Communication Education

ISSN: 0363-4523 (Print) 1479-5795 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Examining the

Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message Content
on Student Learning
Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff, Stevie Munz & Scott Titsworth
To cite this article: Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff, Stevie Munz & Scott Titsworth (2015) Mobile Phones
in the Classroom: Examining the Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message Content on Student
Learning, Communication Education, 64:3, 344-365, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727

Published online: 21 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20931

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rced20
Download by: [Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia]

Date: 15 September 2016, At: 07:44

Communication Education
Vol. 64, No. 3, July 2015, pp. 344365

Mobile Phones in the Classroom:

Examining the Effects of Texting, Twitter,
and Message Content on Student
Learning
Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff , Stevie Munz & Scott Titsworth

This study examined mobile phone use in the classroom by using an experimental design to
study how message content (related or unrelated to class lecture) and message creation
(responding to or creating a message) impact student learning. Participants in eight
experimental groups and a control group watched a video lecture, took notes, and
completed tests of student learning. The control and relevant message groups earned a 10
17% higher letter grade, scored 70% higher on recalling information, and scored 50% higher
on note-taking than students who composed tweets or responded to irrelevant messages.
Sending/receiving messages unrelated to class content negatively impacted learning and
note-taking, while related messages did not appear to have a significant negative impact.
Keywords: Note-taking; Twitter and Texting in Class; Mobile Phones in Class;
Technology in the Classroom; Student Learning and Technology

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges instructors face in the 21st-century college
classroom is the struggle of retaining student interest and engagement while students
remain connected to the outside world through their mobile devices. Instructors
across institutions of higher education are faced with decisions of whether to allow
electronics or instate no-electronics policies in order to create student-centered
learning classrooms (Curzan, 2014). It is a common occurrence to observe students
who are physically present, yet mentally preoccupied by noncourse-related material
Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff (PhD, Ohio University) is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Integrative Studies,
Miami University Middletown. Stevie Munz (MA, Illinois State University) is a Doctoral Candidate in the School
of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Scott Titsworth (PhD, University of Nebraska) is Dean of the
Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University. Correspondence to: Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff, Department of
Integrative Studies, Miami University Middletown, Middletown, OH, USA. Tel.: +(513) 727-3296. Email:
kuznekjh@miamioh.edu.
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) 2015 National Communication Association
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727

Communication Education 345

on their mobile devices. As mobile devices have deeply saturated the college student
population, this problem will likely continue to pose a significant obstacle for faculty.
Survey research and public polling data indicate that the majority of college students
not only have mobile phones, but also bring them to class and use them in class on a
regular basis. At one university, 95% of respondents, who were students, reported that
they always brought their mobile phone with them to class. In addition, that study
found, about 92% admitted that they have sent or received a text message in class
at least once or twice, and 30% do this every day (Tindell & Bohlander, 2012, p. 3).
It also appears that the 1824-year-old age group is voracious texters, with the
average person exchanging over 100 messages a day, or the equivalent of over 3,000
a month (Smith, 2011). We also know that younger age groups have more tolerant
attitudes toward mobile phones in the college classroom (Campbell, 2006). As two
communication scholars succinctly put it, students expect to be able to use their own
wireless communication devices in the classroom (Finn & Ledbetter, 2013, p. 38).
For better or worse, college faculty may need to accept that students are going
to bring their mobile devices with them to class. However, an important consideration is the influence these devices have on student learning. Thus far, several studies
have found that students who text, or use other technologies in class, are generally
outperformed by those students who abstain from these behaviors (Kuznekoff &
Titsworth, 2013; Wei, Wang, & Klausner, 2012; Wood et al., 2012) and some studies
have found that multitasking is distracting for those students seated around the
multitasker (Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013).
Although past research paints a bleak picture for learning when students use mobile
devices for nonacademic reasons, some instructors have capitalized on nearly ubiquitous
information access, and used these strategies for potential learning gains. As Tyma
(2011) noted, using mobile phones to access sites like Twitter may provide opportunities
for students to use their devices for class appropriate purposes, which could benefit,
rather than detract from, learning. The trend in using mobile devices for course-related
purposes is growing both in higher education and in K-12 (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, &
Friedrich, 2013). As teachers integrate mobile devices into lesson plans, research
exploring the effects of mobile devices in classrooms must consider potential differential
effects of course-related versus non course-related usage on student learning.
A previous study by Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013) observed that responding
to messages during a lesson resulted in significantly fewer notes and significantly
diminished quiz scores. Using that study as a starting point, we introduce message
relevance and message creation as variables that could potentially impact student
learning. More specifically, students were asked to either create or respond to
simulated messages that were either related or unrelated to the topic of a simulated
classroom lecture. Similar to the 2013 study, we also manipulated the frequency with
which students were asked to create or respond to messages, and assessed student
learning through an analysis of students notes and scores on quizzes over lecture
content. One key contribution of the current study is the inclusion of message
creation. Creating a message from scratch (i.e., creating an original tweet) is a more
cognitively intensive task than simply responding to a preexisting message or prompt

346

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

(i.e., responding to a text message) and findings from this study will help inform our
understanding of these behaviors. For clarity, we collectively refer to these behaviors
as messages; however, generally refer to responding to messages as texting and
creating a message as tweeting or Twitter.

Digital, Social, and Mobile Engagement in the Classroom

Mobile phones and other connected devices are ubiquitous features of modern life,
are vastly superior to devices from prior years, and have diffused throughout the
general population of the United States. In 2011, over 80% of adults in America
owned a mobile phone, and 73% of them used their phones to send and receive text
messages (Smith, 2011). A year later, those figures increased to 85% owning a mobile
phone and 80% sending/receiving text messages (Duggan & Rainie, 2012). Indeed,
texting has become a primary tool for both personal and professional communication. The mean number of text messages adults report sending/receiving per day
has risen quite dramatically within the past five years. In 2009, the mean texts
sent/received per day was 29.7, by 2010 that figure had risen to 39.1, and by 2011 the
average was 41.5. However, these overall means hide the significant use of text
messaging by 1824 year olds. Within this age group, 95% own a mobile phone and
of that 97% actively use text messaging. In addition, this age group sends/receives
over 100 text messages per day or over 3,200 per month, which is double the same
averages for 2534 year olds (Smith, 2011).
Aside from text messaging, online adults also commonly use social networking
sites like Facebook and Twitter. Duggan and Smith (2013) report that 73% of online
adults use at least one social networking site, with Facebook and Twitter being
particularly popular among the 1829-year-old age group. Out of the roughly 1.23
billion monthly active Facebook users, 945 million used Facebook mobile products
(i.e., accessed Facebook through a mobile device; Facebook, 2014). Although
Facebook is the most popular contemporary social networking site, Twitter also has
a considerable user base. In 2014, Twitter reported having 241 million monthly active
users, with 76% of them on mobile devices, and these users collectively send roughly
500 million tweets per day (Twitter, 2014). In terms of the college demographic,
Dugan and Smith (2013) report that 84% of online adults aged 1829 use Facebook,
while 31% use Twitter.
Mobile devices, and the services they provide, extend the capability of mobile
phones beyond just verbal communication, in order to accomplish a variety of
different communicative tasks (Ishii, 2006). The popularity of mobile devices and
social networking sites is unlikely to diminish, and we must examine the effects these
devices and services will have on various aspects of daily life. Some scholars predict
that, by 2025, digital technology will disrupt most traditional models of doing
business (i.e., 20th century mindsets), and education is one industry that will most
notably be impacted (Anderson & Rainie, 2014). Thus, focusing attention on the
effects these devices and services have on student learning and the college classroom

