Abstract
Text messaging, used by people of all ages, has become the preferred method of communication for teenagers. Teens spend a significant amount of their daytime hours in school. Schools have not readily accepted the use of cell phone technology for fear of academic dishonesty, distraction, and cyberbullying. The current study examined adolescent (n = 218) attitudes concerning text messaging in school. The majority of adolescents (71%) supported text messaging in school. A phenomenological qualitative approach revealed that adolescents’ experience with texting and school centers on student attention, connection (with family, friends, and emergency responders), and levels of regulation (personal, circumstantial, and school).
Texting, one of the most common reasons for cell phone use (Madell & Muncer, 2004), is recognized as the preferred method for communication among American teenagers (Lenhart, 2010). Cell phone use, particularly texting, places adolescents in a position to remain connected with their social networks (i.e., family and friends) at all times (Blair & Fletcher, 2011). Texting facilitates opportunities for immediate contact and connection between people (Brown & Bobkowski, 2011), increases perceptions of safety for parents and teens (Lenhart, 2010), and functions as an important part of day-to-day activities for most teens (Blair & Fletcher, 2011). Unfortunately for teens, in school, where they spend the largest block of time each day, cell phones are not comfortably integrated. School boards and administrators have taken the lead in creating rules and restrictions associated with cell phone technology (Diamantes, 2010); however, to date, the teens who are recognized as technology experts and technology educators (Vaterlaus & Tulane, in press) have not been consulted concerning the role texting should play or currently plays in school settings.
Adolescent Texting and Connection
Texting provides individuals the opportunity for connections with others both day and night (Brown & Bobkowski, 2011). For example, some teens send “good night” text messages to their friends before retiring for the evening (Srivastava, 2005). Not only do adolescents feel connected, but texting is redefining adolescent social networks (Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood, 2006). Individuals who prefer texting over talking report forming close social circles and interconnections with friends (Reid & Reid, 2004). Adolescents use texting to make and maintain friendships, meet others, and build romantic relationships (Cupples & Thompson, 2010). They also use text messaging to arrange face-to-face interactions (Thompson & Cupples, 2008), to express emotion (Srivastava, 2005), and simply as a means of coping with boredom (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004).
Adolescents indicate that texting is sometimes a less risky way to get to know someone when compared with a face-to-face conversation (Cupples & Thompson, 2010). Individuals feel they have more control over their communication through texting (Madell & Muncer, 2007) and feel they have more time to think when sending important or emotional messages due to the asynchronous communication associated with texting (Harley, Winn, Pemberton, & Wilcox, 2007). Indeed, texting is seamlessly becoming a part of adolescent social life (Bryant et al., 2006).
Texting is also changing parent–child communication. Parents use texting to remain connected with their children. In fact, 98% of American parents whose children have cell phones cite the desire to be “in touch” as the principal reason their children have a phone (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010) and often request that their children text to let them know where they are and what they are doing (S. Williams & Williams, 2005). Blair and Fletcher (2011) found that participants in their study did not report that cell phones were used for parental intrusion, but rather were used to increase adolescent autonomy while providing opportunities for parental connectivity.
Interestingly, a youth culture is developing around text messaging. Many adolescents perceive that adults are generally unaware of this emerging phenomenon or at least do not necessarily understand its role in youth culture (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004; Tulane, 2012). In fact, Ling (2010) has found that texting seems to be more a life phase phenomenon and not a cohort effect. This is why it is important to study adolescents during their high school years when text messaging behaviors are at a peak. Adolescents in high school are more likely to possess cell phones than younger adolescents (Lenhart et al., 2010). They are also more likely to text message more frequently than are younger adolescents. The majority of teens who text are texting friends daily, and half of teens say they text their parents daily (Lenhart et al., 2010).
Texting and Safety
Early cell phone research using college samples found that many students chose to use cell phones for safety reasons (Aoki & Downes, 2003). Parents have even said they feel safer knowing they can get in touch with their children through their cell phones (S. Williams & L. Williams, 2005). Parents indicate that there is safety for their children through connections with both family and friends through cell phone use (Lenhart, 2010). In a survey of 1,000 parents with teenagers between the ages 12 and 17, Mullen (2006) found that 99% of the parents preferred cell phones be allowed in schools for safety and emergency purposes. Parents often viewed cell phones as a necessary requirement for safety (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004). Females more often report feeling safer when they have a cell phone with them than do males (Walsh, White, & Young, 2008).
