apps
Post a video online
Record audio
Play a podcast
Post audio online
Scan QR codes
Create QR codes
2
2
5
29
28
11
28
35
4
31
32
30
32
50
96
50
78
66
119
66
158
207
1 (.4%)
4 (1.6%)
10 (4.1%)
4 (1.6%)
3 (1.2%)
13 (5.3%)
16 (6.5%)
13 (5.3%)
19 (6.5%)
13 (5.3%)
24 (7.8%)
11(4.5%)
36 (14.7%)
48 (19.6%)
20 (8.2%)
47 (19.2%)
63 (25.7%)
80 (32.7%)
68 (27.8%)
80 (32.7%)
48 (19.6%)
21 (27.3%)
4
10
32
12
11
59
26
28
73
51
49
62
74
68
36
81
57
53
37
53
25
11
35
31
61
33
50
60
65
55
73
67
45
74
55
42
28
43
24
33
15
33
10
5
203
198
137
167
153
102
110
114
76
83
95
68
48
37
65
24
23
13
6
13
4
1
4.78
4.71
4.29
4.24
4.21
3.93
3.87
3.82
3.81
3.64
3.60
3.57
3.21
2.87
2.78
2.77
2.39
2.38
1.86
1.74
1.59
1.25
.573
.697
.974
1.345
1.307
1.129
1.355
1.149
1.016
1.334
1.415
1.277
1.415
1.333
1.670
1.237
1.281
1.169
1.043
1.051
.944
.672
(.8%)
(.8%)
(2.0%)
(11.8%)
(11.4%)
(4.5%)
(11.4%)
(14.3%)
(11.4%)
(12.7%)
(1.6%)
(12.2%)
(13.1%)
(20.4%)
(39.2%)
(20.4%)
(39.2%)
(26.9%)
(48.6%)
(26.9%)
(64.5%)
(55.5%)
(1.6%)
(4.1%)
(13.1%)
(4.9%)
(4.5%)
(24.1%)
(10.6%)
(11.4%)
(10.6%)
(20.8%)
(20.8%)
(25.3%)
(30.2%)
(27.8%)
(14.7%)
(33.1%)
(23.3%)
(21.6%)
(15.1%)
(21.6%)
(10.2%)
(8.6%)
(14.3%)
(12.7%)
(24.9%)
(13.5%)
(20.4%)
(24.5%)
(26.5%)
(22.4%)
(26.5%)
(27.3%)
(18.4%)
(30.2%)
(22.4%)
(17.1%)
(11.4%)
(17.6%)
(9.8%)
(13.5%)
(6.1%)
(13.5%)
(4.1%)
(4.9%)
(82.9%)
(80.8%)
(55.9%)
(68.3%)
(62.4%)
(41.6%)
(44.9%)
(46.5%)
(31.0%)
(33.9%)
(38.8%)
(27.8%)
(19.6%)
(15.1%)
(26.5%)
(9.8%)
(9.4%)
(5.3%)
(2.4%)
(5.3%)
(1.6%)
(2.4%)
114
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
Table 2
Preservice teachers perceived useful mobile phone features for school-related work.