Communication Education 347

is of paramount importance if we, as educators, are to continue to work with students

effectively in helping them achieve their educational goals.
Uses of Technology in the Classroom
The use of mobile technology does not diminish when students walk into a classroom
or lecture hall. Survey research by McCoy (2013) examined students use of digital
devices, while in class, for nonclassroom-related reasons. Across six universities and
over 700 participants, McCoy found that, while in class, 86% of participants used
these devices for texting, 68% for emailing, and 66% for social networking. In
addition, that research also found that students engaged in these behaviors for several
different reasons, including: to stay connected (70%), to stave off boredom (55%),
and simply for entertainment (49%). Perhaps most alarmingly, students readily
acknowledge that their use of digital devices causes them to either not pay attention
in class (90%) and/or to miss instruction from faculty members (80%). Because of the
frequency with which students use mobile devices, faculty at all levels are
experimenting with how to leverage that capability for productive classroom uses.
Purcell and colleagues (2013) surveyed high school teachers who taught advanced
placement classes or were involved with the national writing project. Their survey
research found that 73% of teachers report that their students use mobile phones to
complete class assignments or class activities, and 42% of those teachers ask students
to use their mobile phones to look up information while in class. Although these
approaches appear to turn what was previously considered a distraction into an asset
for learning, little research substantiates whether such strategies are beneficial.
Higher education faculty are also exploring ways to appropriately leverage
students use of mobile devices. Parcha (2014) reported on an activity that uses
Twitter to help promote convergent communication among students. As part of that
assignment, students would use Twitter outside of the classroom to respond to other
students, send tweets related to speech topics, and send nonacademic tweets. Faculty
are also using Twitter within the classroom and, as Tyma (2011) noted, Twitter
(a social media networking tool) can be used as an additional way for students to
have voice in the large lecture classroom (p. 175). Using Twitter in class, particularly
classes with a media or mass communication focus, allows students not only to study
that material but also to use mass media first hand within the classroom setting.
In addition, Twitter allows less vocal students a channel of communication they may
be more comfortable with, and especially in mass lecture classes, Twitter can serve as
a way for students to ask questions of the instructor without having to raise their
hands (Tyma, 2011). Other scholars have examined using Twitter to reinforce class
concepts by sending tweets about course-related material. Blessing, Blessing, and
Fleck (2012) found that tweeted course content may aid students in recalling that
information during a test or exam, while McArthur and Bostedo-Conway (2012)
reported a positive relationship between instructors using Twitter and student
perceptions of that instructor. McArthur and Bostedo-Conway (2012) stated, Twitter
provides another avenue for interaction between instructors and students (p. 291).

348

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

Teaching strategies that integrate students use of mobile devices should be

commended. Those approaches reflect adaptation to an increasingly connected group
of students, and appropriately responding to shifting cultural uses of technology.
Whether in a K-12 or college classroom, it is reasonable to hypothesize that
appropriate use of mobile devices will keep students engaged and will therefore likely
have positive learning outcomes.
On the other hand, researchers have observed rather consistent results showing
that the use of technology for noncourse-related purposes has a negative effect on
student learning. For instance, students report lower levels of attention and decreased
perceived learning when they actively text in class (Wei et al., 2012). Other studies
have examined laptop use and multitasking to ascertain the impact of digital
technologies on student learning (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010). In this line of research,
Wood et al. (2012) found that any distraction, regardless of number, resulted in
poorer performance than the no distraction condition (p. 372). Other researchers
(Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Wei et al., 2012) observed that students who actively used
their mobile phones or other digital technologies generally performed lower than
students who did not engage in these behaviors.
More recently, Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013) conducted an experiment to
study mobile phones in the communication classroom. Using a control group and
two experimental conditions (low-distraction and high-distraction), they assessed the
impact of texting/posting to Facebook on student learning through scores on both
a multiple-choice and free-recall test, and also measured the quality of notes that
students took while watching a recorded lecture. Their study found that students in
the control group, who abstained from using their mobile phones during the lecture,
outperformed students who actively used their phones. Specifically, their results
showed that students who actively posted on their mobile device during the lecture
recorded 38% fewer details in their notes, scored 51% lower on a free-recall test,
and scored 20% lower on a multiple-choice test. Although those findings quantify
the relative negative impact of being distracted by a mobile device while listening
to a lecture, the content of the messages students responded to were extraneous to the
content of the lecture. Given the increasing use of mobile devices to augment lessons
and lectures, exploring whether relevant posting has the same effects would be useful
for teachers and students alike.
Student Note-Taking, External Storage, and Encoding
By the time students reach college, many faculty assume that students have a basic
knowledge, and requisite experience, taking notes in class. In the traditional mass
lecture class, which still remains a mainstay in colleges and universities across the
country, students are expected to listen to the instructor and take notes on class
material. Recent trends in higher education, including the flipped classroom approach,
collaborative learning, and collaborative note-taking, shift this top-down approach to
learning and focus on more interactive or student-centered approaches. Even with
these new approaches to instruction in the college classroom, faculty typically expect