One of the major conundrums facing adults is this desire for parents to remain connected and in contact with their children, coupled with a need to maintain order during school hours. Administrators and teachers are both concerned about texting impacting classroom discipline, including addressing students that openly text in defiance of classroom policy (Srivastava, 2005). Adolescent perceptions of texting in school have yet to be explored in the literature.
Texting and School
As text messaging becomes a part of adolescent daily living, many adults are expressing concerns over the impact texting is having on various aspects of adolescent life. For example, some adults view texting as a waste of time (Cupples & Thompson, 2010). There is a particular concern about cell phone use during school, especially considering adolescents spend more time in school than any other setting outside of the home (Eccles & Roeser, 2009).
Although there is less research covering texting in school specifically, researchers have examined cell phone use in schools. Humble-Thaden (2011) conducted a study using 142 college freshmen, asking them to reflect on their high school experience with cell phone policy, and how cell phones might be used to enhance the educational experience. The participants indicated positive perceptions of the potential use of cell phones as educational tools. Humble-Thaden (2011) suggested that actual high school student perceptions should be examined concerning cell phones.
There are a number of specific concerns administrators and parents face in regards to texting in school, such as cyberbullying, poor academic performance, and academic integrity violations. Administrators, parents, and students face concerns of cyberbullying (via text or other medium) occurring during school hours or affecting the school process. For example, Allen (2012) found that high school staff and students reported that texting leads to “drama” (potentially conflictual social interaction regarding trivial issues, yet characterized by high emotion), and both have the potential to lead to bullying.
There is the additional concern of cell phone use in relation to academic performance. Using a sample of undergraduate university students, Harman and Sato (2011) found that texting was more frequently associated with a lower grade point average. Furthermore, Froese and colleagues (2012) found that college students performed more poorly on a quiz when they were texting during the quiz administration compared with when they were not texting. Some students have also used cell phones to cheat during school, challenging academic integrity. Cheating has resulted in some school districts placing restrictions on school cell phone use and other school districts have imposed bans on cell phones (Diamantes, 2010).
Interestingly, many parents prefer they regulate their teen’s cell phone use rather than having schools regulate cell phone use (Mullen, 2006). Currently, policies on cell phone use not only vary from school to school but also from teacher to teacher (Lenhart et al., 2010). Although there are restrictions associated with cell phones in schools, teens still report texting frequently during school hours (Lenhart, 2010). Sometimesthe school policy in place affects the amount of texting. For example, teens in schools that ban cell phones are less likely to text during the school day than are teens who attend schools with milder cell phone restrictions. The issue is complicated further when some teens report that their teachers use their own cell phones during class (Lenhart et al., 2010).
With increased access to cell phones and text messaging, learning opportunities and classroom connection using said technology are emerging. Smart phones now function as learning tools in the classroom (A. J. Williams & Pence, 2011), and some high school teachers employ the use of text messaging to disseminate course information (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). Applications, such as in-class polling systems, for smart phones are also available to increase student engagement (Vaterlaus, Beckert, Fauth, & Teemant, 2012).
Some teens view text messaging as a more personal and private form of communication than a phone call (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004). As a private form of communication, texting is being compared with the more traditional note passing. In fact, sometimes adolescents text others who are in the same room or are in a close proximity introducing an advanced style of note passing (Lenhart et al., 2010). Often, adolescents keep their phones on silent or vibrate in an attempt to make texting unseen and unheard by adults, or because the situation is not one in which they can make noise (Thompson & Cupples, 2008). Like note passing, texting can be conceptualized as a distraction from education and possibly be perceived as disrespectful. Wei and Wang (2010) proposed that perhaps texting during class may be a reflection of a habitual behavior, rather than a reflection of a teacher’s ability to engage students.
Texting has become a functional medium that may move beyond social messaging and improve school engagement. Harley and colleagues (2007) found that university students use texting to maintain contact with family members and for practical issues such as checking and understanding school requirements. Consistent with findings from university students, adolescent texting is not limited to social purposes, but is also used to find out information about schoolwork (Lenhart, 2010).
