In the last ten years, the popularity of mobile phones has skyrocketed. The use of a cell phone to communicate is a very popular social behavior (LaVoie, Lee, & Parker, 2015). A lot of research has been done on the effects of cell phones in many aspects of life (Aoki & Downes, 2003; Lepp, 2013; Samaha, 2015). Technology is a major aspect of our society that is rapidly growing. These advances in technology promote changes in social and cultural phenomena and vice versa (Aoki & Downes, 2003; McDonald 2010). Cell phones are very popular among young people, who are often students (Aoki & Downes, 2003). As cell phones become more and more convenient to use, it is important for both teachers and students to know the possible consequences of cell phone use. If possible issues are not recognized and attended to, the effects on education could be detrimental. Education must adapt and grow with technology in order to avoid educational hindrances (McDonald, 2010). The current study will determine if there is a relationship between grade point average (GPA) and general cell phone use. While this study focuses on cell phone usage and GPA, other aspects of both cell phone use and GPA will be examined.
Students’ Attitudes Toward Cell Phones
Young people have a variety of feelings and attitudes concerning the use of cell phones (Aoki & Downes, 2003). Students use their phone for personal safety, social interaction, communication for work, efficiently using their time, entertainment, communicating with professors, and technological tools (Emanuel, 2012; Morreale, Staley, Stavrositu, & Krakowiak, 2015; Roberts, Yaya, & Manolis, 2014). Various studies have found many factors for why and how college students use their cell phones. One study found that college students consider the main purpose of their phone to be for safety (Emanuel, 2012). This social connection found through cell phone use is how college students tend to interact socially (Emanuel, 2012). One study found that students most often use their phone when they quickly need to get information or are bored (Emanuel, 2012). Students often use their technology to avoid talking to those around them (Emanuel, 2012).
There are many factors that contribute to time spent on a cell phone, such as self-control, emotional stability, and level of materialism (Panek, 2013; Robberts, Pullig, & Manolis, 2015). Students who scored low in self-control were more likely to spend more time on their phone (Panek, 2013). Emotional instability and high scored in materialism were found to positively relate to cell phone addiction (Roberts, Pullig, & Manolis, 2015).
The Distracting Nature of Cell Phones
College Students today more dependent on their cell phones than ever before and cell phones have been found to be a distraction (Bjornson & Archer, 2015). This pervasiveness of technology leaves students struggling to find a balance between academics and leisure (Emanuel, 2012). It is important for today’s college students to recognize when a cell phone stops being beneficial and starts becoming an addiction (Roberts et al., 2014). Just the presence of a cell phone is able to cause distraction in young people. Task-performance, especially tasks that demand a great amount of attention, was found to be negatively affected by the presence of a cell phone (Thornton, Faires, Robbins, & Rollins, 2014). Cell phone notifications alone are enough to diminish performance on a task that demands attention (Stothart, Mitchum, & Yehnert, 2015). A study done by Cary Stothart suggested that just hearing a notification from a cell phone is just as distracting as actually using a cell phone (Stothart et al., 2015). Cell phones can distract people from immediate experiences, including driving (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015). When a person is driving, cell phone use greatly impairs driving performance (Stothart et al., 2015). College students may be sacrificing the immediate experience of learning to work on their online self (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015). Students who are on their phone more often spend less time studying (Panek, 2013). The behavior of some students suggests an addiction to the use of technology, and thus, a constant distraction to academics (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015).