Communication Education 349

that students take notes during class and assume that students already have this skill set.
Substantial research has been directed toward this important student behavior and the
connection between note-taking and student learning.
Note-taking is a key behavior that can have direct, positive outcomes for student
learning and academic performance. Kiewra and colleagues (1991) argued that notetaking positively impacts students learning in two ways. First, notes serve as an
external storage mechanism for information. That is, when students take notes and
review those notes prior to an exam, they are able to recall more information than
students who did not have the opportunity for review (Rickards & Friedman, 1978).
The second way that notes facilitate learning is through encoding. As students
take notes, they actively process information in ways that makes recall more likely
(Kiewra et al., 1991).
Di Vesta and Gray (1972) explained that the external storage feature of note-taking
allows students to record information for use later on, perhaps to study for a test or
simply to review. However, encoding allows the learner to transcribe whatever
subjective associations, inferences, and interpretations occurred to him while listening
(Di Vesta & Gray, 1972, p. 8). Although external storage and encoding are related,
encoding serves almost as a transaction between the student and the content being
covered, one in which the student creates a link between this new content and their
preexisting understanding. This creation of a meaningful link allows students to place
that content into long-term memory and, with the aid of externally stored notes, the
ability to recall that information and fill in missing gaps (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972).
More recent work has examined the cognitive processes that occur during notetaking. Similar to the mental processes that occur during writing, Peverly et al. (2013)
identified transcription fluency, working memory, and language comprehension as
the main mental processes that are used during note-taking. Transcription fluency
involves how closely a student is able to write down information from a lecture, while
working memory functions as a space where students can mentally process information. Language comprehension refers to students ability to understand vocabulary,
grammar, and both spoken and written words. In the active process of note-taking,
students must have domain-specific basic skills must be automatic/fluent, so as not to
burden the limited resources of working memory. In addition, higher level skills such as
language comprehension must also be well developed so that they can be used
to interpret/analyze the information (Peverly et al., 2013, p. 121). Research has
found that the process of note-taking can improve students scores on quizzes by well
over one letter grade (Titsworth & Kierwa, 2004), and this finding is not isolated to a
single study. Kobayashi (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of note-taking literature
and reported an average weighted effect size of .77 for note-taking, such that exam
scores for students who take and review their notes are substantially higher than
students who do not engage in these behaviors.
Although important for student learning, past studies have found that students
are generally bad at note-taking. For instance, Kiewra and Frank (1988) found that
students only recorded roughly 25% of the critical information contained in a lecture.
Other studies have reported similar findings, particularly that students record less

350

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

than 40% of content from class lectures (Kiewra, 1985; Peverly et al., 2013; Titsworth
& Kiewra, 2004). This consistent finding, that students are typically bad at notetaking, is compounded by a newer classroom trend, students being distracted from
class material by using their mobile devices in class. This relatively new behavior may
further compound students mediocre note-taking ability by interfering with not
only external storage, but also encoding. When actively engaged with their mobile
devices during class, students are unable to record complete lecture notes (external
storage) and suffer from decreased attention, likely compromising the meaningful
link established with encoding (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972). As Peverly et al. (2013)
noted, working memory is a limited resource, and when directed toward a mobile
device, students may be unable to accurately take notes and encode class material.
This disruption in attentiveness to class content, as well as to external storage and
encoding, can negatively impact student learning.
Junco and Cotton (2012), who examined the impact of multitasking on academic
performance, found that engaging in Facebook use or texting while trying to complete
schoolwork taxes the students limited capacity for cognitive processing and precludes
deeper learning (p. 511). This occurs because students who attempt to simultaneously
pay attention to both schoolwork and texting/Facebook reduced their capacity to
process information (essential processing), limit their ability to store information
in working memory (representational holding), and this creates an information
bottleneck the precludes effective information processing. Building on this research,
we would expect that activities that require more mental processing, such as
developing original content on a mobile device while simultaneously paying attention
to a class lecture, would pose a greater obstacle to effective information processing and
further inhibit student learning.
In addition to the multitasking research, scholars have found that how frequently
students use their devices likely impacts both external storage (note-taking) and
encoding (recall of information). Rosen, Lim, Carrier, and Cheever (2011) conducted
an experiment to examine the impact of frequency of texting interruptions on student
recall from a video lecture. The Rosen et al. study found that participants receiving
few or no texting interruptions, during a video lecture, recalled more information
than students who frequently received texting interruptions. This finding is similar to
that of Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013), and we would expect that increased texting
interruptions will be associated with decreased information recall.
Whereas previous research documented a decline in note-taking when students
actively use their mobile devices, the question of whether relevant uses of those devices
has the same effect remains unanswered. It could be that when students respond
to course-related information through their mobile devices, many of the encoding
and external storage benefits of note-taking are realized. Moreover, there could be
differential effects on these processes depending on whether students respond to
preexisting messages or create original messages. It is possible that the act of creating a
mobile message about course content is not dissimilar from the act of note-taking.
In both cases, the student is writing down information about course content (external
storage) and potentially storing that information in short-term memory (encoding;

Communication Education 351

Di Vesta & Gray, 1972). However, if students are creating messages that are unrelated
to lecture content, any potential encoding benefits may be nullified owing to a lack of
focus on class-related material.
Review and Hypotheses
In summary, past work has found that students use of mobile devices can negatively
impact student learning (Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013; Rosen et al., 2011; Wood et al.,
2012) and can be distracting for students seated proximate to those using connected
devices (Sana et al., 2013). In part to combat these negative effects, instructors are
exploring the use of mobile devices for course relevant purposes (Parcha, 2014; Purcell
et al., 2013; Tyma, 2011); however, this area of research is relatively new. Thus, the goal
of this study is to connect the distraction research with the emerging trend of using
mobile devices for course-relevant purposes, in order to better understand how student
use of mobile devices impacts their learning.
To accomplish this goal, the present study builds on previous research in two
meaningful ways. First, we include both relevant and irrelevant message content.
In manipulating message relevance, observed findings can potentially document the
efficacy of using mobile devices in the classroom to aid student learning. We would
expect that students interacting with messages relevant to class content would likely
perform better on tests of student learning and note-taking than those students
interacting with unrelated content. Second, the current study recognizes that the use
of mobile devices in class can involve both responding to and creating messages. This
distinction is important, because the act of responding to messages likely requires a
differing level of mental engagement than does initiating messages. When presented
with a premade message, students need only formulate a relevant reply and send
that message, which is a simpler process than creating an original message. By
including the potential effects of message relevance and message creation, this study
more effectively approximates the multiple ways in which students may use their
mobile devices in the college classroom.
Hypotheses
We predicted that message content will have an impact on three tests of student
learning and note-taking: multiple-choice test, free-recall test, and note-taking.
Specifically, we would expect that students in the control group will score the highest
on tests of students learning, followed by students who are interacting with relevant
content, and then students interacting with irrelevant content. This is because relevant
messages tap into content related to the lecture and may mimic many of the
characteristics of external storage and encoding (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972). In particular
to note-taking, we propose that even if students are responding to messages from
others, if that activity is related to class content, those students will take better-quality
notes than students responding to unrelated content. This relationship occurs because
the related content allows students to engage in behaviors similar to note-taking:
focusing on the material at hand, processing that material to determine key parts, and

352

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

recording the important information (Mayer, 1996). The only difference is these
students are writing this information on their phones and, afterward, writing it on
paper.
Research hypotheses were created for each of the three dependent variables (tests
of student learning) examined in the study. For the multiple-choice test (H1), freerecall test (H2), and note-taking scores (H3), we predicted the following trends and
relationships for each hypothesis:
H1/2/3A: Scores will follow a linear decrease starting with the control group, followed by
the groups receiving relevant messages, sending relevant messages, receiving irrelevant
messages, and sending irrelevant messages.