Feature
SD
Access Internet
Use clicker/polling device
Use educational app
Read a book
Send/receive email
Use calculator
Play a podcast
Use a calendar
Watch a video
Clock/alarm/timer
Take a picture
Record audio
Record a video
Post audio online
Post video online
Download an app
Post a picture online
Play music
Scan QR codes
Create QR codes
Play a game
Send/receive texts
Send/receive tweets
Use a social network
3
3
3
8
7
3
4
2
3
9
7
5
6
12
14
22
19
29
29
31
30
40
67
68
D
(1.2%)
(1.2%)
(1.2%)
(3.3%)
(2.9%)
(1.2%)
(1.6%)
(.8%)
(1.2%)
(3.7%)
(2.9%)
(2.0%)
(2.4%)
(4.9%)
(5.7%)
(9.0%)
(7.8%)
(11.8%)
(11.8%)
(12.7%)
(12.2%)
(16.3%)
(27.3%)
(27.8%)
3
2
3
9
8
14
7
11
13
11
13
21
23
38
42
32
41
71
34
34
58
79
72
81
N
(1.2%)
(.8%)
(1.2%)
(3.7%)
(3.3%)
(5.7%)
(2.9%)
(4.5%)
(5.3%)
(4.5%)
(5.3%)
(8.6%)
(9.4%)
(15.5%)
(17.1%)
(13.1%)
(16.7%)
(29.0%)
(13.9%)
(13.9%)
(23.7%)
(32.2%)
(29.4%)
(33.1%)
17
23
25
25
27
28
32
40
38
43
47
36
39
66
64
73
69
66
95
98
59
54
55
54
A
(6.9%)
(9.4%)
(10.2%)
(10.2%)
(11.0%)
(11.4%)
(13.1%)
(16.3%)
(15.5%)
(17.6%)
(19.2%)
(14.7%)
(15.9%)
(26.9%)
(26.1%)
(29.8%)
(28.2%)
(26.9%)
(38.8%)
(40.0%)
(24.1%)
(22.0%)
(22.4%)
(22.0%)
102
114
114
112
123
122
137
120
118
129
124
136
125
97
90
82
80
71
60
58
76
51
33
26
SA
(41.6%)
(46.5%)
(46.5%)
(45.7%)
(50.2%)
(49.8%)
(55.9%)
(49.0%)
(48.2%)
(52.7%)
(50.6%)
(55.5%)
(51.0%)
(39.6%)
(36.7%)
(33.5%)
(32.7%)
(29.0%)
(24.5%)
(23.7%)
(31.0%)
(20.8%)
(13.5%)
(10.6%)
120
103
100
91
80
78
65
72
73
53
54
47
52
32
35
36
36
31
27
24
22
21
18
16
(49.0%)
(42.0%)
(40.8%)
(37.1%)
(32.7%)
(31.8%)
(26.5%)
(29.4%)
(29.8%)
(21.6%)
(22.0%)
(19.2%)
(21.2%)
(13.1%)
(14.3%)
(14.7%)
(14.7%)
(12.7%)
(11.0%)
(9.8%)
(9.0%)
(8.6%)
(7.3%)
(6.5%)
M
SD
4.36
4.27
4.24
4.10
4.07
4.05
4.03
4.02
4.00
3.84
3.84
3.81
3.79
3.40
3.37
3.32
3.30
3.11
3.09
3.04
3.01
2.73
2.44
2.35
.769
.765
.782
.953
.908
.879
.812
.844
.882
.938
.927
.913
.963
1.054
1.099
1.147
1.144
1.208
1.138
1.130
1.184
1.208
1.229
1.180
sending/receiving tweets (M ¼ 2.44, SD ¼ 1.229), and accessing social networks (M ¼ 2.35, SD ¼ 1.180). Overall mean for useful features for
school-related work (M ¼ 3.57, SD ¼ .651).
5.4. Benefits to mobile phone usage in the classroom
Using a 5-point scale (1 ¼ SD; 5 ¼ SA), participants indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that the benefits to using mobile
phones in the classroom included increases in access to technology, student engagement, student motivation, student creativity, student/
teacher productivity, collaboration, communication, and digital fluency, as well as providing anytime/anywhere learning opportunities,
opportunities for differentiation of instruction, and decreasing the digital divide. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this part of the questionnaire is 0.94. Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be benefits; however, they thought some were more beneficial than
others (see Table 3). They indicated that mobile phones were most beneficial in developing digital fluency (M ¼ 4.08, SD ¼ .780), providing
anywhere/anytime learning opportunities (M ¼ 4.05, SD ¼ .843), providing opportunities for differentiation of instruction (M ¼ 4.03,
SD ¼ .839), and increasing access to technology in the classroom (M ¼ 3.94, SD ¼ .823). Of the benefits cited in the literature, participants
perceived that mobiles phones were less beneficial in facilitating student creativity (M ¼ 3.60, SD ¼ .993), increasing collaboration (M ¼ 3.58,
SD ¼ .993), increasing student engagement (M ¼ 3.56, SD ¼ 1.157), and increasing student/teacher productivity (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.116).
Overall mean for benefits (M ¼ 3.75, SD ¼ .754).