A number of researchers have examined the impacts of texting on various components of daily living, but most have focused on college samples. Yet, college-aged students and high school students have different rates of use, and different purposes for using text messaging (Tulane & Beckert, 2013). Researchers note that high school student perceptions are important to further understanding cell phone use in school (Humble-Thaden, 2011). As mentioned previously, high school aged adolescents are those who are most likely to be using this medium, and it is a phenomenon that is impacting the daily life of this particular age group. While parents and other adults have had ample opportunity to express concerns over adolescent text messaging behaviors in school contexts, adolescents have not yet had a voice about their texting in school settings. The purpose of this exploratory study was to understand texting regulation and policy in the school atmosphere (e.g., the experience of allowing or not allowing texting during the school day) from the adolescent perspective.
Method
Procedure
To understand texting during the school day from an adolescent perspective, the project was proposed to and supported by school administrators at an inner-city high school located in a western state. The school district requested the study be conducted in a manner that would not impede instruction time. An online survey format was chosen for this study to reach the maximum number of students with the least amount of disturbance to the school day. Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, data were gathered from high school students at two different points during a school year, once during fall semester and once during spring semester. Two weeks prior to survey administration, parents of high school students were given participation declination forms. No forms were returned. On the day of survey administration, students were directed to a website with a link to the survey. Students completed surveys during computer classes, in which students had access to the Internet for the surveys. The first page of the survey was an informed consent form. All students who were capable completed the survey.
The computer classes were chosen because the school required students complete a course in computer literacy. Because the courses were required, there is less chance the results are an effect of a student’s proclivity toward technology. Students were given 20 minutes at the beginning of the class to complete the survey. Students were asked demographic questions, followed by questions identifying cell phone ownership, texting abilities, and finally by cell phone and texting opinions and behaviors. Because students typed their responses, response length varied from a few sentences to several paragraphs.
Because this was an exploratory study, a purposive sampling procedure was implemented. Adolescents now report that texting is their most frequent mode of communication (Lenhart et al., 2010) and to gather baseline knowledge in the area of texting and school we sought experiences from students who did engage in texting. Thus, only students who had texting capabilities were included in the final sample.
Sample
In this sample (n = 218), the majority of adolescents were seniors (52.8%), followed by juniors (28.2%), and sophomores (19%). The sample was composed of both female (51.8%) and male (47.9%) participants. The sample was primarily Caucasian (50.2%) and Latino (37.3%), with African American (3.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander participants (2.3%), and participants who self-identified as “Other” (6.4%). Participants self-identified their perceived level of texting. The majority self-identified as being medium texters (54.2%), followed by heavy texters (25.5%), and then light texters (20.4%).
Research Question
This study focused specifically on student responses to perceptions of texting in school. First, a yes/no question was asked whether students believed texting should be allowed in school. Of those participants who could text, 155 (71.1%) said yes—texting should be allowed in schools, and 61 (28.0%) reported that texting should not be allowed in schools. Two participants did not answer the question and were excluded from further analysis. Students were then asked a follow-up open-ended question in which they were encouraged to expound upon why or why they did not believe texting should be allowed in schools.
Design
Qualitative analysis
A phenomenological qualitative research design was used to discover adolescents’ perceptions of text messaging in schools. The strength of a phenomenological research question rests on the questions ability to explicate lived experiences that are distinct from theoretical explanation (Colaizzi, 1978). There is newness to texting with advances in technology and increased access for adolescents. The purpose of a phenomenological study is to identify the lived experiences of several people who have experienced a specific phenomenon (Creswell, 2007) or an “object” of human experience (van Manen, 1990). After determining the phenomenon of interest, researchers focus on the individual experiences of several people with the phenomenon so as to identify what the participants have in common when they experience the phenomenon (van Manen, 1990).
Analyses
van Manen (1984) proposed two phenomenological processes for data analysis that were used in this project. The first process, the highlighting approach, required that the manuscripts be read through several times. Participant statements that were especially revealing about their experience with the phenomenon were highlighted. The line-by-line approach, the second process, involved examining every sentence in an attempt to understand how it related to the lived experience. van Manen (1984) recommended that both approaches be used together to bring light to common themes among the participants’ experience.
