INF537 Digital

Futures Colloquium
Assessment #3 Case Study
and Critical Reflection Blog post:
http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/lizeckert/2015/10/19/inf537 -finalreflections/

Elizabeth Eckert
CSU ID: 11371757 |

CASE STUDY WORD COUNT: 3,129

BLOG POST WORD COUNT: 616

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Executive Summary
This case study was undertaken to explore the question to what extent does school policy
match practice in terms of students mobile phones? This area of educational technology
trend was chosen as the author has noticed different enforcement of restricted mobile phone
use in the classroom school policies through time spent at different schools and was curious
to see if mobile phones were harnessed for educational purposes in policy and/or practice.
The case study focussed on the Australian setting, with a stronger emphasis on South
Australian policies, for analysis of school policies and surveys of teachers and students.

Outline of Case Study

The process used included a literature study, analysis of selected mobile phone and/or
acceptable use policies, and surveying of secondary school teachers and students on school
policies and practice of mobile phone use in classrooms. A combination of these approaches
was considered the best fit for the research as it considered what researched literature was
already available, and what schools were actually using as their policies and two of the three
key stakeholders in mobile phone use in schools, teachers and students. Parents, who also
have a stake-hold in their childs education, were not surveyed due to time constraints and the
scope of this study. It was also deemed impractical as the focus of this case study was
national rather than site specific.

The published literature on mobile phone use and policies in classroom was limited as it has
not been researched widely as yet. Much of the literature read did make mention of this fact.
More often research had been done into effects on students from using mobile phones, for
example, lack of sleep due to using late at night (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Jonas, 2012;

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Nathan & Zeitzer, 2013), and that teenagers dependency on their mobile phones (Alobiedat,
2012; Economides & Grousopoulou, 2010; Ganito, 2011; Thackara, 2014, p. 6). Most
literature has focused on how mobile phones can be used in the classroom or educational
setting rather than policy enactment (Brooks-Young, 2010; Keengwe et al., 2012; Kolb,
2008; McNeal & van t Hooft, 2006; Nielsen & Webb, 2011; Wheeler, 2015). There were
two studies were cited more than once in the literature reviewed. In the end, sixteen articles
and/or book extracts were reviewed for mobile phone use in classrooms and consideration of
mobile phone policies.

Australian secondary school mobile phone policies were requested via twitter and several
Facebook teacher groups. Five policies were received this way, two hard copies in school
diaries and three links on school websites. As the number received was not considered
sufficient to compare, others were sought via the MySchools website (Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014). The selected schools were chosen as the greater
Adelaide region was known and to review policies from a range of school settings. It needs to
be recognised that not all Australian schools have public links to their mobile phone policies
on their websites. Some may be behind firewalls with just the school community having
access to their policy or only available in hard copy. One school policy was sent as a link
from a Facebook group, but the document was unavailable as access was not enabled for
public viewing, redirecting people automatically to the schools website home page. Another
five policies were obtained from Adelaide based secondary school sites, covering a private
college, a catholic Foundation to 12 college, a university college and two public schools. One
public school had the South Australian education departments Cyber-Safety guidelines
(Department of Education and Childrens Services, 2009) for its policy. In the end, only one
policy outside of South Australia was received and reviewed out of the ten policies sourced.

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Two surveys were developed and shared Australia wide via twitter and Facebook, both via
the authors personal page, and a number of teacher Facebook groups. The student survey
clearly asked for input from students across Australia, and data recording the state location of
respondents was used to try to establish if there were differences in mobile phone policies
across Australia. The teacher survey did not record as the free SurveyMonkey platform was
used which limited the number of questions. Instead teachers were asked to identify their
schools socio-economic status level instead. This was to allow a comparison of socioeconomic levels to see if that had an impact on the type of mobile phone policy a school had.
Both surveys asked a variety of questions in different formats. There were questions with
single option responses for both surveys and multiple option responses for the teacher survey.
Both surveys had questions using a 5 point Likert scale and questions with options to expand
their reasoning. The survey also asked all respondents to consider how much their schools
mobile phone policy was concerned with five statements which appear to often be the
reasoning behind implementing policies for information communication devices as identified
in the literature.