5.5. Barriers to mobile phone usage in the classroom
Using a 5-point scale (1 ¼ SD; 5 ¼ SA), participants indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that student access, cheating,
cyberbullying, disruption of class, negative impact of texting on writing, sexting, and access to inappropriate content were barriers to
using mobile phones in the classroom. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this part of the questionnaire is 0.84. Their responses revealed that
they perceived all to be barriers; however, they were more concerned about some than others (see Table 4). They identified cheating
(M ¼ 4.10, SD ¼ .790), disruption of class (M ¼ 4.08, SD ¼ .931), cyberbullying (M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ .911), and access to inappropriate information on the Internet (M ¼ 3.94, SD ¼ .973) as the primary barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom. They also agreed that
sexting (M ¼ 3.71, SD ¼ 1.040) and the negative impact of texting on writing (M ¼ 3.69, SD ¼ 1.044) were barriers. Of the barriers cited in
the literature, they were least concerned about student access to phones (M ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ .974). Overall mean for barriers (M ¼ 3.81,
SD ¼ .664).
5.6. Preservice teachers' perceived disruptions to instruction
The preservice teachers who strongly agreed or agreed that mobile phones caused disruptions in class were routed to a 5-point scale
(1 ¼ SD; 5 ¼ SA), where they indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that ringing, texting, playing games, listening to music,
searching the Internet, tweeting, and parents calling/texting students during class were disruptions. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this
part of the questionnaire is .73. Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be disruptive; however, they were more anxious about
some than others. They identified texting (M ¼ 4.49, SD ¼ .672), playing games (M ¼ 4.41, SD ¼ .684), tweeting (M ¼ 4.18, SD ¼ .844), and
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
115
Table 3
Preservice teachers' perceived benefits to using mobile phones in the classroom.
Feature
SD
Develop digital fluency
Provide anywhere/anytime
Provide differentiation opportunities
Increase access
Increase communication
Increase motivation
Decrease digital divide
Facilitate student creativity
Increase collaboration
Increase student engagement
Increase productivity
1
3
3
0
8
7
6
5
4
13
14
D
(.4%)
(1.2%)
(1.2%)
(.0%)
(303%)
(2.9%)
(2.4%)
(2.0%)
(1.6%)
(5.3%)
(5.7%)
N
8
10
11
21
28
31
27
37
35
41
47
(3.3%)
(4.1%)
(4.5%)
(8.6%)
(11.4%)
(12.7%)
(11.0%)
(15.1%)
(14.3%)
(16.7%)
(19.2%)
A
35
33
31
27
34
41
57
48
63
41
77
(14.3%)
(13.5%)
(12.7%)
(11.0%)
(13.9%)
(16.7%
(23.3%)
(19.%)
(25.7%)
(16.7%)
(31.4%)
SA
127
125
130
142
120
115
105
116
102
97
69
(51.8%)
(51.0%)
(53.1%)
(58.0%)
(49.0%)
(46.9%)
(42.9%)
(47.3)
(41.6%)
(39.6%)
(28.2%)
74
74
70
55
55
51
50
39
41
53
38
(30.2%)
(30.2%)
(28.6%)
(22.0%)
(22.4%)
(20.8%)
(20.4%)
(15.9%)
(16.7%)
(21.6%)
(15.5%)
M
SD
4.08
4.05
4.03
3.94
3.76
3.70
3.68
3.60
3.58
3.53
3.29
.780
.843
.839
.823
1.030
1.027
.999
.993
.983
1.157
1.116
Note. N ¼ 245.
Table 4
Preservice teachers' perceived barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom.
Barrier
SD
D
Cheating
Disruption of class
Cyberbullying
Inappropriate content
Sexting
Negative impact on writing
Student access
Access to reliable wifi
1
3
2
2
8
6
6
6
10
14
20
24
25
32
29
44
(0.4%)
(1.2%)
(0.8%)
(0.8%)
(3.3%)
(2.4%)
(2.4%)
(2.4%)
N
(4.1%)
(5.7%)
(8.2%)
(9.8%)
(10.20%)
(13.1%)
(11.8%)
(18.0%)
29
37
36
39
54
50
66
65
A
(11.8%)
(15.1%)
(14.7%)
(15.9%)
(22.0%)
(20.4%)
(26.9%)
(26.5%)
128
98
118
101
100
100
105
95
SA
(52.2%)
(40.0%)
(48.2%)
(42.2%)
(40.8%)
(40.8%)
(42.9%)
(38.8%)
77
93
69
79
58
57
39
35
(31.4%)
(38.0%)
(28.2%)
(32.2%)
(23.7%)
(23.3%)
(15.9%)
(14.3%)
Mean
SD
4.10
4.08
3.95
3.94
3.71
3.69
3.58
3.44
.790
.931
.9.11
.973
1.040
1.044
.974
1.021
Note. N ¼ 245.