Two independent coders used both of van Manen’s (1984) methods by reading and re-reading the transcripts from the student responses. The line-by-line approach identified regularities and commonalities among the students’ experiences. van Manen (1990) indicated that phenomenology involves providing a description, but also involves an interpretive process. This interpretive process manifested when the researchers collaboratively developed and labeled themes for the identified common experience. Once themes were identified, the transcripts were independently coded by the two researchers. Agreement between the coders was 91.5%, indicating high inter-coder agreement (Patton, 2002). Disagreements were resolved by returning to the participants’ words and developing consensus about which of the categories best represented their experiences.
A variation of member checking was used to increase the validity of the qualitative results (Vaterlaus, Bradford, Skogrand, & Higginbotham, 2012). A few adolescents were invited to participate in member checking. Because of restraints placed by the district, the sample was not available to contact for member checking. One male and one female adolescent from the same geographic region with similar characteristics to the sample were selected. They were given the qualitative results and asked a series of questions to verify that the results reflected their perceptions of texting in school. Both participants agreed fully that the results presented in this research reflect the adolescent experience of texting in school for this particular sample.
Results
Students described their perceptions of the allowance of texting in schools. Three major themes emerged from their responses concerning this phenomenon. First, participants articulated their thoughts about the influence of text messaging on student attention in school. However, different perspectives emerged concerning the influence that text messaging had on student attention. Second, students explained how text messaging allowed for connection with relational figures (e.g., parents, friends) and served as a connection to the outside world in cases of emergency. Participants commonly described how connection with these individuals and potential emergency situations superseded school policy. Finally, students considered multiple levels of regulation of texting in the school system: personal regulation, circumstantial regulation, and school regulation.
Attention
Participants collectively communicated about the influence of text messaging on student’s ability to attend to school activities. “Student attention” was the common thread that tied the participants’ experience together, but two distinct subthemes emerged in the way participants thought about text messaging and student attention. The broad consensus among students was that text messaging was too disruptive to the learning process to be allowed in the classroom. However, several students expressed that text messaging was misunderstood in terms of student attention because there are many things that go on in a classroom that prove to be distracting. Text messaging was presented as far less distracting than many other classroom behaviors.
Distraction
The majority of students reported text messaging as a major distracter in the learning process. Participants illuminated several concerns about the distractibility of texting. For some, the concerns over text messaging in class had to do with the greater purposes of schooling, such as completing educational requirements. One participant was straightforward with her feelings, explaining that texting does not belong in the classroom because “ . . . you’re here to learn.”
Many students reflected these sentiments, discussing the consequences of allowing text messaging in a classroom. These same students thought, from personal experience, that text messaging has the potential to take them mentally away from their studies. One participant shared his experience of texting in the classroom. He reported, “It is totally a distraction. Even though some fail to admit that, it is. I know and can admit that I sometimes get distracted with texting.” Affirming this position one student shared, “Texting distracts students from doing their work, even me. It takes our minds off of what we are learning.” Another participant wrote this when reflecting on the distractible nature of text messaging, “There are way too many distractions that come from texting. If everyone is allowed to [text] then no one will pay attention or get their work done.”
For some students, their concerns over distractibility were related to the disrespectful nature of the situation, and ignorance to education in order to enhance social status. One participant explained, “I believe that texting is distracting in class and it is disrespectful to the students around you as well as the teacher.” Echoing this shared sentiment, another student explained,
If texting is not allowed, teachers have more of the students’ attention and are able to teach them. If every other student was allowed to have their phone out to text anyone on their contact list, then they would be getting an A in their social lives, but an F in school.
Misunderstood
Many students explained that the use of text messaging during school is misunderstood. Some students explained that texting was not distracting at all. Other students discussed other behaviors that, for them, are far more distracting than texting. For example, one student expressed, “Believe it or not, texting does not distract students as much as people think it does. What distracts [us] in class is our own friends.” One student provided further examples of behaviors that are more distracting than texting:
If I’m being disruptive and distracting my classmates, that’s one thing, but I’m not going to pay attention anyways, so why not be doing something a little more productive than drawing on a piece of paper? Writing a note takes double the time and passing it is even more disruptive.
Building on this thought, one student pointed out the repercussions for such behaviors as note passing are non-existent. She observed,
I think that if the student is caught up and has good grades that they shouldn’t be penalized for texting in class because it is the same pretty much as passing a note, and no one really gets in trouble for that anymore, so why not?!