We also predicted that message frequency will play a factor in influencing scores on
the three tests of student learning, as Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013) and Rosen
et al. (2011) had found. In general, students receiving more frequent messages or
prompts for creating messages (i.e., high-distraction) will perform lower on each test
of student learning than those students receiving less frequent messages or prompts
(i.e., low-distraction).
H1/2/3B: The pattern predicted in H1/2/3A will be observed for both low- and highdistraction conditions, but the low-distraction groups will outperform the highdistraction groups in each condition.

Method
Recruitment of Participants
Participants in this study were 145 undergraduate students enrolled in communica
tion classes at a large Midwestern university. Several communication classes at this
university require students to participate in a research participation pool in order to
receive a small percentage of course credit. After completing a brief screening
questionnaire, students were randomly assigned to one or more studies from this
pool. For our study, participants needed: to have a mobile phone capable of accessing
the Internet, to be 18 years of age or older and a current university student, and to have
not taken Introduction to Human Communication and/or Interpersonal Communication. Students who did not meet this requirement were not assigned to this study
because both courses cover content used in the lecture materials for this study. After
being assigned to this study, students were contacted via their university email account
and asked to sign up for an appointment to attend a study meeting time.
Each meeting was randomly assigned to one of five groups: a control group (n = 32),
a high-distraction texting group (n = 27), a low-distraction texting group (n = 27),
a high-distraction Twitter group (n = 35), and a low-distraction Twitter group (n =
24). The texting groups simply responded to messages they were presented with,
while the Twitter groups were asked to create original messages. Participants ranged
in age from 18 to 23, with the average age being 18. The majority of participants

Communication Education 353

(68%) indicated that they were first-year students, 19% were sophomores, 7% were
juniors, and the remaining 6% were seniors. The mean grade point average, selfreported, of participants was 3.27 (SD = 0.49). In terms of self-reported sex, 65% of
participants were female, and 35% were male. Nearly 88% of participants were
Caucasian, 4% were African American, 4% were Asian, 2% were Hispanic, and 2%
were other. The demographic breakdown is consistent with that of the student
population of the university on which this study was conducted.
Procedures and Manipulation
To test the hypotheses, an experiment was performed that required students to watch
a lecture, take notes over the lecture, and take two tests so that we could establish
their recall of information from the lecture. The hypotheses were tested through
planned comparisons of group means, and participants were divided into groups,
through the study sessions, so that we could manipulate the frequency, relevance, and
type of message they were exposed to. Each study meeting was held in a standard
university classroom. As part of the setup procedure, an envelope containing study
materials was placed on each desk prior to student arrival and each envelope had a
unique identification number on it. When the study session began, students were read
a brief explanation of the study, the researcher offered to answer any questions, and
then obtained informed consent. Students were then told that they would be watching
a video lecture and to take notes as they typically would in a normal class. In their
folders, students were provided with standard notepaper to take their notes on.
Students were informed that, at the end of this video lecture, they would be given
3 min to review their notes, and then they would take two tests of student learning.
Groups
This study used five main groups: control group, receiving relevant messages, sending
relevant messages, receiving irrelevant messages, and sending irrelevant messages.
All experimental groups contained both a high-distraction and low-distraction
condition, resulting in nine total groups. At the start of the study, students in the
control condition were instructed to put away their mobile phones for the duration of
that meeting. Students in the other groups were told to take out their mobile phones
and to direct their mobile web browser to a specific URL.
Texting groups. The URL for the sessions assigned to the texting groups directed
students to an online survey that first asked them to input the unique code found on
the outside of their envelope and to wait for further instructions. Without student
intervention, the online survey randomly assigned these students to one of four
possible groups: high-distraction relevant texting, high-distraction irrelevant texting,
low-distraction relevant texting, and low-distraction irrelevant texting. After the
researcher verified that students had properly entered their codes, students were
reminded that they would be watching a video lecture, that they should take notes on
that lecture, and that they should respond to the messages they received on their

354

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

mobile device. Next, the video lecture started and students were told to tap the
Continue button displayed on their mobile device. At this point, participants in
the four groups noted above (relevant/irrelevant low-distraction/high-distraction)
were presented with a simulated text message or Facebook post on their mobile
device, and were automatically advanced to a new message after a set period of time.
The irrelevant group viewed messages that were unrelated to the lecture content,
but could approximate messages they may receive from friends, while the relevant
group viewed messages that were related to the lecture. Example irrelevant messages
included What is your favorite restaurant for dinner?, Comment on this photo,
What is your schedule on most Tuesdays?, or Which dorm do you recommend
living in?, while relevant messages asked What are the two types of uncertainty?
or What is the name of the theory the professor is talking about now? In addition
to being randomly assigned to the relevant/irrelevant groups, students were
also randomly assigned to either a low- or high-distraction condition. For the lowdistraction condition, participants were exposed to a relevant/irrelevant message
every 60 s. Students randomly assigned to the high-distraction condition received
a relevant/irrelevant message every 30 s.
Twitter groups. Students in the Twitter groups also accessed an online survey via
their mobile device, entered their unique folder code, and waited for further
instructions. The online survey the Twitter participants accessed randomly assigned
them to either a relevant or irrelevant condition. Participants in the relevant condition
were instructed, by the online survey, to compose tweets that related to the video
lecture, while participants in the irrelevant condition were instructed to compose
tweets unrelated to the video lecture. Students were told that the video lecture they were
about to watch would contain pop-up messages that would tell them to use their mobile
phones to send a tweet. Depending on which group the session had randomly been
assigned to, these pop-up messages occurred either every 60 s (low-distraction) or every
30 s (high-distraction), students were not informed of which condition they were in.
Video Lecture and Tests of Student Learning
The video lecture was roughly 12 min long and covered four interpersonal
communication theories. This video lecture was the same as that used by Kuznekoff
and Titsworth (2013), and the only difference was the addition of pop-up messages
for the Twitter condition, which were simply visual prompts. After each group had
viewed the video lecture, students were given a 3 min review period to study their
notes as if they were preparing to take a test or quiz. Following this review period,
students first took a free-recall test and then a multiple-choice test. The free-recall
test asked students to recall as much information as they could remember from the
lecture and to write that information on the test. The free-recall test provided
students the name of each theory but did not contain any lecture content. Students
were given five minutes to take this test and at the end of this period were instructed
to put their free-recall test back in the envelope and to take out the multiple-choice