searching the Internet (M ¼ 4.05, SD ¼ .864) as the primary disruptions when using mobile phones in the classroom. They also agreed that
ringing (M ¼ 3.91, SD ¼ 1.006) and listening to music (M ¼ 3.88, SD ¼ .916) were disruptions. They were least concerned about parents
calling/texting students during classes (M ¼ 3.59, SD ¼ .990) (Table 5).
5.7. Relationship between use and preservice perceptions
To determine whether there was a relationship between phone use by the preservice teachers and their perceptions of the useful
features, benefits and barriers associated with using mobile phones in the classroom, we ran Pearson Correlations. There was no relationship
between use and barriers (r ¼ .046, p ¼ .477). However, there were positive relationships between use and benefits (r ¼ .257, p < .001) and
use and useful features (r ¼ .230, p < .001). As phone use increases, the preservice teachers are more positive about the usefulness of features
and the benefits of using mobile phones in the classroom.
5.8. Relationship between technology expertise, gender, and preservice perceptions
To determine whether there was a relationship between the technology expertise of the preservice teachers and their perceptions of the
benefits, barriers, and disruptions associated with using mobile phones in the classroom, we ran Pearson Correlations. There was no
relationship between technology expertise and barriers (r ¼ .014, p ¼ .830) or disruptions (r ¼ .022, p ¼ .759). However, there was a
positive relationship between technology expertise and benefits (r ¼ .278, p < .001). As technology expertise increases, the preservice
Table 5
Preservice teachers' perceived disruptions of class caused by the use of mobile phones.
Disruption
N
SD
D
Texting
Playing games
Tweeting
Searching the Internet
Ringing
Listening to music
Parenting calling/texting
191
188
190
188
191
191
191
1
2
1
1
3
0
3
0
0
8
10
22
17
25
(0.5%)
(1.0%)
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
(1.5%)
(0.0)
(1.5%)
N
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(4.2%)
(5.3%)
(11.5%)
(8.9%)
(13.1%)
13
9
23
29
22
41
55
A
(6.8%)
(4.7%)
(12.1%)
(15.4%)
(11.5%)
(21.4%)
(28.8%)
67
85
81
86
87
80
72
(35.1%)
(45.2%)
(42.6%)
(45.7%)
(45.5%)
(41.8%)
(37.7%)
SA
Mean
SD
110 (57.5%)
92 (48.9%)
77 (40.5%)
62 (32.9%)
57(29.8%)
53 (27.7%)
36 (18.8%)
4.49
4.41
4.18
4.05
3.91
3.88
3.59
.672
.684
.844
.864
1.006
.916
.990
Note. Preservice teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that mobile phones were a disruption of class were asked to report how strongly they agreed that this were
disruptions.
116
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
teachers are more positive about the benefits of using mobile phones in the classroom. Correlations were also administered to determine if
there was a relationship between perceptions and useful features, benefits and barriers. No significant relationships were found were
perceptions (features, p ¼ .698, benefits, p ¼ .783; barriers, p ¼ .867). Independent t-tests was used to determine if there were differences in
perceptions with regard to gender. No significant differences with gender were found (features, p ¼ .871, benefits, p ¼ .310; barriers,
p ¼ .173).
6. Discussion
6.1. Preservice teachers' support for the use of mobile phones in the classroom
Almost half of the preservice teachers in this study supported using mobile phones in the classroom. This finding indicates an
upsurge in support as compared to earlier research conducted by the Thomas, O'Bannon, and Bolton (2013) involving 93 preservice
teachers that found only one fourth of the preservice teachers supported their use. The earlier study also found that over 50% of the
preservice teachers were undecided, whereas only 30% of the participants in the current study were unsure about mobile phone
inclusion. These outcomes could suggest that preservice teachers who were once undecided about the use of mobile phones in the
classroom are changing their minds. This shift toward inclusion could be a result of the lessening of two barriers to mobile phone
integrationdaccess and school culture.