Analysis
Literature Review
Through a literature review, it became clear that there are four broad institutional positions on
using mobile phones in the classroom. Thackara (2014, p. 83) suggested that these are
restrictive-educational, where there is no mobile phone use at all during the day; restrictivesocial, students can have but should not actively use their mobile phone; liberal-educational,
students can use for educational purposes under supervision and social use should be limited
to break times; and liberal-social, where no restrictions are placed on students using mobile
Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

phones in the school environment. Geser (cited in Thackara, 2014, p. 9) suggested there were
three positions for individuals within society to limiting and controlling their own behaviour:
intra-individual self-control; informal intra-individual group controls and formal institutional
controls. Thackara (2014) noted that only the first and last of these two controls are
applicable to schools. This is because it would be hoped that students are able to develop and
demonstrate their own self-control of mobile phone usage. This would be encouraged through
the effective use of formal policies and thus would develop their own self-control usage.
This does need to be explicitly taught to students to begin with as they may not be aware of
the appropriate usage that the wider society demands.

A key theme that emerged from the literature was that many people saw schools as not an
acceptable place to use mobile phones as they are not a public space (Alobiedat, 2012;
Brooks-Young, 2010; Campbell, 2006; Keengwe et al., 2012; Kolb, 2008; Thackara, 2014).
Some countries and states, also have school regulations and laws that prohibit mobile phone
usage in the classroom (Brooks-Young, 2010; Ganito, 2011; Katz, 2005; Keengwe et al.,
2012; McNeal & van t Hooft, 2006). It is only in early 2015 that New York City schools are
now allowing mobile phones in schools after banning mobile phones in classrooms five years
ago (Sanchez, 2015).

Another theme was the reasoning that administrators and other educational bodies have for
implementing restrictions on mobile phones in school. These include: classroom disruptions,
security of the school community, privacy of staff and students, prevention of cyberbullying,
and academic dishonesty (Alobiedat, 2012; Campbell, 2006; Ganito, 2011; Katz, 2005;

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Keengwe et al., 2012; Kolb, 2008; Thackara, 2014). These five reasons are discussed
regularly through the literature.

School Policies Review

School mobile phone policies were usually specific mobile phone policy documents or were
included in a general acceptable use (technology) policy. Ten policies were reviewed, mostly
from South Australia. There were five public schools, two catholic schools, two private
schools and one university college with secondary course offerings which were included in
this review. The public schools included are: Roma Mitchell Secondary College (RMSC),
Adelaide High School (AHS), Modbury High School (MHS), Charles Campbell College
(CCC), and Glenunga International High School (GIHS). St Marys College (SMC) and
Mater Dei Catholic College (MDCC) were the two catholic schools included in this review.
MDCC was the only non-South Australian school mobile phone policy received for this
review. Faith Lutheran College (FLC) and St Peters College (SPC) were private schools.
The University Senior College (USC) only offered senior secondary courses and bridging
courses for acceptance into one of the Adelaide based universities.
Four of the policies, FLC (2015), MDCC (2012), MHS (2015) and CCC (2015), were
considered direct mobile phone policies as per their policy name. The remaining six policies
analysed would be considered an acceptable use policy, where more than one technology is
included in its policy or guidelines. One, USC (2014), was not written up as a policy
document, however, it was included in the Information, Communication and Learning
Technologies (ICTL) Agreement which was signed by both student and parent/care giver. One
South Australian public school, GIHS, did not have a site specific policy but instead linked

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

to the Department for Education and Child Development (DECD)1 Cyber-Safety Keeping
Children Safe in a Connected World Guidelines for Schools and Preschools (Department of
Education and Childrens Services, 2009). These guidelines did not mention specific
restrictions relating to mobile phones but did include mobile phones in their use of the term
ICT equipment/devices (Department of Education and Childrens Services, 2009, p. 20). It
would be fair to say that if a public school has no mobile phone policy that this would be the
position held and supported by DECD as its overarching body. RMSC has an E-Technology
Policy (2012), which is currently being reviewed. SPC included their mobile phone and other
technology devices in their behaviour management policy under several sub headings (2015,
pp. 56). AHS has a policy which covered electronic storage devices (2012). SMC (2015)
has a cohesive, digital citizenship policy which includes devices such as mobile phones.
The policies were classified as either restrictive-educational, restrictive-social, liberaleducational, or liberal-social as defined by Thackara (2014, p. 83). The following policies
were deemed restrictive-educational, SPC, AHS and RMSC. Restrictive-social policies were
held by CCC, MDCC, SMC, FLC and MHS. USC has a liberal-educational policy as it gives
clear guidelines that mobile phones should not be used in the classroom to make or receive
phone calls but does not restrict these within the college environment; however they should
not occur in the classroom environment. The DECD guidelines made it hard to classify. It
most likely fits best in either the restrictive-social or liberal-educational as it does suggest
broad guidelines for use by staff and students. It can also be assumed that, in general, the type
of policy is not determined by which educational sector a school is in, as there is a range of
policies within the South Australian public school system and the same can be said for the
private and catholic education system.