Furthermore, some students thought that by using text messaging, they avoided distracting their classmates. One student asserted, “It allows people to communicate without distracting someone with a loud conversation.” Other students provided a shared perspective, that through texting in class they were allowed to communicate and foster relationships, they could talk to their friends and not get in trouble, and they were able to pass time when they had completed their work in a non-disruptive manner.
Connection
Students saw text messaging as an enjoyable opportunity to stay connected. Participants presented multiple relationship scenarios that required ongoing and continual connection, regardless of school policy. For example, one student shared, “Sometimes people really need to use their phones in class, whether the faculty like it or not. Sometimes we need information from someone during school that has to do with more important things than whatever class we are in.” Students explained that texting during school could facilitate connection in two ways: (a) connection with family members and (b) connection with friends.
Connection with family members
Most students who emphasized the importance of connection wanted to maintain contact with family members. For them, having the ability to text a family member was necessary, important, and many expressed the view that it was their right. For example, one student declared, “if my parents or family members text me, I should be able to give them a response without my teachers getting on my case.” Others indicated that connection with family members was particularly important in the instance of emergency.
Students also thought that texting was a way to remain connected with their families in a non-disruptive manner. One student explained, “There might be something that happened in your family and you can’t answer your phone, so they text.” Another pointed out the ease of communication of texting, and that using school phones requires a student to leave class. He noted, “Parents have cell phones, and if we need to ask them something, we can text them fast instead of calling them from the school’s phones.”
Students described texting as a way to relay and receive information from family members. One student argued that text messaging should be allowed in classes because, “ . . . you need to tell your mom something important, but you’re in class and can’t talk out loud.” A participant wrote this when describing his peers’ purposes for texting in class, “ . . . [they] are texting family members who are trying to tell them to do something that day.” For others, they chose to text during class to obtain information about family members. One student explained, “Once in a while I text my parents, because my mom has been sick.”
In addition to general family connection, some students emphasized the importance of needing texting to connect with family during instances of emergency. One student described, “If you have an emergency, then you can text someone and tell them. Or if someone in your family is having an emergency, then they can get a hold of you.” For these students, there was a close connection between emergency situations and the right to text parents. Participants used words such as “dangerous” to describe a situation where text messaging and cell phones are not allowed in schools. Students thought there was an inherent right to text family members in the face of emergency. Many students used the words such as “need,” “must,” and “important” to explain how they thought about texting in emergency situations. One student described feeling indignant that schools have cell phone policies with potential to waylay communication in the event of an emergency. She pointed out, “What if there was an emergency and you need to use your phone? And your school doesn’t let you use it! That’s unfair.”
Other students expressed the need for discretion in some emergencies. For them, texting was a way to not notify others of potentially embarrassing emergencies. One student expressed,
Sometimes you need to contact your parents immediately for some important things, such as hygiene, and you don’t have time and you don’t want people to know. So I feel it would be better if you could pop out your phone and text.
Friendship connection
Students mentioned the importance of maintaining contact with friends during the school day. Students thought that texting was a great communication device to maintain relationships and share information. One student offered, “It is a good way to talk to your friends and to get information that you might need later.” Another student explained that she texts during class because, “I need something from a friend.” In addition, participants described texting as an effective way to get in touch with friends at school.
Regulation
Participants commonly shared information about text messaging during school in terms of regulation. Regulation was thought about from several standpoints among the participants. Students reported about their own ability and capacity to regulate their texting behaviors, the need for some situational guidelines, the lack of regulation with existing school policies, and the need for administrators to do better at enforcing current cell phone policies.
Self-regulation
Many students thought that they had the ability to control themselves and determine when texting should and should not be part of their school day. One student emphasized the following point:
Texting should be allowed in school because I work better when I talk to people who are important to me. They can help me with my homework. It should be the responsibility of oneself to control whether to text or get work done. If that can be accomplished, then everyone should be allowed to text or talk on the phone in class.
Students described self-regulation in terms of age, maturity, and priorities. One participant asserted, “People should be mature about what they are texting and if people are not paying attention, then let them fail. Why bother fixing their mistakes? It’s high school—pretty sure they should know what to do.” Another student added, “As long as you are texting and paying attention, I believe it is okay. If a student wants to pay attention, then they won’t text.” One participant continued with this line of thought when he noted,
If students cared about school, they would quickly learn when the appropriate time is to put the phone away and focus on learning. It’s usually on the dumb kids that are going to drop anyways that have their phones getting taken away in class.