Communication Education 355

test. The multiple-choice test contained a total of 16 items that asked questions
related to the lecture content. Students were given 5 min to complete this test and at
the end of this period were instructed to put their completed test back in the envelope
and to take out a short demographic survey. After completing the demographic
survey, students were instructed to place it back in the envelope, to give the envelope
to the researcher, and that their participation in the study had concluded.
Coding
Following data collection, two independent coders were recruited and trained to score
the student notes and free-recall test. This coding setup is based on Titsworths
(2001) work and Kuznekoff and Titsworths (2013) study. Coders attended a training
session that covered how to code materials for this study, and they were provided
with a codebook. In addition, coders were provided with coding sheets that contained
the script of the video lecture divided into individual statements. These statements
contained columns for notes and recall. The notes column was specifically used
to score if that statement appeared in student notes from the video lecture. The recall
column was used to score if that particular statement appeared in the student freerecall test. Overall, the statements on the coding sheet consisted of specific examples
or explanations, and key definitions used in the video lecture.
To code the notes, the coders were taught to look at student notes and to compare
those notes to statements on the coding sheet. If students did not have that statement
recorded, they received a zero on the notes column of the coding sheet. If the student
did record a statement, but might be lacking clarity or important details, the score
they received was a one, indicating a minimally sufficient answer. If students wrote
statements that included important details from that lecture content, they were
awarded a two, indicating an outstanding answer. Exact wording was not required
to receive a score of a one or two. This same scoring procedure was used for scoring
the free-recall test. A total of 76 possible statements could be recorded in student
notes and 78 possible statements could be recorded on the free-recall test.
As part of the coder training, 10% of the total study materials (n = 145) were
randomly chosen for establishing intercoder reliability (ICR). Both coders were
provided with copies of the ICR materials, copies of the coding sheets, and instructed
to independently code the ICR materials. We then addressed minor differences
between the two coders and calculated Cohens kappa. For the notes, Cohens kappa
was .77, with 94% agreement between the coders, and for free-recall kappa was .73,
with 96% agreement. In general, kappa values between .61 and .80 are considered to
have substantial agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977). In addition, KR-20 was calculated
for the multiple-choice test and this was reported to be .583. Although the KR-20
score is lower than we would expect in real-world conditions, the inclusion of
multiple experimental groups likely introduces error into this statistic and that error
would normally not be present in a typical classroom testing environment. In
addition, the reported value appears to be consistent with Kuznekoff and Titsworth
(2013) KR-20 value of .524.

356

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

Results
Hypotheses 1a/b
Hypothesis H1a predicted students scores on the multiple-choice test would be
highest for the control condition, followed by relevant texting, relevant Twitter,
irrelevant texting, and irrelevant Twitter. Since we predicted a linear trend for each
test of student learning, planned comparisons were used to test for each hypothesis.
The first comparison tested for a linear polynomial trend for multiple-choice scores
across the five groups. The linear trend was significant, F(1, 140) = 9.998, p = .002,
and there was no significant deviation from linearity, F(3, 140) = 1.721, p > .166.
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for each group.
Overall, there was a negative relationship between students using their mobile
devices in class and students scores on the multiple-choice test. Using a set of
orthogonal comparisons, we found that the control group (M = 10.13, SD = 2.31) was
significantly different from the irrelevant texting group (M = 8.52, SD = 2.69), t(140) =
2.453, p = .015, Cohens d = .64. Additional orthogonal testing also found a significant
difference between the relevant texting group (M = 10.70, SD = 2.37) and relevant
Twitter group (M = 9.14, SD = 2.45), t(140) = 2.336, p = .021, Cohens d = .65. In
addition, a significant difference between the relevant texting group and the irrelevant
texting group was found (M = 8.52, SD = 2.69), t(140) = 3.204, p = .002, Cohens
d = .86. Lastly, the comparison between the relevant texting group and the irrelevant
Twitter group (M = 8.93, SD = 2.70), t(140) = 2.663, p = .009, Cohens d = .70, was also
statistically significant. To provide protection against Type I error, the contrasts used
a more stringent critical value to determine if a comparison was statistically
significant. This procedure is similar to a Tukey honest significant difference test
and uses critical values derived from the Studentized range statistic instead critical
values for t distribution (Warner, 2008).
Hypothesis H1b predicted that scores on the multiple-choice test would be highest
for the control condition and will progressively decline for each group in a specific
order (low-distraction then high-distraction) as follows: relevant texting, relevant
Twitter, irrelevant texting, and irrelevant Twitter. The linear trend was significant,
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Students Multiple-choice Scores, Free-Recall
Scores, and Notes across Primary Study Groups.
Variable
Group
Control (n = 32)
Relevant Texts (n = 27)
Relevant Twitter (n = 29)
Irrelevant Texts (n = 27)
Irrelevant Twitter (n = 30)

Multiple-Choice
10.13
10.70
9.14
8.52
8.93

(2.31)a
(2.36)bcd
(2.45)b
(2.69)ac
(2.70)d

Free-Recall
6.53
6.48
5.07
3.85
4.27

(4.87)ef
(4.57)g
(4.19)
(3.27)eg
(4.22)f

Notes
20.81
18.93
13.79
13.19
13.37

(9.53)hij
(9.11)klm
(8.64)hk
(5.92)il
(8.25)jm

Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations. Common subscripts indicate statistically significant
difference between groups (p < .05).

Communication Education 357

F(1, 136) = 10.20, p < .05, and there was no significant deviation from linearity,
F(7, 136) = 1.035, p > .05. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for each
group. Using a set of orthogonal comparisons, we found that the control group
differed significantly from the high-distraction irrelevant texting group (M = 8.15,
SD = 2.79), t(136) = 2.385, p = .018, Cohens d = .77, and the control group also differed
from the high-distraction irrelevant Twitter group (M = 8.33, SD = 2.95), t(136) = 2.420,
p = .017, Cohens d = .679. The contrasts between the low-distraction relevant texting
group (M = 10.85, SD = 1.91) and low-distraction irrelevant texting group (M = 8.86,
SD = 2.66), t(136) = 2.055, p = .042, Cohens d = .86, was also significant. In addition, the
low-distraction relevant texting group differed from the high-distraction irrelevant
texting group, t(136) = 2.732, p = .007, Cohens d = 1.13 and the low-distraction relevant
texting group also differed from the high-distraction irrelevant Twitter group, t(136) =
2.747, p = .007, Cohens d = 1.01. Lastly, the high-distraction relevant texting group
(M = 10.57, SD = 2.79) was significantly different from the high-distraction irrelevant
texting group, t(136) = 2.498, p = .014, Cohens d = 0.87, and the high-distraction
relevant texting group was significantly different from the high-distraction irrelevant
Twitter group, t(136) = 2.499, p = .014, Cohens d = 0.78.
Hypotheses 2a/b
Hypothesis H2a predicted that free-recall scores would be highest for the control
condition, followed by relevant texting, relevant Twitter, irrelevant texting, and
irrelevant Twitter. The linear trend was significant, F(1, 140) = 8.425, p = .004, and
there was no significant deviation from linearity, F(3, 140) = 0.499, p = .684. As
indicated in Table 1, scores on the free-recall test tended to increase as the groups
were exposed to irrelevant content, relevant content, and finally the control
condition. A set of orthogonal planned comparisons observed a significant difference
between the control group (M = 6.53, SD = 4.86) and the irrelevant texting group
(M = 3.85, SD = 2.27), t(140) = 2.397, p = .018, Cohens d = .65. The control group
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Students Multiple-choice Scores, Free-Recall
Scores, and Notes across All Groups.
Variable
Group
Control (n = 32)
Low-distraction relevant texting (n = 13)
High-distraction relevant texting (n = 14)
Low-distraction relevant Twitter (n = 12)
High-distraction relevant Twitter (n = 17)
Low-distraction irrelevant texting (n = 14)
High-distraction irrelevant texting (n = 13)
Low-distraction irrelevant Twitter (n = 12)
High-distraction irrelevant Twitter (n = 18)