As preservice teachers' phone use increased, their perceptions of the useful features for school related work and their perceptions of
the benefits to using mobile phones increased. This finding suggests that future teachers who are comfortable with phones will be willing
to use them in the classroom. Increasingly, schools are allowing teachers/students to use mobile phones in the classroom. In a survey of
200 high school principals, Obringer and Coffey (2007) found that only 21% of the schools allowed students to use mobile phones. Six
years later in 2013, Bradford Networks determined that 44% of K-12 school districts in the United States and the United Kingdom
permitted students to bring their own devices (BYOD) to use on school networks. The increased support from preservice teachers could
reflect the cultural change in schoolsda move toward increased inclusion of mobile devices. Additionally, their increased support could be
a reflection of the upsurge in personal use of mobile phones. In this study, 87% of preservice teachers owned smartphones, which reflects
a 17% increase from the 2013 study of preservice teachers conducted by the authors. Access provides teachers with the opportunity for
personal use and training through self-directed learning. Thus, they are able to overcome these traditional barriers identified with
technology integration (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Increased use of personal mobile phones also could be attributed to preservice teachers
identifying potential classroom benefits.
6.2. Preservice teachers' perceived useful mobile phone features for school-related work
In conjunction with preservice teachers' increasing support for classroom integration of mobile phones is their increasing recognition of
their benefits. The majority of participants agreed with previous research (Thomas, O'Bannon, & Bolton, 2013) on all but one of the benefits
of mobile phone use in the classroomdincreased productivity. This finding indicates a change in preservice teachers' perceptions of the
instructional benefits of mobile phones. In the previous study, (Authors) investigated perceptions of the same benefits of mobile phone use
and found that the preservice teachers acknowledged only half of the benefits identified in the literature (i.e., provide anywhere/anytime
learning, provide differentiation opportunities, increase communication, increase motivation, and increase student engagement). Likewise,
the ability of personal devices to support the differentiation (personalization) of instruction and increase communication is supported by
research on 1:1 computing (Dunleavy et al., 2007).
In contrast to preservice teachers' assertion that mobile phones do not increase productivity, a survey of 1121 teachers (Thomas,
O'Bannon, & Britt, 2014) found that productivity tools (e.g., calendar, calculator, clock/alarm/timer) were among the top tools identified as beneficial for classroom use. Similarly, Dunleavy et al. (2007) found increased productivity to be a benefit of 1:1 computing.
Interestingly, with the exception of two benefits, digital fluency and student engagement, the ranking of the benefits identified by the
preservice teachers was identical to the ranking in the (Authors') earlier study. Regarding digital fluency and student engagement, the
ability of mobile phone use in the classroom to develop digital fluency jumped from ninth place out of 10 benefits listed to the
number one benefit identified by participants. Conversely, the capability of mobile phone use to increase student engagement
dropped from second to ninthddirectly above increase productivity. The proximity of student engagement and productivity in the
ranking may not be a coincidence and may shed some light on preservice teachers' lack of acknowledgment of increased productivity
as a benefit of mobile phone inclusion.
Preservice teachers indicated that they used their phones primarily to send texts; use the clock, alarm, and timer; use social networking;
and access the Internet. This finding supports research by McCoy (2013), who discovered that the primary ways college students use digital
devices in class for non-class purposes are to text (85.9%), check the time (79%), social network (66%), and surf the web (38%). Further, the
majority (80%) of those college students believed that these activities distracted them from learning. This finding suggests that while mobile
phones have a number of classroom benefits, present classroom use would indicate that increasing student engagement and productivity
might not be two of them. It should also be noted that preservice teachers listed sending texts and use of social networks at the bottom of
the list of mobile phone features that would be useful in the classroom.
6.3. Preservice teachers' perceived barriers to mobile phone use in the classroom
Despite their support for allowing mobile phone use in the classroom, preservice teachers have concerns about potential barriers.