Circumstantial regulation
Other students, reflecting on regulation thought there should be “rules” concerning when texting is acceptable at school and when it is not. Participants consistently agreed that texting should not be used during testing, should be allowed after coursework was complete, during free time and lunch, and between classes. Some were vague with their ideas for regulation, just suggesting that there should be “some.”
In the classroom, many students recognized the need to avoid texting during testing periods. One student reasoned, “[Texting] shouldn’t be allowed in some cases. Obviously when there are tests or important assignments.” Many students expressed the same thought that testing and assignments were both times during which text messaging should not be used.
Some thought that texting should be allowed as a reward for merit, or allowed when work was complete. One student advised, “[Texting] should be allowed only to those who get their work done and have good grades.” Many students expressed similar ideas. One participant stated, “When we are done with our schoolwork, we should be allowed to text if we are sitting quietly.” Another student supposed, “If an assignment is assigned, is being done, then a short break for one text shouldn’t be a problem.”
In addition, students suggested free time during the day was the best time to be allowed to text. One participant wrote, “Only during lunch or after school.” Another student shared, “Only during passing periods or lunch, not during class time.”
Administrative regulation
Of all students surveyed, only one stated, “I think that teachers should enforce ‘no texting in class’ more strictly.” The majority of students who addressed administrative regulation proposed that the administration should recognize that texting is a behavior that is going to happen regardless of school policy, so it may as well be allowed. For example, one student exclaimed, “Everybody texts regardless of rules and regulations. There is no point in banning phones or texting.” One of the most common questions posed by students when talking about school administration allowing texting was, “Why not?”
Some students thought the administration could solve texting problems by allowing texting in school. One student advised, “I feel that more people would quit using phones just because they can [use their phones]. Teenagers are typically defiant and they do the opposite of what adults tell them to do.” Another participant explained, “If you don’t allow it, people will just text to break the rules or brag if they haven’t been caught.”
The majority of the students who addressed current school policy shared how liberating it would be to be allowed to text in school. They thought that if they were allowed, it would be much simpler than “hiding” it. One student queried, “Students do it anyway. Why should students have to go behind ‘backs’ to text people?” Another student touted, “We’re going to do it either with consent or no consent, so teachers should just calm down about it.”
Discussion
Adults often express concerns about adolescent text messaging behaviors. The purpose of this study was to give voice to adolescents and their experience with texting in school situations. Phenomenology was a necessary data analysis technique for these data because adolescents presented their lived experience and opinion, and those experiences sometimes were at odds. For example, some students felt texting was distracting, and others felt that texting in school was simply misunderstood—not distracting at all. Some felt that they had the ability to regulate their own texting in the classroom, and others felt that there should be external regulations. There appears to be conflict among adolescents regarding what is best in terms of texting in the classroom, and understandably so as adolescents have different lived experiences. Despite the differences identified within the themes, the phenomenological analysis identified that attention, connection, and regulation are the major areas of adolescent concern when discussing texting during the school day.
Attention
Adolescents were quick to note the distractible elements of texting in the classroom. Along with distractibility, students agreed with Lenhart and colleagues’ (2010) proposition by collectively talking about texting as an advanced form of note passing. While there are some distractions associated with texting, students pointed out that texting was not nearly as disruptive as actually physically writing a note on a piece of paper and then passing it during class. This quiet and private form of communication has potential to be less disruptive to the education process than do other forms of communication adolescents could employ in a high school classroom.
For some students, the distractibility of text messaging was misunderstood—perhaps a concern stemming from adults rather than from adolescent experience. Past research has shown that there is a youth culture surrounding texting that seems to be invisible to adults (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004). The generational difference in the culture of texting is evident in previous research. For example, Srivastava (2005) indicated that some adults perceived texting to be a waste of time. However, students in this study indicated that texting could aid in coursework, be a reward for completing assignments, aid in maintaining connection with family and friends, and serve as an effective tool during personal crisis or larger emergency.
Students indicated that they understood the concerns associated with texting during the school day but they also stated that there could be a place for texting during school. This was evident as they communicated about the appropriate times for texting in school and appropriate purposes (e.g., connection with family and friends and safety). Several participants indicated that the students who misuse texting already lack commitment to their education; texting, from their view, is not the cause of the problem.