Students’ Well-Being
Many studies have focused on negative effects of cell phones outside of education (Jenaro, Flores, Gomez-Vela, Gonzalez-Gil, & Caballo, 2007; Lepp, Barkley, & Karpinkski, 2013; Lepp, Barkley, Sanders, Rebold, & Gates, 2013; Samaha, 2015). Greater levels of cell phone usage were found to predict a general tendency for sedentary behaviors (Lepp et al. 2013). A study done by Andrew Lepp (2013) found that cell phone use was negatively related to physical activity and cardiorespiratory health. Internet use was found to be positively correlated with anxiety, somatic complaints, insomnia, anxiety, social dysfunction, depression, and other psychiatric disorders (Jenaro et al., 2007; Lepp et al., 2013; Samaha, 2015). Addiction-proneness and social anxiety are both related to increased cell phone use (Sapacz et al., 2016). The anxiety and stress, which have a positive relationship with cell phone use, were also found to be negatively correlated with satisfaction with life (Lepp et al., 2013; Samaha, 2015). In an academic sense, college students’ satisfaction with life and self-esteem found to have a positive relationship with GPA (Lepp et al., 2013; Aspelmeier, Love, McGill, Elliott, & Pierce, 2012). Students who are dispositionally happier tend to have a greater commitment to college (Okun et al., 2009).
Other Factors that Affect Academic Success
Academic success is important to gaining a college degree and traits such as conscientiousness, type of studying, ability to concentrate, academic readiness, high school GPA, and standardized test scores are able to somewhat predict academic success in college (Cheng & Ickes, 2009; Dollinger, Matyja, & Huber, 2008; Nonis & Hudson, 2010; Okun, Levy, Karoly, & Ruehlman, 2009; Sparkman, Maulding, & Roberts, 2006) Conscientiousness was a recurring theme for academic success (Cheng & Ickes, 2009; Dollinger, Matyja, & Huber, 2008). A study conducted by Wen Cheng discovered that students who scored high in conscientiousness and self-motivation achieved a higher GPA than those who scored low in both qualities (Cheng & Ickes, 2009). Students generally believe that they were solely responsible for choosing their academic success (Fauria & Zellner, 2014). One study suggests that success from studying is not purely quantitative, but also qualitative (Nonis & Hudson, 2010). Some study habits have a positive correlation with academic success while other study habits have a negative relationship (Nonis & Hudson, 2010). This study also found a significant correlation between more time at work and lower GPA (Nonis & Hudson, 2010). Studies found that ability to concentrate, academic readiness, high school GPA, and standardized test scores all had positive relationships with current college GPA (Nonis & Hudson, 2010; Okun, Levy, Karoly, & Ruehlman, 2009; Sparkman, Maulding, & Roberts, 2006).
Cell Phone Use In Class
Many studies have been done on the effect of students using their cell phones during class (Elder, 2010; Emanuel, 2012; McDonald, 2010; Tossell, Kortum, Shepard, Rahmati, & Zhong, 2014). Most college students use their cell phones at least occasionally during class and studies have been done to show that, during class, cell phones are a major distraction and correlate with lower grades (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015; Emanuel, 2012; McDonald, 2010; Tossell et al., 2014). One researcher found that almost three-fourths of college students reported that they occasionally text during class (Emanuel, 2012). An experimental study, done by Elder (2010) at Mississippi State University, found that there was no difference between quiz scores for those who used their phones during class and those who did not. While there was no differences in quiz scores, there was a difference in anticipated scores. Those who used their cell phone during class anticipated lower scores than students who were not on their phones during lectures (Elder, 2010). A similar study done by Chris Bjornsen found that increased cell phone use in the classroom was correlated with lower test scores even while controlling for GPA (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015). Low-test scores were associated with more use of social media (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015). One study found that cell phone use during class could help further education at the beginning of the study, according to the students. By the end of the study, the students found that phones would be a major distraction to reaching their educational goals (Tossell et al., 2014). One study suggested that students who were more comfortable texting during class had higher GPAs (Harman & Sato, 2010). However, one study found that there is a negative relationship between final grades and in-class cell phone use. Even after GPA, ACT scores, and attendance were controlled for; texting in class was negatively related to final grades (McDonald, 2010). The current, correlational study is focusing on general cell phone use, meaning the time spent on cell phones outside of class, and GPA. The use of cell phones outside of class may distract from homework and reduce motivation to study. The current study will determine if there is a relationship between these two variables.
