Equal in effectiveness but not yet perception: smartphones and laptops for completing brief academic tasks

ABSTRACT

Students frequently recruit digital devices to aid their academics. Past research has often focused on computers, with growing research on more mobile devices like tablets. Despite owning smartphones at high rates, little research has focused on college students’ use of smartphones for academics. In the present study, students were randomly assigned to use either their smartphone or laptop to complete six brief academic tasks. They then answered questions regarding perceptions of these devices for the research tasks as well as their more general experiences with, and perceptions of, such mobile devices in education. Results showed that smartphones and laptops were equally effective for completing the tasks, but student perceptions favored laptops over smartphones. Quantitative and qualitative data also suggested that, while students saw significant educational value in laptops, views on smartphones were mixed. That said, students also identified approaches where smartphones could be particularly useful for classroom activities. If implemented in ways that highlight their affordances, both laptops and smartphones can be effective educational tools allowing for diverse approaches in the classroom.

KEYWORDS:

• Smartphones
• laptops
• mobile devices
• postsecondary education

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Emily Fox and Abigail Guinn for their contributions to discussions of ideas during this research project. Gratitude as well to the College of Idaho, for providing resources to conduct this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the College of Idaho’s IRB.

Availability of data and material

Data can be made available by individual request to the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

The first author contributed to every aspect of the research process, including conception, design, data collection, analysis, and the writing of this manuscript. Authors 2-4 worked as undergraduate research collaborators on this project, assisting primarily with data collection, coding, and manuscript preparation.

Additional information

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.