Connection
Researchers have established that adolescents enjoy texting because of the connections they can maintain at all hours (Brown & Bobkowski, 2011). Similar to past research, the participants who want to remain connected with their social networks are using text messaging to form and maintain friendships (Cupples & Thompson, 2010), even during school hours.
Interwoven with this sample’s daily experience of connection is the idea that texting provides an option for safety because it facilitated connection between adolescents and their parents during emergency situations. Safety at school has become a salient topic as the words “school” and “shooting” have tragically become commonplace in the same sentence. S. Williams and Williams (2005) found that parents reported feeling safer when they knew they could get in touch with their children through cell phones. Similarly, adolescents’ responses echoed this same sentiment with texting. Adolescents collectively stated that they should be able to get in contact with their family members through texting in case of emergency. There seemed to be a sense of injustice at the idea that administrators could control parent–child communication in an emergency situation.
Regulation
Regulations on cell phones vary across districts, schools, and even classrooms. Some school districts place restrictions, whereas others impose complete bans on cell phones in the school setting (Diamantes, 2010). The students in this study recognized regulation on multiple levels. Some recognized the importance of personal regulation, whereas others felt there should be certain circumstances in which texting should not be allowed and others in which texting would not be a hindrance to the education process. This, again, demonstrates the importance of examining the lived experience of adolescents. The experience of text messaging in school differs on an individual level, with some feeling they have the self-control necessary to regulate their classroom behaviors and others feeling external regulation would be best.
Regardless of who is regulating in-school text messaging, similar to past research, students reported that texting is occurring during school hours (Lenhart et al., 2010). In this particular sample, 82.3% of the participants indicated that they had used their cell phones in class without their teacher being aware of the cell phone use. With this finding in mind, it would make sense that the majority of the students in this sample felt administrators should recognize that texting is going to happen in a school situation regardless of what policy the administrators put in place. Even though current research suggests that less texting occurs when cell phones are banned from schools (Lenhart, 2010), some participants in this study stated that bans were not the solution and could result in more texting. This was consistent with parent and adolescent perspectives in 2006 when a prohibition on cell phone possession was put in place in the New York City School district (Zirkel, 2008). A parent’s council took the school district to court in this case. The state court ruled that the district could not ban possession, but could regulate usage of cell phones. Zirkel (2008) provided this concluding statement after reviewing the case:
. . . this decision—which is typical of the modern trend in much of education case law—provides latitude for each district to consider the wisdom of such a ban, including its scope and implementation, with due capacity to revise such rules depending on what technology has in store for us. (p. 465)
Students in the current study were generally aware of the problems associated with the combination of texting and school. Several students also pointed out that many of the current school policies concerning texting or cell phones were not enforced in school.
Technology is evolving and becoming integral part of youth culture. Students are using texting for a variety of reasons including parent–child communication, connection with social networks, and safety. It is apparent that administrators and teachers have concerns about the influence of texting on classroom discipline (Srivastava, 2005). Adolescent voices in this study indicated that, in general, the appropriateness of texting in school depends on multiple variables. It depends on the student, the amount of work completed, the need for connection in the face of emergency, or the information that one could receive from a text. Although the majority of the adolescents in this sample indicated they do text during school, they recognized the limits of texting and even supported regulation of usage in defined circumstances.
Implications
This research has implications for students, parents, educators, and school administrators. First, students need to recognize the importance of their education and the power that they exercise in getting information out of their time in the classroom. There is a personal accountability in being a student, which may have potential to influence a student’s decision to text during class regardless of the school policy for the use of cell phones. Some students in this sample recognized that there was a personal responsibility, and when a student recognized that personal responsibility, they are more likely to self-regulate their texting during the school day.
Past research has shown that both parents and children enjoy the option of contact through text messaging. S. Williams and Williams (2005) found that parents and children develop rules to follow with cell phones, such as when it is appropriate to text versus extending a phone call. Many parents feel that there is a safety component to their children having phones and having the option of perpetual contact (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004; S. Williams & Williams, 2005). Adolescents in the current study also identified the option to text during school increased a sense of safety. Safety is one area that bridges the cultural gap in texting between adults and adolescents. Students in the current study felt it was their right to connect with parents in the face of emergency. Although there may be some aspects of text messaging that are not overly apparent to adults (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004; Tulane, 2012), results from previous studies (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004) and the current study highlight that safety is common ground between parents and adolescents. Rather than focusing on generational differences in the perceptions of texting, it may be helpful to start conversations between parents and teens about texting and safety to begin to develop an understanding of the youth culture surrounding texting.