Department of Education and Childrens Services changed its name to Department for Education and Child
Development in October 2011 (Department for Education and Child Development, 2013, p. 4)

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) was also considered for these
ten schools with the data being obtained from the My School website (Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014). Two schools were slightly below the median:
CCC and RMSC. Five schools were in the median: AHS, MDCC, FLC, MHS and SMC. Two
schools were slightly above the median: SPC and GIHS. USC did not supply data to the My
School website for comparison of ICSEA. By reviewing these ICSEA ranges, it can be
deducted that the type of policy is not necessarily linked to the ICSEA as each range had
different restrictions in policies.

Student Survey Analysis

In all, forty-five students Australia wide responded to the student survey. The questions are
available in Appendix A. Thirty-six responses were from government schools, five responses
from independent schools and four from catholic schools. The majority of responses, 42,
were from South Australia, and the remaining responses were from New South Wales and
Victoria. Year 11 students, closely followed by Year 10 and 12 students made up the majority
of responses with only four lower secondary students completing the survey. These results
were not unexpected given the school timeframe during the survey period. Only four students
indicated that their school did not have a mobile phone policy of some description. Nineteen
students indicated that their school did not allow mobile phones to be used at any time at
school, indicating a restrictive-educational policy. Sixteen students indicated that they were
able to use their mobile phone in school with clear guidelines given, either a restrictive-social
or liberal-educational policy. Nine students indicated that they were unsure of their permitted
usage during school time but were allowed to use mobile phones at times during school, also
suggesting a restrictive-social or liberal-educational policy. One student had a liberal-social
policy as they indicated that they had no restrictions on mobile phone use at their school.

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Enforcement of school policy had interesting results. Approximately half of the students
disagreed that teachers enforced the school policy and 27 students indicated that their
teachers ignored mobile phone use. Thirty students said that their teacher allowed the use of
mobile phones for specific educational purposes, indicating a restrictive-social or liberaleducational policy.

In general students recognised that five main reasons, disruption, security, privacy,
cyberbullying and academic dishonesty were behind many of the policies. However, a quarter
of students indicated that they thought that security was not a major concern of their schools
policy. Almost a fifth of all students thought that their school policy was not concerned with
any of the other reasons suggested, which was of interest.

Nearly half of the students thought that mobile phones were somewhat distracting. And ten
students thought that mobile phones were not distracting. The comments offered for this
question were interesting, with texting, phone calls, selfies, social media, playing games
being cited for distracting behaviours. One student mentioned that their school allowed
unrestricted access to their mobile phones and online websites and that it was distracting at
first but the novelty wore off and they were rarely used in class.

Thirty-nine students agreed that they should be allowed to access their mobile phone for
educational purposes. One of the comments of note was the bad internet connectivity for the
schools network meant that they would prefer to use their mobile phones hotspot to access
the internet for research. Taking photographic evidence of work being undertaken was also a
frequent comment, to allow students to reflect on their learning or demonstrate that they are
Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

able to undertake a particular skill. Calculator usage was also a common suggestion. Some
students commented on the fact that they have access to other devices as well and they could
potentially have the same issues with them as they do mobile phones.

Thirty-three students thought that their mobile phone is useful for educational purposes.
Many offered similar responses to the previous question. Students also use them for quick
web searches to clarify terms and concepts. They also use the calendar functionality and
photograph class notes from the board for later reference. Some commented that mobiles are
not needed as they have access to other school provided devices that have the same
functionalities as their mobile phones.