Multiple-Choice
10.13
10.85
10.57
9.00
9.24
8.86
8.15
9.83
8.33

(2.31)ab
(1.91)cde
(2.79)fg
(2.70)
(2.33)
(2.66)c
(2.79)adf
(2.08)
(2.95)beg

Free-Recall
6.53
6.85
6.14
6.25
4.24
3.71
4.00
5.75
3.28

(4.87)hi
(4.18)j
(5.04)
(4.65)
(3.75)
(3.00)h
(3.65)
(3.98)
(4.18)ij

Notes
20.81
19.38
18.50
15.42
12.65
15.07
11.15
16.67
11.17

(9.53)klmn
(9.15)opq
(9.40)r
(7.90)
(9.19)mp
(5.46)k
(5.93)lor
(8.59)
(7.45)nq

Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations. Common subscripts indicate statistically significant
differences between groups (p < .05).

358

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

also differed significantly from the irrelevant Twitter group (M = 4.27, SD = 4.22),
t(140) = 2.083, p = .039, Cohens d = .50. The contrast between the relevant texting
group (M = 6.48, SD = 4.57) and irrelevant texting group was statistically significant,
t(140) = 2.259, p = .025, Cohens d = .66.
The second hypothesis in this set (H2b), predicted that scores on the free-recall test
would be highest for the control condition and will progressively decline for each
group in a specific order (low-distraction then high-distraction) as follows: relevant
texting, relevant Twitter, irrelevant texting, and irrelevant Twitter. The linear trend
was significant, F(1, 136) = 8.174, p = .005, and there was no significant deviation
from linearity, F(7, 136) = 0.638, p = .724. Table 2 shows the means and standard
deviations for each group. A set of orthogonal planned comparisons observed a
significant difference between the control group and the low-distraction irrelevant
texting group (M = 3.71, SD = 3.00), t(136) = 2.056, p = .042, Cohens d = .70, as well
as between the control group and the high-distraction irrelevant Twitter group (M =
3.28, SD = 4.184), t(136) = 2.583, p = .011, Cohens d = .72. The low-distraction
relevant texting group (M = 6.85, SD = 4.18) was significantly different from the
high-distraction irrelevant Twitter group, t(136) = 2.293, p = .023, Cohens d = .85.
Hypothesis 3a/b
Hypothesis H3a proposed that participants overall scores on their lecture notes
would be highest for the control condition, followed by relevant texting, relevant
Twitter, irrelevant texting, and irrelevant Twitter. The linear trend was significant,
F(1, 140) = 18.018, p = .000, and there was no significant deviation from linearity,
F(3, 140) = 1.211, p = .308. The values in Table 1 demonstrate that students overall
score on their lecture notes increased as they moved from irrelevant content to
relevant content, and finally the control condition. There were also several statistically
significant contrasts centered on the control group and relevant texting group.
For the control group (M = 20.81, SD = 4.57), the orthogonal comparisons found
statistically significantly differences with the relevant Twitter group (M = 13.79, SD =
8.64), t(140) = 3.248, p = .001, Cohens d = .77, irrelevant texting group (M = 13.19,
SD = 5.92), t(140) = 3.462, p = .001, Cohens d = .96, and irrelevant Twitter group (M =
13.37, SD = 8.25), t(140) = 3.475, p = .001, Cohens d = .83. The relevant texting group
(M = 18.93, SD = 9.11) differed from the relevant Twitter group, t(140) = 2.277, p =
.024, Cohens d = .58, irrelevant texting group, t(140) = 2.502, p = .014, Cohens
d = .64, and irrelevant Twitter group, t(140) = 2.486, p = .014, Cohens d = .64.
Hypothesis H3b predicted that participants overall scores on their lecture notes
would be highest for the control condition and would progressively decline for each
group: low-distraction relevant texting, low-distraction irrelevant texting, lowdistraction relevant Twitter, low-distraction irrelevant Twitter, high-distraction
relevant texting, high-distraction irrelevant texting, high-distraction relevant Twitter,
and high-distraction irrelevant Twitter. The linear trend was significant, F(1, 136) =
17.086, p = .000, and there was no significant deviation from linearity, F(7, 136) =
0.913, p = .499. The values in Table 2 demonstrate that students overall score on their

Communication Education 359

lecture notes increased as they moved from high-distraction content to lowdistraction content, and respectively from irrelevant to relevant messages.
A set of orthogonal planned comparisons observed a significant difference between
the control group and low-distraction irrelevant texting group (M = 15.07, SD = 5.46),
t(136) = 2.136, p = .034, Cohens d = .78. The control group also differed from the
high-distraction irrelevant texting group (M = 11.15, SD = 5.93), t(136) = 3.501, p =
.001, Cohens d = 1.27. In addition, the control group differed significantly from the
high-distraction relevant Twitter group (M = 12.65, SD = 9.19), t(136) = 3.243, p = .001,
Cohens d = .90. Results also indicated that the control group differed from the highdistraction irrelevant Twitter group (M = 11.17, SD = 7.45), t(136) = 3.903, p = .000,
Cohens d = 1.17. The low-distraction relevant texting group (M = 19.38, SD = 9.15),
differed from the high-distraction irrelevant texting group t(136) = 2.502, p = .014,
Cohens d = 1.07. The low-distraction relevant texting group also differed from the
high-distraction relevant Twitter group, t(136) = 2.180, p = .031, Cohens d = .73. In
addition, the low-distraction relevant texting group differed from the high-distraction
irrelevant Twitter group, t(136) = 2.692, p = .008, Cohens d = 0.98. Lastly, the highdistraction relevant texting group (M = 18.50, SD = 9.40) differed from the highdistraction irrelevant texting group, t(136) = 2.274, p = .025, Cohens d = 0.94. The
high-distraction relevant texting group also differed from the high-distraction
irrelevant Twitter group, t(136) = 2.453, p = .015, Cohens d = 0.86.
Discussion
The primary goal of the current study was to expand our understanding of the influence
of student mobile phone usage on student learning and note-taking. This was
accomplished by examining the roles that message content and creation play in this
process, as well as the role that message frequency plays. Several past studies provide
evidence not only that students use their mobile devices in class but also that this
behavior negatively impacts student learning in a variety of ways (Kraushaar & Novak,
2010; Wei et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2012). To expand on our past understanding of
student mobile phone usage on student learning and note-taking, we posed three sets of
hypotheses, with each hypothesis focused on a test of learning or note-taking.
Perhaps the primary question this study sought to answer was if message relevance
(either related or unrelated to lecture content), would impact student learning or notetaking. We proposed that groups interacting with relevant content would score higher
than groups interacting with irrelevant content. To that end, we found that, on all three
tests of student learning and note-taking, the relevant texting group scored on par with
the control group, and this was the case for both the low- and high-distraction relevant
texting groups. To a lesser extent, we found roughly the same finding with the relevant
Twitter group; however, significant differences were found. For instance, the control
and low-distraction relevant texting group scored, respectively 65% and 53% higher on
their notes than the high-distraction relevant Twitter group. Overall, messages that
focus on lecture content, which includes both responding to and creating messages, did
not seem to have any significant, negative impacts on multiple-choice or free-recall