GPA and Cell Phone Use
There has been some research on the effects of cell phone use on educational success (Elder, 2010; Harman, 2010; Kibona, 2015; Lepp, 2013; Samaha, 2015; Tossell, 2014). One study focused specifically on cell phone use and GPA in college students. Results from this study found that a higher number of text messages sent each day related to a lower GPA (Harman & Sato, 2010). The distracting nature of phones may be the culprit behind this difference in confidence in academic performance. Results from another study found that cell phone addiction risk increased with stress levels. Cell phone addiction was also negatively correlated to academic performance (Samaha & Hawi, 2015). Another study done in Tanzania focused on 100 students and found that smartphones negatively affect students’ academic performance (Kibona & Mgaya, 2015). The last study I found looked at anxiety, as well as GPA and cell phone use (Lepp et al., 2013). Results showed that there was a significant correlation between increased cell phone use and lower GPA. Cell phone use among college students was positively correlated with anxiety (Lepp et al., 2013). The current study has the same premise as previous research. However, the current study is focusing only on GPA as a measure of academic performance and several variables representing cell phone use outside of the classroom.
Methodology
The methods used in the current study will be based on the methods of the following studies. A study done by Andrew Gallucci (2015) focused on the misuse of prescription stimulants (MPS) and its relationship with MPS related theory of planned behavior (TPB). A survey was developed to measure MPS by compiling items from existing measures in Likert-type questions. The survey was administered to 1022 college students and, similar to the current study, participation was voluntary, anonymous, and without incentives. Investigators left the room while the survey was being administered to make participants more likely to complete the survey. Data in this study was analyzed using many variables and the article clearly explained how the multiple variables would be computed and analyzed. Data was analyzed using a bi-factor model confirmatory factor analysis. The data analysis put each survey item onto a general factor of MPS for a more comprehensive analysis (Gallucci, Martin, Beaujean, & Usdan, 2015). The current study will also look at multiple variables taken from Likert-type questions on a survey.
Another study, done by John Lim (2006) examined the effects of different teaching methods including: online instruction, face-to-face instruction, and a combination of the two. About one hundred and fifty students at a Midwestern university participated in this study. Students were then divided into three treatment groups, which were face-to-face, online, and a combination of the two. First, the students completed an online survey giving demographic information, perceptions of instructional delivery, the effectiveness of the instructor, support, and student satisfaction levels. A written pretest and posttest were created to measure the knowledge the students had learned. Data was analyzed by comparing mean scores from each test in each group. An ANOVA was used to analyze the differences between the three teaching styles on student satisfaction and achievement scores. The methodology in this article is similar to my study because it collects demographic information and variables through surveys (Lim, Kim, Chen, & Ryder, 2006).
The next study looked at college students’ opinions about smoking. Alexandra Loukas (2002) led the study of a convenience sample of 1,188 students was taken from 5 Texas colleges. Participants were volunteers who anonymously completed a 60-item survey about tobacco. Instructors approached students enrolled in various freshman-level classes. The researchers gave the instructors details about the study and how to administer the questionnaire. Participation in this study was voluntary, as it is in the current study, and there was no compensation for participation. 20 minutes at the end of a class period were set aside to complete the written survey. The survey used Likert scales, similar to the current study, ranging from 1 to 4 (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Data was analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance with dependent variables. Descriptive statistics were also used for each dependent variable (Loukas, Garcia, & Gottlieb, 2002).
The last article, composed by Gary Rosenthal (2000), focused on the characteristics of direct student-faculty interactions. 193 undergraduate students who volunteered and some were awarded extra credit for participating. The sub-samples were traditional and non-traditional students. An informed consent form was completed and instructions were given to the participants. Demographic questions, the survey, and blank sheets of paper were given to write about their experiences and interactions with a faculty member. There was no time limit and the survey would be kept anonymous (Rosenthal, Folse, Allenman, Boudreaux, Soper, & Von Bergen, 2000). The current study will also require a consent form. Participants will anonymously give demographic information as well as completing the survey.