Teacher Survey Analysis

This survey was well-responded to, with 68 completed across Australia. The questions for
this survey are available in Appendix B. The majority of responses came from medium socioeconomic status (SES) schools, with 41 responses. Sixteen responses came from low SES
schools and ten from high SES schools. Only one respondent was unsure of their school SES
level. The majority of responses also came from government schools. Nineteen responses
came from Catholic schools and twelve from independent schools. Sixty-five schools have
some sort of mobile phone policy, with only one school not having a policy at all. Five
schools were in the process of updating their policy. Thirty-two policies did not allow any
mobile phone usage. Twenty-seven policies permitted usage with clear guidelines and eight
did not provide guidelines for in-class usage.
Teacher enforcement of the school policy was interesting, see table 1 for results. The
responses to issues with enforcing school policy are available in table 2. Comments

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

provided by teachers on issues with enforcement of school policy were fascinating. A

frequent comment was that parents or workplaces contact students during class time; nonconsistent policy enforcement by other teachers also leads to issues in the classroom. The
dummy phone is also used which was mentioned by Brooks-Young (2010, p. 15).
Arguments over the removal of mobile phones were frequently cited as well, which can
escalate to administration being involved.

Table 1

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

10

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Table 2

Nearly half of the responses suggested that students were minimally or not distracted by their
mobile phones, with nearly a third being somewhat distracted and the remainder being very
to extremely distracted. Often the behaviour is checking their mobile phone for calls,
messages and notifications. Some actively use social media rather than attending to set work
or listening to the teacher.

A comparison of policy concerns between teachers and students was interesting, as teachers
appear to feel that their schools policy was concerned with each of the statements more than
students (see table 3 for comparison).

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

11

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Teacher Survey Response to 5 policy statements

Student Survey responses to 5 policy statements

Table 3

Similar responses were given for the final questions which considered whether schools
should allow mobile phones to be used for educational purposes. A significant number agreed
that mobile phones should be able to be used for educational purposes. Some responses
suggested that due to other devices available within the school, that mobile phones are not
required. Others commented that they would like to use appropriate apps for their classroom
and incorporate an awareness of appropriate use of mobile phones. One teacher noted that
they have deliberately chosen to not use technology in their Literacy class as students were
too distracted and wasted time doing the wrong thing. However, some teachers would prefer
to use them as their computer connectivity is extremely slow.

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

12

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Evaluation and Recommendations

From this research, it can be deduced that it would be best for schools to have a restrictive-social or
liberal-educational educational policy. As part of these policies, students should have explicit
teaching of appropriate use. This would reduce the classroom disruptive behaviours and prepare
students to use their mobile phones appropriately in the world outside of school. Engaging students
with their mobile phones, which most already bring to school, will help students participate more
fully in their learning and potentially reduce the disruptions that mobile phones may cause students
and teachers in the classroom. Kolb (2008) and Neilsen & Webb (2011) offer a number of ways to
begin incorporating mobile phones for educational purposes into the curriculum. It is worth
reviewing school mobile phone policies to consider and develop a more liberal approach to mobile
phone use in schools.

References
Adelaide High School. (2012). Electronic Storage Device Policy and Adelaide High School.
Retrieved from
http://www.adelaidehs.sa.edu.au/ArticleDocuments/238/Electronic%20Storage%20D
evices%20Including%20Mobile%20Phone_Mp3_Usb%20And%20Ipod.pdf.aspx
Alobiedat, A. (2012). Faculty and student perception towards the appropriate and
inappropriate use of mobile phones in the classroom at the University of Granada.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(1), 5+. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA282067840&v=2.1&u=csu_au&it=r
&p=EAIM&sw=w&asid=d763494d6bcf82924a75959b29e72fe9
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). Home | My School.
Retrieved 15 October 2015, from http://www.myschool.edu.au/

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

13

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Brooks-Young, S. J. (2010). Teaching With the Tools Kids Really Use: Learning With Web
and Mobile Technologies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of Mobile Phones in College Classrooms: Ringing,
Cheating, and Classroom Policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280294.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748573
Charles Campbell College. (2015). Mobile Phone Policy. In Charles Campbell College
Student Diary (p. 25). Paradise, South Australia: Charles Campbell College.
Department for Education and Child Development. (2013). Department for Education and
Child Development Annual Report 2012 (Annual Report) (p. 164). Adelaide, South
Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/docs/documents/1/DECDAnnualReport2012.pdf
Department of Education and Childrens Services. (2009, June). Cyber-Safety Keeping
Children Safe in a Connected World Guidelines for Schools and Preschools.
Department of Education and Childrens Services. Retrieved from
http://www.gihs.sa.edu.au/__files/f/9085/Cyber%20Safety%20Keeping%20Children
%20safe[1].pdf
Economides, A. A., & Grousopoulou, A. (2010). Mobiles in education: Students usage,
preferences and desires. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation,
4(3), 235252. Retrieved from
http://www.conta.uom.gr/conta/publications/PDF/Mobiles%20in%20educationStudents%20usage_preferences_and_desires%20-revised-%20IJMLO.pdf
Faith Lutheran College. (2015). A-Z Guidelines for Parents & Students 2015. Faith Lutheran
College. Retrieved from http://www.faith.sa.edu.au/downloads/A-Z_Guidelines.pdf