360

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

scores; however, when students were frequently sending tweets, even tweets related to
lecture content, they ended up taking lower quality notes.
One way of interpreting our results is by examining the multiple-choice test scores
as students would view them, in terms of letter grade. The control group scored the
equivalent of one letter grade higher on the multiple-choice test (63%) than the
irrelevant texting group (53%), roughly in line with Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013)
finding. However, the more substantial finding was the relevant texting group (67%),
which differed significantly on the multiple-choice test from all of the remaining
groups: relevant Twitter (57%), irrelevant texting (53%), and irrelevant Twitter (56%).
In other words, those students responding to messages related to lecture content
scored 1014% points higher on the multiple-choice test than those students who
replied to irrelevant messages or created tweets that were related or unrelated to the
lecture. When message frequency (low- or high-distraction) was included, we found
that high-distracting irrelevant messages resulted in up to a 17% lower letter grade on
the multiple-choice test; however, high-distraction relevant messages did not appear
to negatively impact scores. In other words, sending or receiving relevant messages
may allow students to engage in similar processes as those that occur during notetaking. Specifically, relevant messages may allow students to encode lecture content in
a manner similar to the processes that occur during note-taking (Peverly et al., 2013).
These relevant messages may aid in recall during tests or, put another way, be less
detrimental to recall than when students engage in sending or receiving irrelevant
messages.
What this study has found is a fairly consistent trend: responding to relevant
messages or creating relevant tweets did not appear to harm learning or recall, and
was only detrimental to note-taking when done at a high frequency. This finding
helps to fill a gap in research identified by past scholars (Kuznekoff & Titsworth,
2013), particularly the role that message relevance plays in influencing learning and
note-taking. If the act of using mobile phones was itself distracting, and presumably
detrimental to learning, we would see all groups that used mobile devices having
lower scores, which we did not find. Instead, it was irrelevant messages or irrelevant
tweets that had negative effects on learning and note-taking, and this negative effect
was even more detrimental in the groups frequently engaged in unrelated messages
(i.e., high-distraction).
We know that when taking notes, students are engaged in several activities or
tapping into several different skill sets in order to process the information contained
in a lecture (Peverly et al., 2013). Irrelevant content in general, and high-distracting
irrelevant content specifically, interferes with external storage (Di Vesta & Gray,
1972) by decreasing the quality of notes that students take. Irrelevant content also
appears to detract from the encoding process, which allows students to actively
process information to be recalled later on (Kiewra et al., 1991). This likely has to do
with working memory, which Peverly et al. (2013) note is a limited resource. When
engaged in irrelevant messaging, particularly when done frequently, students are
unable to fully process lecture content, select important content to process in working

Communication Education 361

memory, write down that information in the form of notes (external storage), and
encode that information in a meaningful way (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972).
Practical Suggestions
Collectively, our results provide several important points for faculty to consider as
they face the challenge of students using their mobile devices in the college classroom.
First, we would caution against rushing to integrate texting and Twitter into the
classroom. Even relevant Twitter messages, particularly high-distraction relevant
Twitter, resulted in reductions in students scores on note-taking. While having
students send out tweets related to course content might improve student engagement
(Tyma, 2011), doing so too frequently may have adverse effects on student note-taking,
which we know can be helpful for students to review prior to tests or exams (Kiewra,
1985). One solution to this problem is to provide students with a break in the lecture or
class, with this break being used for message composition. This break would allow
students to focus their attention on composing or responding to relevant messages on
their devices, without the added task of listening to the instructor and taking notes.
In the case of the current study, the relevant texting group consistently outperformed
other groups on the multiple-choice test, free-recall test, and in the quality of students
notes. It appears as though interacting with unrelated lecture content on a mobile
device, while class lecture is occurring, may be too cognitively taxing on students
and competes for their attention. While in the classroom, students are trying to
pay attention to the instructor, listen to what she or he is saying, remember
that information, decide what information to encode in their notes, and to dedicate
that information to short or long-term memory (Mayer, 1996). This process is mentally
taxing, and irrelevant texting, irrelevant Twitter messages, and, to a lesser extent,
relevant Twitter messages make this process difficult to engage in properly, resulting in
decreases in student learning, recall, and note-taking. However, instructors should
exercise caution when interpreting our results, and should carefully consider the degree
to which our experiment applies to their particular classroom. In our study, students
were asked to respond to each message, as they were received, on their mobile device,
and this behavior may not fully represent how all students engage in mobile messaging
while in class.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The present study certainly has several limitations and implications for future
research. First, the study used the same video lecture as Kuznekoff and Titsworth
(2013). Although both studies indicate that students learned from this lecture, future
studies could develop a new sample lecture, on a different topic, to ensure that the
particular video is not confounding results. We would also recommend that future
studies develop different simulated messages that appropriately connect with a new
lecture video. During data collection, we noticed that some students may have
stopped responding to each message, and after data collection had been completed,
we found that this occurred for a couple students. That being said, this did not appear