As adults become more technology savvy, the role of electronic messaging within the relationship will continue to develop. Perhaps parents could play a larger role in forming rules and regulation that includes contact with one another in school situations. Parents may have more power in an advocacy role with schools and school districts. Understanding the adolescent perspective of connection through texting may serve as a platform to start conversations between parents and schools. It is probable that adults (parents and administrators) have largely focused on their concerns about texting (Allen, 2012; Cupples & Thompson, 2010) when considering school policies about cell phone use, and to this point the adolescent perceived advantages of texting during school have not been considered. For participants in this study, connecting with parents was important, and some indicated parents wanted to connect with them during school hours. To establish best practices in the regulation of cell phone use during school hours, administrators and parents can discuss points such as parent–child connection, with teenagers weighing in with their own perspective of their connection rights. This is something that should be examined in future research.
Educators could look for ways to incorporate texting into their classrooms to increase student engagement. There is an interest from students for teachers to use cell phones to increase engagement (Humble-Thaden, 2011). Clicker technology, which now can be accessed through smart phone apps, has been used as a way to increase student engagement in a college classes (Vaterlaus Beckert, et al., 2012). Clicker technology is anonymous and allows every student to respond. Allowing students to respond or participate in class via cell phone or text messaging specifically may increase classroom engagement in high school students. Finally, it appears that some adolescents (maybe more than others) have an understanding of appropriate texting etiquette in a school environment. There is a possibility of facilitating peer–peer education. It could be that peers respond more effectively to education about the dos and don’ts of texting from peers than from adults.
Administrators need to consider what their cell phone policies are and enforce the policies accordingly. Research is showing that students are less likely to text during class if their school has a ban on cell phones when compared with students who are allowed to bring phones to class (Lenhart, 2010). However, at least on a state level, cell phone bans were not well received by parents and adolescents (Zirkel, 2008). Policies that are given by school districts may be enforced differently from school to school and classroom to classroom (Lenhart et al., 2010). Students may not be fully aware of what an actual policy is if it is not enforced similarly in different classrooms. School administrators and teachers should take time to examine actual behaviors in the classroom in comparison with school policies, and make adjustments accordingly based on the best interests of the students. These decisions should also consider the student voice toward making policies providing students’ stake (Strom & Strom, 2008).
Limitations and Future Directions
The current exploratory study sought to further understand the phenomenon of adolescent texting in a school context. Although appropriate for an exploratory study, the purposive sampling procedure limits the generalizability of the results. Findings provide a response to Humble-Thaden’s (2011) call for adolescent perspectives on this topic and many of the findings were consistent with previous research on adolescent texting in daily living. In addition, the online response format allowed for qualitative data collection from a large sample of adolescents. The online response format may have limited some of the opportunities to explore the topic in more depth. However, adolescents frequently communicate via technology (Lenhart et al., 2010) and this data collection procedure may be conceptualized as a culturally appropriate method with a contemporary adolescent population. Future studies comparing online response formats with other qualitative data collection methodologies would be especially important for future research on adolescents and technology. Despite the limitations of the study, the current study moves the literature a step forward by elucidating the position of adolescents on texting in school, a topic that very much affects their day-to-day lives.
Future research could attempt to quantify adolescents’ perceptions of texting during the school day using representative sampling procedures. Because the nature of this study was to identify adolescent perceptions, parents and educators were not included. The literature would benefit from understanding parent, educator, and adolescent experiences with texting in school concurrently. In addition, regulation of cell phone use in schools warrants more research attention and policies that are in place should be evaluated. Despite the current limitations, this study provides an initial examination of adolescent voices about experiences with texting during the school day.
This study provided an initial and unique look at the adolescent perspective on the use of cell phone electronic messaging in schools. The three emergent themes from adolescent respondents related to student attention in school, the value of connection afforded by texting during the school day, and levels of regulation of texting in the school system. As portrayed in the variability and richness of these data regarding each of these areas, interested parties including parents, educators, and administrators could benefit from considering the adolescent voice regarding the role of texting at school.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.