These concerns are not new. In 2007, Dunleavey et al. identified problems with 1:1 computing integration with middle school students
using laptops, including their ability to disrupt class and distract students. Recent research (Thomas, O'Bannon, & Bolton, 2013)
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
117
uncovered similarities. While preservice teachers from the earlier research (Thomas, O'Bannon, & Bolton, 2013) and the current study
identified disruption and cheating as their top concerns, slightly more participants in the earlier study were apprehensive about the
disruptive nature of phones (67%) than students using them for cheating (65%). Results from the current study, however, indicate that
preservice teachers were more concerned about cheating (83%) than disruption (78%). Participants' uneasiness could be connected to
their own use and/or misuse of mobile phones in the classroom. For example, Common Sense (2010) reported that a third of students
admitted using mobile phones to cheatd25% doing so via text messaging. Furthermore, Tindell and Bohlander (2012) found that 76% of
students believe that mobile phones have the potential to give students an unfair advantage during exams. Regarding participants'
concerns about the perceived disruptive nature of phones, 85% of students admit to texting during class, 67% send emails, 66% check
social networks, 89% acknowledge that their digital devices distract them (McCoy, 2013), and one half of college students believe that
any use of phones in the classroom is a disturbance (Baker et al., 2012).
Results from this study appear to suggest that preservice teachers' apprehension about the barriers associated with integration is
increasing. Compared with the earlier research conducted by Thomas, O'Bannon, and Bolton (2013), a much higher percentage of
the participants in this study were concerned about each of the seven potential barriers (i.e., cheating, disruption of class,
cyberbullying, inappropriate content, sexting, negative impact on writing, and student access) identified in the literature. In fact,
twice as many preservice teachers expressed fears about student access to inappropriate content, sexting, and cyberbullying, and
three times as many viewed texting as a barrier. One explanation for this increase in concern could be access. In the prior study,
approximately 75% of participants had a mobile phone compared to almost 90% in this study. Not surprisingly, their fears about
access as a barrier dropped dramatically. The increase in access provides participants with the ability to discover the classroom uses
and misuses of mobile phones.
Finally, despite the increased acceptance of mobile phones in schools, the majority of secondary schools continue to ban phones in the
classroom. Moreover, neither of the education programs attended by these preservice teachers provides instruction on the classroom
integration of mobile phones. Therefore, participants have not had the necessary training or time to practice using mobile phones to support
instruction, which are barriers to integration (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Additionally, these preservice teachers have lacked models of
integration in the classroom. It is difficult for preservice teachers who are mobile phone users to conceptualize instructional uses of
applications that they have not seen modeled (Cook, Pachler, & Bradley, 2008).
7. Limitations of the study
While this study adds to our understanding of preservice teachers' views of using mobile phones in the classroom, there are limitations
that are characteristic of the methods used. While the survey development was aligned with the literature on mobile phones and content
validity and internal consistency was established, additional testing for reliability of the instrument could be performed. In addition, the
survey relied on self-report data; thus, participants may not have answered honestly or accurately, and there is no method for verifying their
answers.
The population of the study involved preservice teachers from only two universities in two states, which limits the generalizability of the
study. It is quite possible that the perceptions of a larger population of preservice teachers from different states or regions of the U.S. would
differ. There were considerably more female participants than male; however, this statistic is characteristic of a population of preservice
teachers. These limitations verify the need for further research that involves random sampling from many states/regions to provide
generalizability.
8. Implications for practice
In the past, the ban on mobile phone use in the classroom made it impossible for educators to perceive their instructional potential or
lack thereof. As an increasing number of schools move to a “BYOD” model, which includes bringing your own mobile phone, and an increasing
number of individuals own mobile phones, a clearer picture of the perceived benefits and barriers associated with mobile phone use is
starting to emerge. The students populating teacher education programs today increasingly have access to mobile phones and are using
them more and more in the classroom. The combination of these two factors has shaped preservice teachers' evolving perceptions of the
pros and cons associated with the inclusion of mobile phones in the classroom. Results from this study indicate that while the tool has
changed, many of the pros and cons of 1:1 computing have not.
To accentuate the pros and minimize the cons associated with 1:1 computing with mobile devices like mobile phones, teacher preparation programs need to instruct preservice teachers on how to use them effectively in the classroom. Integration is dependent upon
preservice teachers' experience with faculty who effectively model the use of technologies (Bitner & Bitner, 2002).