362

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

to be a systematic problem; however, future studies should attempt to increase sample

size and weed out those students not fully engaging in the experimental conditions or
include a new group that responds to messages at their choosing.
Perhaps the most significant limitation of this study is one of the general limitations
of research using experimental design. In our case, we attempted to carefully control
for as many variables as possible, in order to ensure that differences we did detect were
due to the manipulations we used and not outside factors. In this case, using an
experimental design was certainly appropriate; however, experimental research does
not always completely reflect the natural environment in which behaviors being studied
are taking place. In the college classroom, students use their mobile devices in several
different ways, and our study is not meant to replicate the variety of ways in which
students and faculty use mobile devices in the college classroom.
In the case of our study, we asked students in several of the experimental groups to
use their devices quite frequently during the simulated lecture. However, in actual
class settings students may elect to avoid using their mobile devices or to engage in
mobile phone behaviors at a lower frequency than what we used in our experiment.
For example, students may wait until a lull in class before responding to messages.
Thus, readers should carefully consider the degree to which our study and findings
may apply to the use of mobile devices in their respective classrooms.
In terms of directions for future research, we offer several suggestions. As noted
previously, the experimental design we used was appropriate for this study; however,
future research should expand to include data collection from a more naturalistic
setting. For instance, future research could include a group of students who are
instructed to use their mobile phones as they normally would during class. Such a
group may reflect an important behavior related to mobile phone usage in class, the
element of choice when it comes to when to respond to a message. In addition, future
studies should include classroom settings beyond the standard lecture. As new
approaches to the classroom (i.e., flipped classroom) become more prevalent, our
approach to research should adapt to include these new approaches in study design.
Furthermore, replication studies should be conducted to examine if our findings can
be replicated in other settings.
Perhaps the most important suggestion is to extend current research by examining
the effects of mobile phone usage in class on long-term student learning. Our current
study is primarily situated on short-term learning and recall; however, research
exploring the effects of texting during class on student learning over the long-term is
certainly needed. From our study, we could propose that lower-quality notes may
impact students ability to study for exams; however, this was certainly not included
in our research.
Lastly, our study assumes that students, by the time they reach college, know how
to take notes. One perspective is that this is a learned activity that occurs during
secondary school, and that students essentially bring these learned note-taking
behaviors with them to college. However, our research tends to support the finding
that students lack effective note-taking skills (Kiewra, 1985; Peverly et al., 2013;

Communication Education 363

Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004) and future studies may benefit from exploring note-taking
instruction and the effects this instruction may have on student learning.
Conclusion
The primary objective of this study was to extend our understanding of the impact of
mobile phone use, during class lecture, on student learning. This was accomplished
by manipulating message content, related or unrelated to a lecture, and whether
students were asked to simply respond to a message or create an original message. Our
study found that students who abstained from using their mobile devices, or engaged in
class relevant texting, earned a 1017% higher percentage grade on a multiple-choice
test, scored 5370% higher on information recall, and scored 5158% higher on notetaking, than those groups engaged in Twitter and irrelevant texting. All told, the control
group and relevant texting group consistently demonstrated superior note-taking
and recall than the other groups. The findings from our study reinforce, and extend,
those of other studies, and provide clear evidence that frequent messaging unrelated
to class content interferes with student learning while in class; however, relevant
messaging does not appear to negatively impact student learning. Although faculty
will continue to face the challenge of students using their mobile devices while in class,
it does appear that appropriately integrating the use of these devices into class may
help student learning.
ORCID
Jeffrey Kuznekoff

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1740-1180

References
Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2014). Digital life in 2025: Experts predict the Internet will become like
electricity-less visible, yet more deeply embedded in peoples lives for good and ill. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org
Blessing, S. B., Blessing, J. S., & Fleck, B. K. B. (2012). Using Twitter to reinforce classroom
concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 268271. doi:10.1177/0098628312461484
Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating, and
classroom policies. Communication Education, 55, 280294. doi:10.1080/03634520600748573
Curzan, A. (2014, August 25). Why Im asking you not to use laptops. Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/blogs/linguafanca/2014/08/25/why-im-asking-you-not-to-use-laptops/
Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology,
63, 814.
Duggan, M., & Rainie, L. (2012). Cell phone activities 2012. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org
Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2013). Social media update 2013: 42% of online adults use multiple social
networking sites, but Facebook remains the platform of choice. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org
Facebook, Inc. (2014). Key facts. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com
Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Teacher power mediates the effects of technology policies on
teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62, 2647. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.725132

364

J. H. Kuznekoff et al.

Ishii, K. (2006). Implications of mobility: The uses of personal communication media in everyday
life. Journal of Communication, 56, 346365. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00023.x
Junco, R., & Cotton, S. R. (2012). No a 4 u: The relationship between multitasking and academic
performance. Computers & Education, 59, 505514. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Students note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructors
notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378386. doi:10.1016/0361-476X
(85)90034-7
Kiewra, K., DuBois, N., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991).
Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240245.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240
Kiewra, K. A., & Frank, B. M. (1988). Encoding and external-storage effects of personal lecture
notes, skeletal notes, and detailed notes for field-independent and field-dependent learners.
The Journal of Educational Research, 81, 143148.
Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement
through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26, 459477. doi:10.
1080/01443410500342070
Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the affects of student multitasking with laptops
during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21, 241251.
Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning.
Communication Education, 62, 233252. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.767917
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics, 33, 159174. doi:10.2307/2529310
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational
psychologys second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31, 151161. doi:10.1207/s153269
85ep3103&4_1
McArthur, J. A., & Bostedo-Conway, K. (2012). Exploring the relationship between studentinstructor interaction on Twitter and student perceptions of teacher behaviors. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24, 286292.
McCoy, B. R. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom use of digital devices
for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4, 514.
Parcha, J. M. (2014). Accommodating Twitter: Communication accommodation theory and classroom
interactions. Communication Teacher, 28, 229235. doi:10.1080/17404622.2014.939671
Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J. F., Johnson, K. R., & Ramsay, C. M.
(2013). The relationship between handwriting speed, working memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and test-taking among college students. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115126. doi:10.1002/acp.2881
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). Part III: Bringing technology into the
classroom. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org
Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in
note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 136143.
Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, M., & Cheever, N. A. (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, 163177. doi:10.
5093/ed2011v17n2a4
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning
for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 2431. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
2012.10.003
Smith, A. (2011). Americans and text messaging: 31% of text message users prefer texting to voice
calls, and young adults stand out in their use of text messaging. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org

Communication Education 365

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, 19. doi:10.1080/
87567555.2011.604802
Titsworth, B. S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and
students notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283297.
doi:10.1080/03634520109379256
Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student note-taking
as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447461.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.12.001
Twitter, Inc. (2014). About Twitter, inc. Retrieved from http://about.twitter.com
Tyma, A. (2011). Connecting with what is out there!: Using Twitter in the large lecture.
Communication Teacher, 25, 175181. doi:10.1080/17404622.2011.579911
Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Wei, F. F., Wang, Y. K., & Klausner, M. (2012). Rethinking college students self-regulation and
sustained attention: Does text messaging during class influence cognitive learning?
Communication Education, 61, 185204. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.672755
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining
the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning.
Computers & Education, 58, 365374. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029