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

14

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Ganito, C. (2011). Transparent Classrooms: How the Mobile Phone is Changing Educational
Settings. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 1(3), 5969.
http://doi.org/10.4018/ijcee.2011070106
Katz, J. E. (2005). Mobile phones in educational settings. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), A sense of place:
the global and the local in mobile communication (pp. 305317). Vienna: Passagen
Verlag.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Jonas, D. (2012). Mobile phones in education: Challenges and
opportunities for learning. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 441450.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9235-7
Kolb, L. (2008). Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2. In Toys to tools: connexting student cell
phones to education (excerpt) (pp. 122). International Society for Technology in
Education. Retrieved from
https://www.iste.org/handlers/ProductAttachment.ashx?ProductID=661&Type=excer
pts
Mater Dei Catholic College. (2012, February). Mobile Phone Policy. Retrieved 15 September
2015, from http://web.mdccww.catholic.edu.au/content/mobile-phone-policy
McNeal, T., & van t Hooft, M. (2006). Anywhere, Anytime: Using Mobile Phones for
Learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 2(2), 2331.
Retrieved from http://www.rcetj.org/index.php/rcetj/article/viewFile/91/139
Modbury High School. (2015). Mobile Phone/Electronic Devices. In Modbury High Middle
School Student Planner 2015 (p. x). Modbury High School.
Nathan, N., & Zeitzer, J. (2013). A survey study of the association between mobile phone use
and daytime sleepiness in California high school students. BMC Public Health, 13,
840. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-840

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

15

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Nielsen, L., & Webb, W. (2011). Teaching Generation Text: Using Cell Phones to Enhance
Learning (1st ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Roma Mitchell Secondary College. (2012, August 4). E-technology policy. Retrieved from
http://rmsc.sa.edu.au/download/policy/rmsc_policy_etechnology.pdf
Sanchez, H. (2015). Majority of U.S Schools Reverse Ban on Cellphone Use. ISchoolGuide.
Retrieved from http://www.ischoolguide.com/articles/8719/20150225/majority-u-sschools-reverse-ban-cellphone-use.htm
St Marys College. (2015). St Marys College Digital Citizenship Policy. St Marys College,
Adelaide. Retrieved from http://s3-ap-southeast2.amazonaws.com/wh1.thewebconsole.com/wh/4810/images/St-MarysCollegeDigitalCitizenshipPolicySep15.pdf
St Peters College, Adelaide. (2015, May). Behaviour Management Policy & Procedure. St
Peters College. Retrieved from http://www.stpeters.sa.edu.au/communicationevents/policies/updates_2015/St_Peters_College_Behaviour_Management_Policy.Pro
cedure.V3.Final.UpdatedMay2015_2015_09_14_05_54_01_665.pdf
Thackara, S. T. (2014). Mobile Phone Use in a Pennsylvania Public High School: Does
Policy Inform Practice? (Ed.D.). Wilkes University, United States -- Pennsylvania.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1500561937/abstract/AEED4
BAC90F94049PQ/1?
University Senior College. (2014, August 30). Information, Communication and Learning
Technologies (ICLT) Use Agreement for University Senior College Students.
University Senior College. Retrieved from
https://usc.adelaide.edu.au/local/documents/student_iclt_agreement.pdf

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

16

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Wheeler, S. (2015, September 9). Why schools shouldnt ban smartphones. Retrieved from
http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/why-schools-shouldnt-bansmartphones.html

Appendix A: Student Mobile Phone Survey

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

17

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

18

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

19

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Appendix B: Teacher Mobile Phone Survey

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

20

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

21

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

22

INF537 Digital Futures Colloquium: Assessment #3

Elizabeth Eckert

11371757

23