9. Recommendations for future research
Participants in this study expressed strong feelings about the instructional benefits and barriers associated with classroom
integration of mobile phones. Research suggests that concerns about phone misuse could be a result of personal classroom use. Due
to the ban that exists in the majority of K-12 schools, most preservice teachers have not benefited from instructional models of
teachers who effectively integrate mobile phones to support classroom instruction/student learning. Future research should
examine the root of participants' concerns. One way this could be addressed would be to identify/study a population of preservice
teachers who have attended K-12 schools where mobile phones were integrated into the classroom through a “BYOD” model and/or
preservice teachers who are enrolled in teacher preparation programs where the instructional applications of mobile phones are
presented.
118
Appendix
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
119
120
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
121
References
Babbie, E. R. (2012). The basics of social research. Cengage Learning.
Baker, W. M., Lusk, E. J., & Neuhauser, K. L. (2012). On the use of cell phones and other devices in the classroom: evidence from a survey of faculty and students. Journal of
Education for Business, 87(5), 275e289.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95e100.
Bradford Networks. (2013). The impact of BYOD in education (White paper). Retrieved from http://www.bradfordnetworks.com/resources/whitepapers/the-impact-of-byod-ineducation/.
Coe, J. E. L., & Oakhill, J. V. (2011). ‘txtN is ez f u no h2 rd’: the relation between reading ability and text-messaging behavior. Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 4e17.
CommonSense Media. (2010). Hi-tech cheating: Mobile phones and cheating in schools: A national poll. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/cheatinggoes-hi-tech.
Cook, J., Pachler, N., & Bradley, C. (2008). Bridging the gap? Mobile phones at the interface between informal and formal learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational
Technology, 4(1), 3e18.
Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(2), 51e58.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Drouin, M., & Driver, B. (2012). Texting, textese and literacy abilities: a naturalistic study. Journal of Research in Reading. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467e9817.2012.01532.x.
Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440e452. Retrieved from http://blog.amersol.edu.pe/g9-1to1/files/2011/10/LaptopTeacherPD.pdf.
Ertmer, P. A., & Orrenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research and Technology in
Education, 42(3), 255e284.
Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore art thou, Telecollaborations? Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(3), 36e41.
Holfeld, B., & Grabe, M. (2012). Middle school students' perceptions of and responses to cyber bullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 395e413.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts: what have we learnt? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1e16.
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones (vol. 20). Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx.
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Pew Research Center and The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
University. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx.
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), 5e14.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1991). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Obringer, S. J., & Coffey, K. (2007). Cell phones in American high schools: a national survey. Journal of Technology Studies, 33(1).
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children's knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145e161.
Project Tomorrow. (2010). Learning in the 21st century: Taking it mobile! Selected national findings of the speak up 2010 survey. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/
speakup/MobileLearningReport_2010.html.
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center's Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://archive.desertsun.com/assets/pdf/J12142481024.PDF.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson.
Rosen, L., Lim, A., Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. (2011). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: educational
implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17(2), 163e177.
Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time”: negotiating digital literacies and communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 53(6), 488e496.
Steel, C. (2012). Fitting learning into life: language students' perspectives on benefits of using mobile apps. In M. Brown, M. Hartnett, & T. Stewart (Eds.), ascilite 2012: Future
challenges, sustainable futures. Wellington: New Zealand.
Thomas, K., O'Bannon, B., & Bolton, N. (2013). Cell Phones in the classroom: teachers' perspectives of inclusion, benefits, and barriers. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 30(4), 295e308.
Thomas, K., O'Bannon, B. W., & Britt, V. G. (2014). Standing in the schoolhouse door: teacher perceptions of mobile phones in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 46(4), 373e395.
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using text messaging in the secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55e76.
122
B.W. O'Bannon, K.M. Thomas / Computers & Education 85 (2015) 110e122
Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text messaging in the classroom: a survey of college students. College Teaching, 60(1), 1e9.
Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 247e264). Edmonton, Alberta
Canada: Athabasca Press.
Wu, W., Wu, Y., Chen, C., Kao, H., Lin, C., & Haung, S. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: a meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817e827. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016.
Zickuhr, K. (2011). Generations and their gadgets (vol. 20). Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/02/03/generations-andtheir-gadgets/.